Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request for the Final NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations September 2002 EPA ICR NO. 1989.02 Prepared for: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management 401 M Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 Prepared by:

Science Applications International Corporation 11251 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, VA 20190 EPA Contract # 68 C 99 253 SAIC Project # 01 0833 08 1040 032 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 ................................................. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1 1a...................................................................................... Title of the Information Collection 1 1b......................................................................................................... Short Characterization 1 2 ....................................................................... NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 3 2a.................................................................................... Need / Authority for the Collection? 3 2b...................................................................................... Practical Utility / Users of the Data 4 3 ........... NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 5 3a.................................................................................................................... Nonduplication 5 3b................................................... Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB 6 3c....................................................................................................................... Consultations 6 3d..................................................................................... Effects of Less Frequent Collection 8 3e.............................................................................................................. General Guidelines 9 3f ..................................................................................................................... Confidentiality 9 3g............................................................................................................. Sensitive Questions 9 4 .......................................... THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 11 4a................................................................................................. Respondents/ NAICS Codes 11 4b........................................................................................................ Information Requested 13 4b( i) ................................................ Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements 13 4b( ii) ........................................................................ Description of Respondent Activities 17 5THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AN 5a................................................................................................................ Agency Activities 21 5b........................................................................... Collection Methodology and Management 21 5c........................................................................................................ Small Entity Flexibility 21 5d............................................................................................................. Collection Schedule 23 6 .............................. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND THE COST OF THE COLLECTION 25 6a............................................................................................ Estimating Respondent Burden 25 6b............................................................................................... Estimating Respondent Costs 32 6c Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.............................................................................. 36 6d........................................ Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs 36 6e Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables ................................................................ 37 6f ................................................................................................................ Burden Statement 38 References ................................................................................................................................ 41 Appendix 1. Legal Authority..................................................................................................... 43 Appendix 2. Permit Application Form 2B ................................................................................. 76 Appendix 3. Burden and Cost Exhibits. .................................................................................... 81 ii LIST OF TABLES Table 4  1. CAFO Standard Industrial Classification Codes and Size Thresholds ..................... 12 Table 4  2. Estimated Number of CAFOs by Size and Animal Type......................................... 13 Table 5  1. SBA and EPA Small Business Thresholds for Animal Sectors................................ 22 Table 6  1. Summary of Active ICRs Potentially Containing NPDES Burdens for CAFOs ....... 26 Table 6  2. Burden Estimates per CAFO by Activity ................................................................ 27 Table 6  3. Burden Estimates for an Approved State by Activity .............................................. 32 Table 6  4. Wage Rates Used to Value CAFO Related Burdens ............................................... 33 Table 6  5. Annual Cost per CAFO by Activity ........................................................................ 33 Table 6  6. Annual Cost per State Agency by Activity.............................................................. 34 Table 6  7. Annual Capital and O& M Cost per CAFO.............................................................. 35 Table 6  8. EPA Burden and Cost Estimates............................................................................. 36 Table 6  9. Summary of Average Annual CAFO and State Respondents, Burden Hours, and Costs for the ICR Approval Period ............................................................................... 38 iii ACRONYM LIST AFO( s)   animal feeding operation( s) BLS   Bureau of Labor Statistics BMP( s)   best management practice( s) BPJ   best professional judgement C. F. R.   Code of Federal Regulations CAFO( s)   concentrated animal feeding operation( s) CDC   Centers for Disease Control CWA   Clean Water Act DMR   Discharge Monitoring Report ELG   Effluent Limitations Guidelines EPA   Environmental Protection Agency FDA   Food and Drug Administration GS   General Schedule ICR   information collection request MOA   Memorandum of Agreement NAICS   North American Industry Classification System NASS   National Agricultural Statistics Service NCBA   National Cattlemen's Beef Association NMP   nutrient management plan NMPF   National Milk Producers Federation NODA   notice of data availability NOI   notice of intent NPDES   National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPPC   National Pork Producers Council NPTD   no potential to discharge NRDC   Natural Resources Defense Council NTF   National Turkey Federation O& M   operation and maintenance OMB   Office of Management and Budget OPM   Office of Personnel Management PCS   Permit Compliance System SBA   Small Business Administration SERs   Small Entity Representatives SIC   Standard Industrial Classification SOC   Standard Occupational Classification STORET   Storage and Retrieval ( EPA database) U. S. EPA   United States Environmental Protection Agency U. S. C.   United States Code UEP/ UEA   United Egg Producers and the United Egg Association USDA   United States Department of Agriculture USGS   United States Geological Survey iv This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1a Title of the Information Collection ICR: Final NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations EPA ICR: 1989.02 1b Short Characterization This ICR provides an estimate of the information collection burden for respondents subsequent to the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA or the Agency) final regulatory revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit program for concentrated animal feeding operations ( CAFOs) and the Effluent Limitations Guidelines ( ELG) for Feedlots. It was prepared according to guidance prepared by EPA ( 1999).

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( 1972), also known as the Clean Water Act ( CWA), prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source to waters of the United States except for discharges authorized and regulated by the NPDES permit program established by Section 402( a). Section 308 of the CWA requires that EPA collect from dischargers any information that may be reasonably required to carry out the objectives and provisions of the CWA. Thus, point sources incur mandatory record keeping and reporting burdens when they apply for NPDES permits and in the course of complying with NPDES program requirements established by EPA. 1 Section 402( b) authorizes States ( which includes U. S. Territories and Indian Tribes that have been approved in the same manner as a State) to administer their NPDES program once the Agency has approved a State program and is assured that it meets minimum federal requirements. As of June 2002, 44 States and one Territory ( U. S. Virgin Islands) had received approval from EPA to administer the NPDES base program, which includes the federal requirements that are applicable to CAFOs ( U. S. EPA, 2001). Of these, 43 are responsible for issuing NPDES permits to CAFOs ( called " approved States" hereafter). 2 In the course of adopting, modifying, and administering their NPDES programs, approved States incur record keeping and reporting burdens to provide EPA with the information it needs to ensure that State programs meet the minimum requirements established by federal regulations and that approved State agencies have adequate authority to fully implement their programs.

CAFOs are classified as point sources in 40 C. F. R. Part 122 and are subject to the feedlot ELG revisions in 40 C. F. R. 412. The final rule revises these regulations in ways that will affect 1 Nonfederal regulatory agencies may impose additional information collection requirements on regulated point sources. Because those collections exceed the federal requirement, the burdens incurred are not included in the estimate of burdens to meet federal information collection needs.

2 EPA retains authority for NPDES discharge permits for agricultural facilities in Oklahoma; thus only 43 States are authorized to issue permits to CAFOs. EPA is not aware of any CAFOs in the U. S. Virgin Islands and, therefore, bases its burden analysis on the 43 approved States. 2 CAFO related record keeping and reporting burdens. For instance, EPA expects the number of applicants for NPDES permit coverage to increase and States with NPDES programs will need to update their programs to incorporate regulatory changes. Most active ICRs that cover the NPDES program do not adequately reflect expected burdens following the rule's effective date, January 2003 and, furthermore, are scheduled to expire shortly thereafter. Consequently, this ICR enumerates record keeping and reporting burdens associated with NPDES permits for CAFOs and accounts for the majority of the total burden estimated for the 3 year period from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2005. Some of the burden is already covered by the active ICR for Applications for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge Permits and the Sewage Sludge Management Permits ( EPA ICR No. 0226.15), which expires on April 30, 2003. This ICR excludes the record keeping and reporting burden for CAFOs already covered by ICR 0226.15 for the four month period of overlap from January 1, 2003 through April 30, 2003. The excluded burden pertains to individual permit applications and NOIs for general permit coverage.

Information collected by the NPDES Program Director ( for either an approved State or EPA) about waste management facilities and operating procedures will be used to document that a permittee is in compliance with permit requirements. Information will be collected using permit application forms and annual reports, and through compliance evaluation inspections. Permitting authorities enter application data into Permit Compliance System ( PCS), the Agency's database for tracking permit compliance.

EPA estimates that the public burden for this information collection request includes an annual average of 1.89 million hours for all respondents including CAFO owners/ operators and States. This estimate includes the time required to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain all necessary data, and complete and review the information collected. On average, there will be approximately 11,941 respondents and 100,879 responses per year and average annual capital and O& M costs will total $ 7.9 million. 3 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2a Need / Authority for the Collection?

EPA has authority to undertake the information collection activities characterized in this document under Sections 308 and 402 of the CWA, and Title 33 Sections 1311, 1318, and 1342 [ 402 counterparts] of the United States Code ( U. S. C.) ( See Appendix 1). CAFOs are defined as point sources for purposes of the NPDES program ( 33 U. S. C. Sec. 1362). Under 33 U. S. C. Sec. 1311 and Sec. 1342, a CAFO must obtain an NPDES permit and comply with the terms of that permit, which may include appropriate conditions on data and information collection. Furthermore, 33 U. S. C. Sec. 1318 provides authority for information collection ( i. e., record keeping, reporting, monitoring, sampling, and other information as needed), which applies to point sources including actual and potential dischargers.

EPA and approved States need the information generated by the final regulatory revisions that pertain to CAFOs to more fully and effectively implement CWA requirements. The final rule revises EPA's original ELG and NPDES regulations for CAFOs, which were promulgated in the mid 1970s, to meet the following goals.

1) Address reports of continued discharge and runoff of manure and nutrients from livestock and poultry farms.

In spite of existing regulatory controls, there are persistent reports of discharge and runoff of manure and manure nutrients from livestock and poultry farms. Pollutants associated with animal wastes include excessive nutrients ( such as nitrogen and phosphorus), heavy metals, ammonia, organic matter, sediment, pathogens, antibiotics, and hormones. Such pollutants may contribute to severe oxygen depletion ( hypoxia), algal blooms, fish kills, and the contamination of ground water sources of drinking water. The final revisions to the existing ELG and NPDES regulations for CAFOs are expected to mitigate future water quality impairment and the associated human health and ecological risks by reducing pollutant contributions from animal agriculture.

2) Update the existing regulations to reflect structural changes in these industries over the last few decades.

EPA's final revisions also address changes that have occurred in animal agricultural production in the United States since the development of the existing regulations. The continued trend toward fewer, but larger operations, coupled with greater emphasis on more intensive production methods and specialization, is concentrating more manure nutrients and other animal waste constituents within some geographic areas. This trend has coincided with increased reports of accidental large scale spills from these facilities and has fueled concern that manure runoff is contributing to the overnutrification of certain vulnerable waterways in the United States.

3) Improve effectiveness of the CAFO regulations. 4 EPA's revisions of the existing regulations will improve their effectiveness. Continued reports of discharge and runoff from AFOs, in conjunction with evidence of mismanagement under some prevailing industry practices, highlights the need for revision of the existing regulations. Under the current regulatory framework, few of the estimated 15,400 CAFOs have NPDES permits. EPA's final revisions will ensure that CAFOs, as defined under the revised regulations, are permitted.

EPA needs to collect information from approved States to ensure that their NPDES programs implement the final rule. Under 40 C. F. R. 123.62( e), State NPDES programs must at all times be in compliance with federal regulations. When new federal requirements are enacted, States have one year to update their regulations to meet the new requirements. States have two years if they must also update statutes.

The final rule addresses other Agency obligations. It partially fulfills EPA's obligation to comply with the consent agreement entered in NRDC v. Whitman. The ELG for feedlots is one of three effluent limitations guidelines that the Agency is required to revise under the agreement. The consent agreement requires that EPA finalize regulations that revise the feedlot ELG as well as the NPDES regulations for CAFOs by December 15, 2002. Finally, in 1999, the USDA and EPA issued the USDA/ EPA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations ( the " National Strategy"). The National Strategy   a key action item identified in the 1998 Clean Water Action Plan   underwent extensive public review. The final rule is consistent with the final National Strategy.

2b Practical Utility / Users of the Data EPA and approved State permitting authorities use the information routinely collected through NPDES applications and compliance evaluations in the following ways:

C to issue NPDES permits with appropriate limitations and conditions that will protect human health and the environment C to update information in EPA's databases that permitting authorities use to determine permit conditions C to calculate national permit issuance, backlog, and compliance statistics C to evaluate national water quality C to assist EPA in program management and other activities that ensure national consistency in permitting C to assist EPA in prioritizing permit issuance activities C to assist EPA in policy development and budgeting C to assist EPA in responding to Congressional and public inquiries.

Other users of the data include regulated CAFOs and the general public. CAFOs will use the data they collect to improve operation efficiency and evaluate facility maintenance needs. The general public can use information collected through the NPDES permit process to support efforts to protect local environmental quality and quality of life. 5 3 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3a Nonduplication The information collection pursuant to the regulatory changes is site specific and, therefore, not available from existing sources. EPA has coordinated with USDA in developing the final regulatory changes and has used aggregated USDA data to the extent such data are relevant and available to EPA. Because USDA does not divulge site specific data, EPA cannot obtain the site specific information from USDA. Furthermore, no other Federal agency possesses such data.

As part of its overall CAFO initiative, EPA has undertaken efforts to identify existing sources of relevant information as well as to coordinate with other Federal agencies that collect information in the agricultural sector [ e. g., USDA, United States Geological Survey ( USGS), Food and Drug Administration ( FDA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Centers for Disease Control ( CDC)] and States. To support development of the USDA/ EPA Unified National Strategy for AFOs and these regulatory changes, EPA formed and administered a data and analysis group that included 18 representatives from EPA, USDA, and USGS. This group worked to identify and access existing sources of CAFO data. Although some useful general data were identified, including EPA and USDA information ( e. g., STORET, 305( b) and 303( d) information), no other Federal agency has the facility specific data needed. In addition, EPA utilized publicly available information to a significant extent. For example, EPA has developed a document entitled State Compendium: Programs and Regulatory Activities Related to Animal Feeding Operations, which characterizes CAFO regulations in all 50 States based on a variety of publicly available information sources.

There are a few national databases maintained by the Federal government that store some information about CAFOs. A search for relevant databases identified the following:

C EPA's Permit Compliance System ( PCS) database C USDA Census of Agriculture C Agricultural Compliance Center AFO database ( under development).

EPA's PCS database is used to store information about facilities that hold NPDES permits. It aids EPA in monitoring the compliance status of permitted facilities. PCS only holds data items associated with existing NPDES permits. It does not contain any site specific information for CAFOs that are not permitted under the program, and information updates from permits renewed after the effective date are covered by this ICR. Therefore, this information collection is not duplicative of data in PCS.

USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS) is responsible for maintaining a large amount of information on agricultural operations, including AFOs, through the Census of Agriculture, which is administered every five years. Although the Census of Agriculture asks operators for a headcount of animals on their facilities, it does not ask operators about the confinement of animals, and there are no Census questions about waste generation or waste 6 management. Moreover, Census of Agriculture data are subject to restrictions with regard to what type of data may be released, when, and to whom. Generally, facility level data may not be released. Therefore, the information in the Census of Agriculture database cannot fulfill the EPA's data needs for purposes of administering the NPDES program, and this information collection is not duplicative of the data available from NASS.

Finally, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is developing a database of AFOs through the Agricultural Compliance Assistance Center. This database, however, is only intended to provide the Federal and State agencies with an up to date count of AFOs and CAFOs across the United States and it will not provide other necessary information items regarding compliance status of facilities with the NPDES program.

3b Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB A summary of the ICR was published as part of the proposed rule notice in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001 ( 66 FR 2959). The notice included a request for comments on the content and impact of the proposed rule on the regulated community. Comments on the proposed rule were used to substantiate or refute the burden estimates for respondents. A summary of this ICR accompanies the final rule submission to OMB, as noted in the public notice for the submission.

3c Consultations To facilitate regulation development, EPA has actively involved interested parties in the development of the final rule. As part of these efforts, EPA has provided many opportunities for input in this rulemaking process, including 11 public outreach meetings on the Draft Unified National AFO Strategy and a stakeholder conference call, including small entities. In addition, EPA meets with various members of the stakeholder community on a continuing basis. These meetings with environmental organizations, producer groups, and producers representing various agricultural sectors give EPA the opportunity to interact with and receive input from stakeholders about the Unified Strategy and the NPDES and ELG regulatory revisions. While most of these outreach activities have not targeted small entities explicitly, many have included small business participation.

In the fall of 1998, EPA and USDA conducted eleven public outreach meetings designed to allow public comment on the Draft USDA/ EPA Unified National AFO Strategy. The meetings were held in the following cities: Tulsa, Oklahoma; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Ontario, California; Madison, Wisconsin; Seattle, Washington; Des Moines, Iowa; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fort Worth, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and Annapolis, Maryland. Each meeting included a pre meeting between State officials, regional officials, EPA, and USDA representatives to discuss the draft strategy and water quality issues related to CAFOs. All participants in the public sessions were given the opportunity to provide their comments to a panel comprising EPA, USDA, and local representatives. EPA and USDA used these comments to develop the final National Strategy. EPA also considered these comments in developing the various regulatory options for CAFOs that are the subject of this ICR. The transcripts of these meetings are available at the EPA Web Site ( www. epa. gov/ owm/ afo. htm). 7 EPA conducted over 50 site visits to learn more about swine and poultry animal feeding operations and waste management practices. EPA visited 6 broiler, 12 layer, and 6 turkey facilities in Georgia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin. EPA visited approximately 30 swine facilities in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, and Utah. These facilities were chosen with the assistance of the National Pork Producers Council, United Egg Producers, United Egg Association, National Turkey Federation, National Resources Defense Council, the Clean Water Network, university experts, State Co op and extension services, and State and EPA regional representatives. During these site visits, EPA also visited locations demonstrating centralized treatment or new and innovative technologies. EPA has also attended USDA sponsored farm tours, as well as tours offered at industry, academic, and government conferences.

Many organizations have actively participated in developing revisions to the swine and poultry effluent guidelines by assisting in site visit selection, submitting supplemental data, reviewing EPA's draft descriptions of the industry and waste management practices, and participating in or hosting industry meetings with EPA. The National Pork Producers Council ( NPPC), United Egg Producers and the United Egg Association ( UEP/ UEA), National Turkey Federation ( NTF), and the National Chicken Council are trade associations that represent the swine and poultry industries. NPPC is a marketing organization and trade association made up of 44 affiliated state pork producer associations. The UEP/ UEA undertakes programs in the following areas: price discovery; production and marketing information; unified industry leadership; USDA relationships; Washington presence; and promotional efforts. The NTF is the national advocate for all segments of the turkey industry, providing services and conducting activities which increase demand for its members' products. The National Chicken Council represents the vertically integrated companies which produce and process about 95 percent of the chicken market in the United States.

In addition, EPA visited approximately 60 sites to study beef and dairy animal feeding operations and waste management practices. EPA visited approximately 30 beef feedlots in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, California, Indiana, Nebraska, and Iowa, and three veal operations in Indiana. The capacities of the beef feedlots varied from 500 to 120,000 head. EPA also visited approximately 25 dairies in Pennsylvania, Florida, California, Wisconsin, and Colorado, with the total mature dairy cattle at the operations ranging from 40 to 4,000 cows. EPA chose these facilities with the assistance of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Milk Producers Federation, Western United Dairymen, and State and EPA regional representatives.

Two organizations have actively participated in developing the beef and dairy effluent guideline by assisting in site visit selection, submitting supplemental data, reviewing EPA's draft documents presenting descriptions of the industry and waste management practices, and participating in or hosting industry meetings with EPA. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association ( NCBA) and the National Milk Producers Federation ( NMPF) are two trade associations that represent the beef and dairy industries. NCBA is a marketing organization and trade association for cattle farmers and ranchers. NMPF deals with milk quality and standards, animal health and food safety issues, dairy product labeling and standards, and legislation 8 affecting the dairy industry. Other beef and dairy organizations have also provided assistance to EPA. For example, the Western United Dairymen, a dairy organization in California, organized and participated in site visits and a conference call meeting with EPA. In addition, EPA contacted the American Veal Association to obtain further information on veal operations. EPA distributed background information and materials to small business representatives on two separate dates   September 3, 1999 and September 9, 1999. On September 17, 1999, EPA held a conference call in Washington, D. C. for a pre panel forum of small business representatives to provide input on key issues relating to the final regulatory changes to the NPDES permitting requirements for CAFOs. Small business representatives from the beef, dairy, swine, poultry, and exotic animal livestock industries participated in the call. Following the conference call, at EPA's request, 19 of the 41 small business advisors and national organizations invited to participate provided written comments.

The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel for the proposed rule was convened on December 16, 1999. On December 28, 1999, the Panel distributed an outreach package to a group of small entity representatives ( SERs), which included many of the participants in EPA's September 17, 1999 outreach conference call. The SERs were asked to review the information package and provide verbal comments to the Panel during a January 5, 2000 conference call, which included participation by 22 SERs. During this conference call, SERs were also encouraged to submit written comments. SERs were given an additional opportunity to make verbal comments during a second conference call which was held on January 11, 2000 and included participation by 20 SERs.

On January 12, 2001 ( 66 Fed. Reg. 2959), EPA published a proposal to revise and update the NPDES provisions that define which operations are CAFOs and establish permit requirements, and the effluent guidelines, for feedlots ( beef, dairy, swine and poultry subcategories). In the proposal, EPA specifically solicited comment on 28 issues ( 66 Fed. Reg. 3133), in addition to general comment solicitation on all aspects of the proposed regulations. EPA received comments from various stakeholders, including State, Tribal and Federal regulatory authorities, environmental groups, industry groups, land grant university researchers, and private citizens. EPA considered changes to aspects of the rule in response to the data and comments provided.

On November 21, 2001 ( 66 Fed. Reg. 58556), EPA published a notice of data availability ( NODA). The NODA made available data and comments associated with the proposed rule. In the NODA, EPA solicited comment on the issues and information provided in the notice and in the administrative record supporting the notice. Again, EPA received comments from various stakeholders, including State, Tribal and Federal regulatory authorities, environmental groups, industry groups, land grant university researchers, and private citizens. This ICR reflects the comments received.

On July 17, 2002 EPA signed a new NODA, which was published on July 23, 2002 ( 67 Fed. Reg. 48099). The public will have 30 days to comment on the new data and methods. Their comments will be considered for the final rule.

3d Effects of Less Frequent Collection 9 EPA has made every effort to establish NPDES permit and associated information collection requirements that minimize the burden on respondents while promoting the protection of water quality. NPDES permit applications are the primary form of information collection for regulated CAFOs and these facilities must reapply for NPDES permits before their existing permits expire. Section 402( p) of the CWA requires that NPDES permits be issued for fixed terms with a maximum term of five years, thereby disallowing less frequent collection than anticipated by this ICR. Compliance evaluation inspections [ and Section 308 requests] are conducted as needed to assure compliance and less frequent collection would hamper compliance assurance efforts. Furthermore, most inspections will be conducted by approved States, which means that collection frequency is largely a matter of State discretion. Finally, State requests for approval of NPDES program modifications prompted by the final CAFO rule are expected to be a onetime information collection for the Agency.

3e General Guidelines This information collection complies with Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines ( 5 C. F. R. 1320.5( d)( 2)), except for the requirement for CAFOs to maintain the records on site for five years to demonstrate permit compliance. The records that this requirement pertains to are listed below in Section 4b( i).

3f Confidentiality CAFOs must keep nutrient management plans on site and make them available to the permitting authority on request. These plans may contain confidential business information. When this is the case, the respondent can request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 C. F. R. 122.7, 40 C. F. R. Part 2 ( 40 C. F. R. 2.201 et seq.), and EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976.

Whenever possible, EPA encourages public involvement in the NPDES regulatory process. However, EPA also recognizes the legitimate concerns of operators regarding protection of confidential business information and potential delays in processing of permit applications and NOIs.

3g Sensitive Questions This ICR does not ask AFO or CAFO operators sensitive questions concerning private matters ( e. g., religious beliefs). 10 This page left intentionally blank 11 4 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED This ICR covers the information collection activities expected to occur over the three year ICR approval period from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2005. During this period, CAFO and approved State respondents will collect and report information to obtain NPDES permit coverage and meet permit conditions.

4a Respondents/ NAICS Codes The two categories of respondents are the owners or operators of CAFOs and the 43 approved States that issue permits to CAFOs.

EPA categorizes CAFOs based on the primary type of animal produced on the operation. Table 4 1 lists the major categories along with their North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) codes, and the corresponding four digit Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes. Note that some industry classification codes may overlap more than one of the categories defined by EPA under the final regulations. For example, swine of any size have the same NAICS or SIC codes.

Table 4 1 also provides the animal thresholds adopted in the final rule. EPA uses these thresholds to distinguish which animal feeding operations ( AFOs) are CAFOs. Under the final rule, all large AFOs are defined as CAFOs. An AFO in the medium size category is defined as a CAFO if it meets one of two discharge criteria:

$ pollutants are discharged to U. S. waters through a man made ditch, flushing system, or other similar man made device $ pollutants are discharged directly into U. S. waters that originate outside of the facility and pass over, across, or through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the confined animals.

An AFO in the smallest size category may become a CAFO through designation only following an on site inspection. Medium AFOs that are not defined CAFOs, may be designated as CAFOs. The final rule does not change the requirements for designation.

All CAFOs have a duty to apply for a NPDES permit either by submitting a notice of intent ( NOI) to be covered by a general permit or by submitting an application for an individual permit.

Using data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture, NASS bulletins, and industry data sources and comments, EPA estimated that there are approximately 238,000 AFOs in the United States ( U. S. EPA, 2002c). Of those, EPA estimates that almost 15,600 would meet the definition of a CAFO or be designated as a CAFO. Table 4 2 provides an accounting of the number of CAFOs by animal type as well as operation size. 12 Table 4  1. CAFO Standard Industrial Classification Codes and Size Thresholds Size Thresholds NAICS Code ( SIC Code) Animal Type Large Medium Small 112111 ( 0212, 0241), 112112 ( 0211) Beef cattle, heifers, calves or veal for either slaughter or replacement > 1,000 300 1,000 < 300 112111, 112120 ( 0241) Dairy cattle   mature dairy cattle ( whether milked or dry cows) and heifer replacement > 700 200 700 < 200 Swine   each weighing over 25 kilograms   or approximately 55 pounds > 2,500 750 2,500 < 750 112210 ( 0213)

Immature swine   each weighing less than 25 kilograms, or approximately 55 pounds > 10,000 3,000 10,000 < 3,000 112310 ( 0252) Chickens   laying hens, using liquid manure handling system > 30,000 9,000 30,000 < 9,000 112310 ( 0252) Chickens   laying hens, if other than liquid manure handling system > 82,000 25,000 82,000 < 25,000 112320 ( 0251) Chickens other than laying hens   broilers, fryers and roasters, if other than liquid manure handling system > 125,000 37,500 125,000 < 37,500 112330 ( 0253) Turkeys > 55,000 16,500 55,000 < 16,500 Ducks , wet manure handling > 5,000 1,500 5,000 < 1,500 112390 ( 0259)

Ducks, dry manure handling > 40,000 12,000 40,000 < 12,000 112410 ( 0214) Sheep or lambs > 10,000 3,000 10,000 < 3,000 112920 ( 0272) Horses > 500 150 500 < 150 13 Table 4  2. Estimated Number of CAFOs by Size and Animal Type Defined CAFOs Designated CAFOs Animal Type Large CAFOs Medium CAFOs Medium CAFOs Small CAFOs Beef 1,766 308 13 2 Veal 12 7 0 0 Heifer 242 230 3 0 Dairy 1,450 1,949 28 2 Swine 3,924 1,485 50 2 Layers ( wet) 383 48 1 1 Layers ( dry) 729 70 7 1 Broilers 1,632 520 50 2 Turkeys 388 37 8 2 Ducks 21 4 0 0 Horses 195 0 0 0 Total 10,742 4,658 160 12 Source: U. S. EPA ( 2002c)

4b Information Requested 4b( i) Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements CAFO Data Items CAFO Application for NPDES Permit. All CAFO operations have a duty to apply for an NPDES permit by preparing and submitting either an application for an individual NPDES permit for CAFOs under 40 C. F. R. 122.21 or a Notice of Intent for coverage under the general NPDES permit for CAFOs under 40 C. F. R. 122.28.

The individual permit application for CAFOs comprises two standard NPDES forms: Forms 1 and 2B. On Form 1, applicants provide basic information necessary to all EPA permit programs, including name, address, type of facility, and number of outfalls. Applicants must also submit topographic maps and lists of all EPA and State permits presently held. Most facilities applying for a NPDES permit submit Form 1 along with a second, industry specific form. As a result of the final rule, CAFOs will provide the following types of information on Form 2B:

$ the name of the owner or operator [ 40 C. F. R. 122.21( i)( 1)( i)]

$ the facility location and mailing addresses [ 40 C. F. R. 122.21( i)( 1)( ii)]

$ latitude and longitude of the production area ( entrance to production area) [ 40 C. F. R. 122.21( i)( 1)( iii)]

$ a topographic map of the entire operation, including the production area and land application area, in accordance with 40 C. F. R. 122.21( f)( 7) [ 40 C. F. R. 122.21( i)( 1)( iv)]

$ specific information about the number and type of animals in open confinement and housed under roof ( beef cattle, broilers, layers, swine below 25 kilograms, swine above 25 kilograms, dairy heifers, veal, sheep, lambs, mature dairy cows, horses, ducks, turkeys, other) [ 40 C. F. R. 122.21( i)( 1)( v)] 14 $ the type of containment ( anaerobic lagoon, roofed storage shed, storage ponds, underfloor pits, aboveground storage tanks, belowground storage tanks, concrete pad, impervious soil pad, other) and total capacity for manure and process wastewater storage ( tons/ gallons) [ 40 C. F. R. 122.21( i)( 1)( vi)]

$ the total number of acres under control of the applicant available for land application [ 40 C. F. R. 122.21( i)( 1)( vii)]

$ estimated amount of manure and process wastewater generated per year ( tons/ gallons) [ 40 C. F. R. 122.21( i)( 1)( viii)]

$ estimated amount of manure and process wastewater sent off site per year ( tons/ gallons) [ 40 C. F. R. 122.21( i)( 1)( ix)]

$ expected date of completion of the NMP required in 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 3) and expected date for full implementation of the plan [ 40 C. F. R. 122.21( i)( 1)( x)]

$ for new source CAFOs subject to 40 C. F. R. 412, certification that an NMP has been completed and can be implemented upon commencing operations [ 40 C. F. R. 122.21( i)( 1)( xi)]

The NOI pertains to coverage under a general permit, which a permitting authority uses to cover multiple permittees requiring similar permit conditions within a designated geographic area. Completing the NOI requires that CAFO applicants provide the information specified in 40 C. F. R. 122.21( i)( 1), as listed above ( i. e., the NOI requests the same information as the application form for an individual permit).

No Potential To Discharge Requests. In lieu of requesting permit coverage, an operation can request a determination of " no potential to discharge." To do this, the CAFO owner or operator must submit any information that would support such a determination, within the time frame provided by the permit authority and in accordance with paragraphs 40 C. F. R. 122.23( g) and ( h). The request must include all of the information specified in 40 C. F. R. 122.21( f) and ( i)( 1)( i) through ( ix) ( listed above under CAFO Application for NPDES Permit). The permitting authority has discretion to require additional information to supplement the request, and may also gather additional information through inspection of the CAFO [ 40 C. F. R. 122.23( f)( 2)].

EPA believes that the standard to qualify for this exemption is high and relatively few if any CAFOs would make the request. Therefore, for the purpose of estimating ICR burdens, EPA assumes that all CAFOs apply for permits. This is particularly likely to be the case in light of the fact that the making the request does not eliminate or postpone a CAFOs duty to apply for a permit and most CAFOs that do not already have a permit will need to apply in the first ICR year.

Requirement to Develop and Implement a Nutrient Management Plan. The NMP is a new data item required by the final rule. At a minimum, an NMP must include BMPs and procedures necessary to achieve effluent limitations and standards [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 1)]. The revised regulations state that the plan must address the following objectives ( if applicable):

$ ensure adequate storage of manure and process wastewater, including procedures to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the storage facilities [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 1)( i)] 15 $ ensure proper management of mortalities ( i. e., dead animals) to ensure that they are not disposed of in any liquid manure or storm water storage or treatment system, and that they are handled in such a way as to prevent discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 1)( ii)]

$ ensure that clean water is diverted from the production area [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 1)( iii)]

$ prevent direct contact of confined animals with waters of the United States [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 1)( iv)]

$ ensure that chemicals and other contaminants handled on site, are not disposed of in any liquid manure or storm water storage or treatment system [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 1)( v)]

$ implement appropriate site specific conservation practices, including as appropriate buffers or equivalent practices, to control runoff of pollutants to waters of the United States [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 1)( vi)]

$ conduct appropriate testing of manure, process wastewater, and soil [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 1)( vii)]

$ ensure proper land application of manure and process wastewater to land consistent with proper agricultural practices, including rates and timing of land application [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 1)( viii)]

$ include identification of specific records that will be maintained to document the implementation and management of the minimum elements described above [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 1)( ix)]

Record Keeping Requirements. CAFOs must keep, maintain for five years, and make available to the permit authority the following records:

$ the following records of inspections and of manure or process wastewater sampling and analysis required by 40 C. F. R. 412.37( b), if applicable [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 2)( i)] $ a record of the information provided on the permit application form( s) [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37 ( b)( 1)] $ records documenting the visual inspections required under paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( b)( 2)] $ weekly inspections of all storm water diversion devices, runoff diversion structures, animal waste storage structures, and devices channeling contaminated storm water to the waste water and manure storage containment structure [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37 ( a)( 1)( i)] $ daily inspections of water lines including drinking water or cooling water lines [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37 ( a)( 1)( ii)] $ depth of the manure and process wastewater in the liquid impoundment as indicated by the depth marker, which is required for all surface and liquid impoundments and must clearly indicate the minimum capacity necessary to contain the 25 year, 24 hour rainfall event [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( a)( 1)( iii)] $ records documenting any actions taken to correct deficiencies required [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( b)( 3)] $ records documenting the design of any manure storage structures, including volume for solids accumulation, design treatment volume, total design volume [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( b)( 4)] 16 $ records of the estimated volume of any overflow that occurs as a result of any rainfall event, including rainfall duration and amount of rainfall [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( b)( 5)] $ records of offsite manure transfers as required by 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 3) [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( b)( 6)]

$ records required to document the proper development and implementation of the NMP and, as required, by 40 C. F. R. 412.37( c) [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 2)( ii)] $ expected crop yield for each field based on historical data for the CAFO for its land application area, or county average yield data when the CAFO does not have a prior history of crop yield [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( c)( 1)] $ the date( s) manure is applied to each field [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( c)( 2)] $ weather conditions at time of application and for 24 hours prior to and following application [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( c)( 3)] $ results from manure and soil sampling [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( c)( 4)] $ test methods used to sample and analyze manure and soil [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( c)( 5)] $ phosphorus index rating, soil phosphorus threshold level, soil test phosphorus level, or field condition for each field as determined by other approved method [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( c)( 6)] $ calculations showing the total nutrients to be applied to each field, including sources other than manure [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( c)( 7)] $ the method used to apply the manure [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( c)( 8)] $ calibration of manure application equipment [ 40 C. F. R. 412.37( c)( 9)]

$ a copy of the CAFO's site specific NMP [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 2)( iii)].

Requirements Related to Transfer of Manure or Process Wastewater. Prior to transferring manure or process wastewater to other persons, the permittee must provide the recipient of the manure or process wastewater with the most current nutrient analysis consistent with the requirements of 40 C. F. R. 412 that is representative of the manure or process wastewater being transferred. In addition, large CAFOs must retain for five years records of the date, recipient name and address, and approximate amount of manure or process wastewater transferred to a third party [ 40 C. F. R. 123.42( e)( 3)].

CAFO Annual Reporting Requirements. Permits issued to CAFOs shall include a requirement to submit annual reports to the permitting authority, in addition to any other applicable reporting requirements of 40 C. F. R. 122 [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 4)]. EPA requires the following information, which should be readily available provided CAFO operators maintain the required records:

$ specific information about the number and type of animals in open confinement and housed under roof ( beef cattle, broilers, layers, swine below 25 kilograms, swine above 25 kilograms, dairy heifers, veal, sheep, lambs, mature dairy cows, horses, ducks, turkeys, other) [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42 ( e)( 4)( i)]

$ estimated total manure and process wastewater generated by the CAFO in the previous 12 months ( tons/ gallons) [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42 ( e)( 4)( ii)]

$ estimated annual total manure and process wastewater sent off site from the CAFO in the previous 12 months ( tons/ gallons) [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42 ( e)( 4)( iii)] 17 $ total number of acres covered by the NMP [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42 ( e)( 4)( iv)]

$ total number of acres under control of the CAFO available for land application of manure and process wastewater based on applicable State nutrient management standards [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42 ( e)( 4)( v)]

$ summary of all discharges from production areas that have occurred in the previous 12 months, including date, time, and approximate volume [ 40 C. F. R. 122.42 ( e)( 4)( vi)]. 3 State Data Items State NPDES Program Modification Request. Approved State NPDES programs must comply with the final federal rule, and many States will probably need to modify their existing State NPDES regulations in order to achieve full compliance. Federal regulations specifying program revision are found in 40 C. F. R. 123.62. These regulations require the State to keep EPA fully informed of any proposed modifications to its basic statutory or regulatory authority, its forms, procedures or priorities [ 40 C. F. R. 123.62( a)]. To accomplish State program revision, State agencies must provide EPA with a modified program description, Attorney General's statement, Memorandum of Agreement, or such other documents as EPA determines to be necessary under the circumstances [ 40 C. F. R. 123.62( b)( 1)]. These may include relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance, copies of permit application forms, permit forms, and reporting forms, and relevant tribal agreements.

No Potential To Discharge Determination. According to 40 C. F. R. 122.23( f)( 3) the permit authority must prepare a preliminary determination and a statement of basis or fact sheet in response to requests for the no potential to discharge exemption. The permit authority would also need to prepare a public notice, respond to comments, and issue a final determination.

State Record Keeping and Reporting. States requirements to maintain NPDES permit records for each permitted CAFO under their jurisdiction will be specified in each State's Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) with EPA. Federal regulations pertaining to the Memorandum of Agreement with the EPA Regional Administrator are contained in 40 C. F. R. 123.24.

4b( ii) Description of Respondent Activities CAFO Activities CAFO activities pertain mainly to preparing and submitting NPDES permit applications and collecting and keeping information required to demonstrate permit compliance. General startup and permit application activities include:

$ reading and understanding the rule requirements 3 Discharges that could result in significant impacts to the environment or human health must still be reported at the time of the discharge event in a non compliance report. Since timely reporting is essential in these instances, separate regulations have been established in 40 C. F. R. 122.41 for the reporting of bypasses or upsets. Burden and costs for this type of non compliance reporting have been analyzed in the ICR for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES)/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information ( ICR No. 1427.06). 18 $ completing and submitting NOI ( for general permit coverage)

$ completing and submitting Forms 1 and 2B ( for an individual permit).

Activities required to demonstrate and document permit compliance include:

$ develop a nutrient management plan $ collect information for off site manure transfers ( required of large CAFOs)

$ prepare and submit annual reports $ maintain records to document visual inspections and implementation of the NMP $ collect representative manure, litter, and process wastewater samples $ collect representative soil samples and analyze the soil samples for phosphorus $ calibrate manure application equipment prior to land application of manure, litter, and/ or process wastewater at a minimum of once per year.

In addition to the activities performed on a regular basis, EPA assumes that CAFO owners or operators will need to participate in any on site inspection conducted by the permit authority. This represents an information collection burden because the purpose of the inspection is to collect information regarding permit compliance.

CAFO owners or operators will also incur capital and operating costs to collect information needed to document compliance. Capital expenditures include:

$ purchase of a soil auger for sampling $ purchase of a manure sampler $ installation of a depth marker $ purchase of a scale used to calibrate the manure spreader.

Recurring or O& M expenditures include:

$ soil sample analysis $ manure sample analysis $ tractor use during manure collection $ other direct costs for record keeping.

For the purpose of this ICR, EPA assumed that no CAFOs incur burden to make an optional request for an exemption from permitting on the basis of No Potential To Discharge. Thus, all CAFOs incur permit related burdens, which would most likely overstate burdens for any CAFO that makes a request.

State Activities State NPDES Program Modification Request. Subsequent to making program revisions to implement the final rule, States will need to compile the information listed in 4b( i) of this Supporting Statement to submit a request for program modification to the EPA. 19 General Permit Activities. State activities associated with the development or revision of a general permit include:

$ modifying the general permit to incorporate final rule requirements in accordance with 40 C. F. R. 123.25( a)( 22) and 40 C. F. R. 122.62 $ giving public notice in accordance with 40 C. F. R. 123.25( a)( 27) and 40 C. F. R. 123.25( a)( 33) and responding to comments in accordance with 40 C. F. R. 123.25( a)( 31) and 40 C. F. R. 123.25( a)( 34)

$ holding public hearings( s) in accordance with 40 C. F. R. 123.25( a)( 30)

$ submitting the modified permit to EPA for approval in accordance with 40 C. F. R 123.62 $ reviewing NOIs for completeness, recording NOI information, and making NOI information publicly accessible and keeping it updated on a quarterly basis [ 40 C. F. R. 122.28( b)( 2)( iv).

Individual Permit Activities. In accordance with 40 C. F. R. 123.25, approved States will incur burdens to perform the following activities for CAFOs that submit individual permits:

$ reviewing the permit application for completeness $ providing public notice of receipt of applications and responding to comments $ holding public hearing( s), as necessary $ issuing the individual permit.

Compliance Evaluation Activities. Approved States will incur burdens to perform the following activities to ensure compliance with State permit programs:

$ inspecting permitted CAFOs in accordance with 40 C. F. R. 123.26( b)

$ reviewing annual reports submitted by permitted CAFOs under 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 4).

No Potential To Discharge Determinations. Large CAFOs that can demonstrate that they have no potential to discharge determination ( NPTD) manure or process wastewater to waters of the United States may request an exemption from NPDES permitting. The permit authority, upon request, may make a case specific determination that a large CAFO has no potential to discharge. In making this determination, the permit authority must consider the potential for discharges from both the production area and any land application areas and any record of prior discharges by the CAFO. In no case may the CAFO be determined to have " no potential to discharge" if it has had a discharge within the 5 years prior to the date of the request [ 40 C. F. R. 122.23( f)( 1)].

As noted above, EPA does not anticipate that States will incur burden to make such determinations and, therefore, assumes for this ICR that all CAFOs request coverage under an NPDES permit. EPA believes that the State burden to administer a permit would be higher in the long run compared to a one time burden to make a determination. Thus, the burden estimates in this ICR potentially overstate State burden in the event an operation decides to request an exemption. 20 This page left intentionally blank. 21 5 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5a Agency Activities EPA has permitting responsibilities in the seven States where it is the permitting authority for CAFOs In those States, the Agency's activities would be similar to the activities described for authorized States [ see Section 4b( ii)].

In addition, the Agency will evaluate the requests for program modifications submitted by approved States. In order to implement the final rule, States will submit an NPDES program modification. In accordance with existing NPDES modification process, EPA will review the modification. The review process will vary by State. For a review, EPA may perform any or all of the following activities:

$ review State NPDES program modification and determine whether or not the proposed revisions are substantial enough to provide opportunity for public comment [ 40 C. F. R. 123.62( b)( 2)

$ for substantial program modifications, give public notice and provide an opportunity for comment; notice shall be mailed to interested persons and published in the Federal Register and in newspapers [ 40 C. F. R. 123.62( b)( 2)]

$ hold public hearings, if necessary [ 40 C. F. R. 123.62( b)( 2)]

$ approve or disapprove of program modifications [ 40 C. F. R. 123.62( b)( 3)]

$ prepare and publish public notice of EPA's final determination in the Federal Register for approval of substantial program modifications, or deliver notice of approval of nonsubstantial program modifications by letter to the State Governor or his designee [ 40 C. F. R. 123.62( b)( 4)].

5b Collection Methodology and Management CAFO respondents will submit the requested information to their NPDES permitting authority. EPA will manage a portion of the information collected electronically. As under the existing NPDES program, respondent data pertaining to facilities permitted under the revised regulations would be catalogued in the automated Permit Compliance System ( PCS) database. The PCS database is a national database that contains information on permit issuance, permit limits and monitoring, and other facility information. The information provided on permit application forms or NOI forms will be entered into PCS.

5c Small Entity Flexibility The current NPDES program distinguishes small CAFOs based on the number or concentration of animals. Small, medium, and large operations are defined in Table 4 1. The revised rule substitutes head count thresholds for the existing rule's animal unit thresholds for each type of animal being regulated under the rule. 22 Whereas EPA establishes thresholds based on the number of animals, the Small Business Administration ( SBA) uses revenue based thresholds to distinguish small agricultural operations from larger operations. Consequently, EPA developed a model to convert the SBA's revenue thresholds to the number of animals by sector. EPA used the SBA's revenue based definitions ( except for laying hens) and data from USDA and the industry for this effort. The SBA and EPA thresholds are shown for each sector in Table 5  1. A comparison of the SBA based animal thresholds with EPA's animal thresholds indicates that most medium and small CAFOs are small entities and some large CAFOs will be small entities as well.

Table 5  1. SBA and EPA Small Business Thresholds for Animal Sectors NAICS Code ( SIC Code) Animal Sector SBA Threshold ( Revenue in Millions) 1 Corresponding Animal Threshold ( Number of Animals)

112112 ( 0211) Beef cattle feedlots $ 1.5 1,400 112111, 112120 ( 0241) Dairy farms and dairy heifer replacement production $ 0.75 3002 112210 ( 0213) Hogs $ 0.75 2,1003 112310 ( 0252) Chicken eggs $ 1.54 61,000 112320 ( 0251) Broiler, fryer, roaster chickens $ 0.75 375,000 112330 ( 0253) Turkeys and turkey eggs $ 0.75 37,500 1. SBA thresholds effective February 22, 2002. 2. Mature dairy cattle. 3. Each weighing over 25 kilograms. 4. EPA consulted with SBA on the use of this alternative definition; the original threshold is $ 9.0 million. Note: Certain animal sectors ( e. g., sheep and lambs, horses, and ducks) are not subject to ELG requirements, and EPA has not developed corresponding small business animal thresholds for those sectors.

In developing the regulatory changes, EPA's basic premise has been that the regulatory changes should focus on those operations posing the greatest risk to water quality and public health, in particular operations with large numbers of animals. Fewer than 5,000 of the approximately 230,000 small and medium AFOs nationwide will be affected by the final rule. This approach helps to reduce the burden of the CAFO regulations on small entities while striving to achieve the goals of the CWA.

Furthermore, as Section 6 shows, the burden estimates for many of the NPDES related activities are relatively small. The final rule provides additional flexibility in that the ELG requirements apply to large CAFOs; permitting authorities, which are mainly State agencies, will establish technology based requirements for small and medium CAFOs based on best professional judgement. Finally, the final rule provides regulatory relief for small and medium CAFOs by not requiring them to record information for off site manure transfers. Consequently, additional 23 flexibility for small entities would not have a large effect on their overall burden, but could reduce the effectiveness of the final regulatory changes and the effectiveness of the permitting authorities' oversight activities.

5d Collection Schedule This ICR would cover the initial three year period following promulgation of the rule, which is expected to be January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2005. During this period, EPA assumed that the authorized States would require the first one to two years to revise their regulations and develop new permit application forms and, therefore, begin issuing new CAFO permits in the year 2005. Thus, the schedule in Exhibit B in Appendix 3 shows State burden for start up activities split between years 2003 and 2004, and permitting burden beginning in 2005.

Regarding CAFO activities, the approximately 15,600 facilities have been divided among four groups to develop the compliance schedule used to estimate ICR burdens:

( 1) the CAFOs that are expected to have permits prior to the effective date of the rule ( 2) the large and medium AFOs that meet the criteria for being defined as a CAFO prior to the effective date of the final rule and should have already obtained a permit ( 3) small and medium AFOs that will be designated CAFOs under the final rule, which has not revised designation requirements ( 4) the AFOs that are newly considered CAFOs under the revised size definitions, the addition of immature animal operations and poultry operations using dry waste storage, and the removal of the 25 year, 24 hour rainfall exemption.

Each currently permitted facility ( group 1) will reapply for a permit in the final year of coverage under the existing permit. Thus, only the permittees seeking to renew their permits between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005 are included in this ICR ( excluding the estimated overlap through April 30, 2003 with the active EPA ICR 0226.15). EPA assumed that the 2,520 permits issued prior to 2000 would be reissued in 2003 ( 50%) and 2004 ( 50%), and the 1,610 permits issued from January, 2000 to December, 2001 will be renewed in 2005 ( 50%) and 2006 ( 50%).

EPA assumed that all operations in group 2 ( approximately 8,600) will apply for coverage in the first year and comply with NPDES requirements beginning in that year, even though States may not be fully prepared to issue new individual permits or approve coverage under a new general permit until the second or third year. Consequently, this ICR incorporates annual record keeping and reporting burdens beginning in the first year for all group 2 ( and group 1) CAFOs.

Designated CAFOs must apply for an NPDES permit within 90 days after receiving the notice of designation from the permit authority. EPA assumed that 20% of the approximately 170 operations it assumed might be designated will be designated in each of the first five years following the effective date of the final rule. 24 Operations in group 4 will be required to apply for coverage no later than 3 years after the effective date of the final rule. Thus, the approximately 2,700 newly regulated operations will need to apply for coverage by the third ICR year. 25 6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND THE COST OF THE COLLECTION This section describes how EPA estimated CAFO respondent, State, and Agency burden and costs for this ICR. Section 6( a) describes EPA's estimates of respondent burden for individual CAFOs and States. Section 6( b) describes the cost estimates for individual CAFOs and States. Section 6( c) describes the estimation of Agency burden and costs. Section 6( d) shows the total annual burden and costs across the entire universe of CAFOs and States affected during the ICR approval period. Section 6( e) summarizes the overall burden and cost estimates and provides annual averages over the three year period.

Although other ICRs may include incidental burdens and costs associated with NPDES permitting activities for CAFOs ( see Table 6 1), EPA determined that a clear overlap in record keeping and reporting burden occurs only with the " Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the Sewage Management Permits" ( OMB NO: 2040 0086, EPA ICR: 0226.15; the " Applications ICR"). The overlap is excluded from this ICR to prevent double counting that burden. The overlap is minimal because the active ICR is scheduled to expire in 2003. The burden estimates in this ICR are consistent with previous estimates except where comments on the proposed rule and NODA and subsequent research indicated different estimates would be appropriate.

6a Estimating Respondent Burden The summaries below provide brief descriptions of the CAFO and State activities and Tables 6  2 and 6  3 summarize the burden assumptions. Exhibits A. 1 and A. 2 provide additional information regarding the burden and cost assumptions, which were based on assumptions in the Economic Analysis ( U. S. EPA, 2002c) and supporting documents ( U. S. EPA, 2002a, b) for the final rule. Appendix 3 contains these exhibits.

CAFO Burden Start up activities are steps that a CAFO owner or operator must perform in preparation to comply with the information collection requirements of the final rule. Owners or operators that are potentially affected by the rule will need to familiarize themselves with the changes to the NPDES CAFO program to determine that they will need to apply for a permit and implement the effluent guideline requirements. This is a one time burden. Based on best professional judgement, EPA assumes that it will only take CAFO operators three hours to read and understand the changes to relevant subsections of 40 C. F. R. 122 and 40 C. F. R. 412 and related guidance.

Permit application activities involve completing and submitting either an NOI or an application for an individual permit. EPA's permit application burden estimates of nine hours are based on the burdens in an active NPDES ICR (" Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the Sewage Management Permits," OMB NO: 2040 0086, EPA ICR: 0226.15). In that ICR, there is a 3 hour burden to complete Form 1 of an individual permit application burden, and a 6 hour burden to complete and submit Form 2B. Thus, the combined burden to complete the application for an individual permit is nine hours. That ICR contains a 1 hour burden to 26 complete an NOI. Because EPA has revised the NOI for CAFOs such that it now requires the same amount of information provided on Forms 1 and 2B, EPA is using the same 9 hour assumption for NOIs, too. 27 Table 6  1. Summary of Active ICRs Potentially Containing NPDES Burdens for CAFOs Active NPDES ICRs Information Collection Activities CAFO Overlap NPDES and Sewage Sludge Monitoring Reports OMB NO: 2040 0004 EPA ICR: 0229.15 Expiration Date: 02/ 28/ 2005 Permittees: Prepare DMRs, sewage sludge monitoring reports, and other monitoring reports Permit Authority: Review DMRs, sewage sludge monitoring reports, and other monitoring reports ICR explicitly incorporates CAFOs covered by EPA's non stormwater general permits, but there is no CAFO burden because CAFOs don't have effluent to monitor and report.

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Sewage Sludge Management State Programs OMB NO: 2040 0057 EPA ICR: 0168.07 Expiration Date: 04/ 30/ 2003 Approved States: Request NPDES Programs and modifications, conduct compliance inspections, and submit regular summary reports EPA: Review NPDES program requests, general permits, and provide oversight There are too few program requests to address the final CAFO Rule. The 1,200 annual inspections for minors may include some CAFO inspections. General permit submittal to EPA for comment may cover some final CAFO rule burden.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Modification and Variance OMB NO: 2040 0068 EPA ICR: 0029.07 Expiration Date: 04/ 30/ 2003 Permittee: Request permit modifications and variances Permit Authority: Review requests EPA: Provide oversight CAFOs may be among the minor, nonmunicipal dischargers or general permittees included in this ICR.

Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the Sewage Management Permits OMB NO: 2040 0086 EPA ICR: 0226.15 Expiration Date: 04/ 30/ 2003 Permittee: Permit application record keeping Complete/ submit individual permits ( Forms 1 and 2B) Complete/ submit NOI Respond to Section 308 requests Permit Authority: Review individual permits ( Forms 1 and 2B) Review NOIs Identified Overlap:

ICR includes 135 individual CAFO permit applications per year and an unspecified number of NOI applications from CAFOs per year.

Information Collection Request for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information OMB NO: 2040 0110 EPA ICR: 1427.06 Expiration Date: 02/ 29/ 2004 Permittee: Annual record keeping of monitoring and inspection data Prepare/ submit compliance and noncompliance reports Permit Authority: Review reports Record keeping burden may include CAFOs among 36,887 minor, nonmunicipal permittees. Reporting burden for compliance schedule and noncompliance may include CAFOs. 28 CAFO owners or operators will perform various activities to meet effluent limitation guideline ( ELG) requirements. All CAFO operators will conduct weekly visual inspections of the waste storage and storm water diversion facilities and daily inspections of water lines to identify maintenance needs. EPA assumed that these inspections can be primarily conducted in the course of every day operations and, therefore, they do not impose a substantial incremental burden on CAFOs beyond the need to document inspection findings. Manure application equipment must be tested and calibrated annually and the activity documented. Soil samples must be collected at least once every three years from all fields receiving manure and analyzed for nutrient content. Manure samples must be collected annually and analyzed for nutrient content. Manure and soil sampling results must be retained and the manure content results must be made available to off site users. Records of the volume of manure and process wastewater produced must also be maintained, and large CAFOs must create and maintain off site transfer records. Rule support documents ( U. S. EPA, 2002a, b) provide the basis for estimating burdens for these requirements, which are shown in Table 6 2.

Table 6  2. Burden Estimates per CAFO by Activity Activities Frequency per CAFO Burden Hours per Response1 Read/ Understand the Rule one time 3 Permit Application Activities Complete/ submit Notice of Intent for general permit Complete/ submit individual permit application every 5 years every 5 years 9 9 ELG Data Collection and Record Keeping Activities Conduct visual inspections and maintain records Manure application equipment calibration Manure sampling Soil sampling annual annual annual every 3 years 93 4 2 9 NPDES Record Keeping and Reporting Activities Develop/ update nutrient management plan Off site transfer record keeping Complete/ submit annual report to permitting authority Attend on site inspection every 5 years annual annual per inspection 53 14 1 4 1. A response is the completion of an activity and the duration and frequency of responses can vary. For example, each of the following is considered a response: the one time effort to read and understand the rule, submitting a permit application once every five years, or collecting ELG records throughout a year. The hour estimates have been rounded to the nearest hour for presentation. Burdens that are calculated as weighted averages across CAFO categories and sizes ( e. g., soil sampling) have trailing decimal points in the model.

Under the final rule, the ELG requirements are applicable to large CAFOs; permit authorities must use best professional judgement ( BPJ) to develop the effluent limitation conditions for all other CAFOs. For the purpose of estimating the social cost of the final rule, EPA assumed that the ELG record keeping and reporting requirements for small and medium CAFOs would be comparable to those specified for large CAFOs. Thus, EPA applied these ELG burdens to all CAFOs in its social cost analysis. EPA has adopted the same approach to estimating the ELG burden for this ICR. 29 To comply with permit requirements, CAFO operators will need to develop a nutrient management plan that contains measures specified in 40 C. F. R. 122.42( e)( 1) and maintain the plan on site. There are two parts to the NMP burden estimate  one for land application, which is discussed here, and one for the production area, which is discussed in Section 6b( ii). For the land application portion of the NMP, EPA based its burden estimate on typical cost per acre estimates for plan development by certified planners. Based on the $ 5/ acre estimate in U. S. EPA ( 2002a, b; in 1997 dollars, but escalated to 2001 dollars for the ICR analysis), EPA calculated average plan development costs for average CAFO acres by animal type. Then EPA calculated a weighted average plan cost of $ 1,900 based on the number of CAFOs of each type ( See Appendix 3). Finally, EPA divided this average plan cost by an agronomist wage rate ($ 36.23) to obtain an average burden of 53 hours to develop a plan. Although some owners or operators will be able to develop their own NMPs, EPA has assumed that this burden mainly accrues to third parties who have been certified to prepare such plans. This burden, which does not apply to CAFOs that does not land apply manure generated on site, will be incurred in the first year an operation requests coverage under the revised regulations and must be updated at least once every five years.

Large CAFOs that transfer manure off site will also need to collect the following information for each transfer: the date of transfer, the recipient's name, the quantity transferred, and its nutrient content. Based on a national estimate of excess manure at large CAFOs of 181 million tons and an average transfer amount of 100 tons, EPA estimated an average of 169 transfers per year per large CAFO ( 181 million ) 100 ) 10,700 CAFOs). Using best professional judgement, EPA estimated that recording the four pieces of information required for each transfer would require only 5 minutes. In particular, the nutrient content information will be the same for an entire year because sampling under the ELG occurs only once per year. The resulting average burden per CAFO is 14 hours.

All CAFOs prepare and submit an annual report to the permitting authority. The report provides an annual update to five of the data items contained in the permit application forms as well as a summary of production area discharges, if any. Many CAFO operators or owners will be able to copy information directly from the application form to their report because they have no operational changes or compliance events to report. Based on best professional judgement, EPA assumes that the annual report will require only one hour to complete and submit, on average. This is comparable to the burden to reapply for general permit coverage in the " Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the Sewage Management Permits" ICR ( No. 0226.15), which is a comparable reporting activity.

This ICR also incorporates the potential burden to CAFO owners or operators of participating in on site inspections conducted by the permit authority. As noted in the State burden section, EPA assumed that inspectors spend an average of four hours in on site inspection activities. During this time, the inspector may want to review records and inspect waste management and land application equipment. It is likely that the CAFO operator or owner will incur some burden during the inspection to make records available and show the facility to the inspector. Therefore, EPA assumed an average burden to CAFOs of four hours per inspection. 30 Table 6  2 summarizes the estimated burden per respondent per activity for completing activities associated with each information collection item. It also identifies the frequency of the activity.

State Burden The 43 approved States will incur burden to develop their program modification request, issue permits, and track and report permit compliance. Table 6 3 provides a summary of the burden estimates described below. For its analysis, EPA obtained labor burden estimates that it has used in previous NPDES related cost and burden analyses, and asked State agency and EPA Regional staff to evaluate whether those estimates were adequate for the CAFO rule. EPA also considered comments provided on the proposed rule and NODA that addressed the issue of State burdens.

States will incur burden for three categories of activities:

C State NPDES program modification request C implementation for general permits C implementation for individual permits.

Rule modification is a one time activity in which approved States modify their NPDES programs to incorporate the new requirements contained in the final rule. Following rule modification, the approved States will need to request EPA approval for the modifications made to their NPDES programs in response to the final rule. These applications consist of a narrative program description including enforcement and compliance plans, a legal certification that the State has authority to implement the program ( Attorney General's statement), a compilation of relevant statutes, regulations, guidance, and tribal agreements, and copies of permit application forms, permit forms and reporting forms. In general, the amount of labor time required to prepare the application will vary. EPA's labor hour estimate is based on program modification and approval burdens in an active NPDES ICR (" NPDES and Sewage Sludge Management State Program Requirements," OMB NO. 2040 0057, EPA ICR 0168.07), which estimates 250 hours per State to prepare and submit a request for NPDES Program Modification under 40 C. F. R. 123.62. Allen ( 2002) and Sylvester ( 2002) concurred with this estimate, but Coats ( 2002) noted that 80 hours might be sufficient.

Approved States will incur annual costs to administer their permit programs. To administer State general permits, permitting authorities will need to:

C update their general permits to incorporate final rule requirements C review NOI forms submitted by CAFO operators seeking coverage under a general permit.

To administer individual permits, State agencies will need to:

C review application forms ( i. e., Forms 1 and 2B)

C request public comment prior to issuing a permit C conduct public hearings, as needed. 31 To assure compliance with State NPDES permit programs, State agencies will need to:

C inspect permitted CAFOs C review annual reports submitted by permitted CAFOs. To update their general permits, the 43 approved States will need to revise the general permit conditions affected by the final rule. For example, general permits will need to specify the method( s) that the permit authority is requiring the CAFO owner or operator to use to calculate the rate of appropriate manure application as a special condition.

EPA estimated that States may need 300 hours to revise their general permits to reflect new provisions of the final rule. Information provided by State contacts indicated that initial general permit development was a contentious process that took two ( in Maryland; Allen, 1999) to four years ( in Washington; KauzLoric, 1999) to complete. EPA does not believe that the changes necessitated by the final rule ( e. g., adding the NMP requirements, adding new record keeping or reporting requirements, switching from size thresholds based on animal units to animal counts, and altering the ELG, BPJ, or special conditions where necessary) will require the same magnitude of effort as initial permit development. Furthermore, EPA will develop a model permit that States can adopt in whole or part to minimize the costs of permit revisions. Sylvester ( 2002) estimated that revising Wisconsin's general permit may take 456 hours and Coats ( 2002) estimated that States in Region 2 would need 160 hours to revise their general permits. EPA's estimate of 300 hours is the midpoint between these estimates. Allen ( 2002) considered EPA's 300 hour estimate to be acceptable.

Revised general permits will be subject to public comment. EPA estimated costs for the proposed rule based on public notice, comment review, and response requiring 160 hours. Comments from State employees in South Dakota ( Pirner, 2001) and Illinois ( Willhite, 2001) indicated that costs would be higher because the process for selecting the type of facilities that may be eligible under a general permit will be contentious. Subsequent information obtained by EPA indicates a wide range of time from as little as 100 hours ( Coats, 2002) to as much as 968 hours ( Sylvester, 2002); Allen ( 2002) considered EPA's revised estimate of 180 hours to be acceptable. EPA assumed that the 180 hour estimate reflects labor requirements for the 22 States that already provide general NPDES permit coverage for CAFOs ( U. S. EPA, 2001) because these States have already resolved the applicability issue, which should not be substantially affected by the final rule. For the 21 States with approved programs that do not currently provide coverage under a general permit, EPA used the high estimate of 968 hours provided by Sylvester ( 2002) to incorporate additional time for the decision making process regarding which CAFOs would qualify for general permit coverage. The weighted average across all 43 States is approximately 570 hours ( 0.51 H 180 + 0.49 H 968).

Finally, States may conduct hearings regarding general permit revisions ( or development for the States that do not currently provide general permit coverage for CAFOs). For the proposed rule, EPA derived costs for 240 hours based on the assumption that a State holds four hearings, each requiring 60 hours of labor time. Allen ( 2002) and Coats ( 2002) considered that assumption acceptable. Sylvester ( 2002) recommended an alternative estimate of 616 hours based on 12 hearings requiring 48 staff hours each plus an additional 40 hours for material preparation. For the final rule, EPA assumed that its original 240 hour estimate is sufficient for the 22 States that 32 only need to revise existing general permits, and that the 21 States that do not currently provide general permit coverage for CAFOs will conduct additional hearings. For those States, EPA used the 616 hour estimate. The weighted average across all States is approximately 420 hours ( 0.51 H 240 + 0.49 H 616). Adding together the three labor estimates for general permit development, EPA obtained a total estimate of 1,290 hours. For the 22 States that already provide general permit coverage, aggregate hours would be 720 hours. For the 21 States that would need to provide general permit coverage and determine which CAFOs are eligible, aggregate hours would be approximately 1,880 hours. It is possible that some of the States not currently providing general permit coverage will continue to rely solely on individual permits for CAFOs. Thus, EPA's cost analysis assumption that all 43 States will incur general permit revision costs provides an upper bound cost estimate.

CAFOs seeking coverage under a State's ( or EPA's) general permit will submit completed NOI forms that the permitting authority will need to review and make a determination of coverage. For the proposed rule, EPA estimated that NOI review would require one hour. Comments indicated that the labor requirement would be substantially higher. For example, a Wisconsin State employee ( Bazzell, 2001) indicated an expected expenditure of approximately 100 hours to review the NOI and accompanying documents. Ohio employees ( Jones, Speck and Daily, 2001) indicated that the estimates provided in the proposed rule did not allow time to ensure that the facilities were meeting all permit conditions. Willhite ( 2001) also indicated that costs for review of the NOI would be substantially higher. EPA believes that much of the concern regarding its proposed rule estimate centered on review of the proposed permit nutrient plan. For example, 60 hours of the 96 hour Wisconsin estimate pertained to reviewing the content of the nutrient management plan ( Sylvester, 2002); 32 hours were allocated for review and approval of manure storage and runoff management systems, and 4 hours for general review for completeness of information. The final rule does not require a CAFO to submit this plan with the permit application, so this concern does not pertain to the final rule. Nevertheless, EPA has revised the information requirements for the NOI and subsequently increased its estimate of the amount of time required for review. Reviews of NOI forms to ensure completeness of federally required information should not take longer than four hours. This is consistent with the estimate provided by Sylvester ( 2002), and Allen ( 2002), Coats ( 2002), and Domingo ( 2002) indicated this estimate would be adequate for NOI review. The annual reports that CAFOs are now required to submit ( regardless of permit type) will contain the much of the same information as the NOI form. Consequently, EPA assumed that the State burden to review an annual report, update PCS as needed, and maintain CAFO records is the same as the NOI review estimate four hours.

State administration costs for individual permits include 100 hours per permit to review Forms 1 and 2B, issue public notices, and respond to comments. EPA increased this estimate from the 70 hours used in its analysis of the proposed rule in response to comments ( e. g., Muldener, 2001). Sylvester ( 2002) and Allen ( 2002) concurred with this estimate; Harsch ( 2002) thought it might be low, but Coats ( 2002) considered it to be twice the time needed.

EPA estimated that the hearing time for an individual permit would require 200 hours based on estimates from Washington State ( KauzLoric, 1999), which indicated that a hearing required approximately 100 150 hours of State employee time. Using best professional judgement, EPA 33 assumed an average of 2 hearings per permit and an average requirement of 100 hours per hearing. This is higher than the estimate per hearing provided by Sylvester ( 2002). Nevertheless, Sylvester agreed with the estimate, as did Coats ( 2002) and Allen ( 2002). Harsch ( 2002) provided an alternative estimate of 22 to 33 hours. EPA decided to retain the 200 hour estimate to reflect the possibility that some individual permits attract numerous hearing participants.

EPA assumed that the inspections for CAFOs covered by either a general or an individual permit would be similar to the Reconnaissance Inspections and the Compliance Evaluation Inspections described in the active NPDES ICR (" Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Sewage Sludge Management State Programs," OMB NO. 2040 0057, EPA ICR 0168.07), which have burden estimates of 8 hours and 24 hours, respectively. Coats ( 2002), Allen ( 2002), Harsch ( 2002), and Sylvester ( 2002) agreed with this range of estimates. Wrenn ( 2002) believes that the average inspection time will be closer to 16 hours, which includes 6 hours for round trip travel time, 2 hours to review State records and prepare for the inspection, 4 hours to conduct the onsite inspection of records and operation, and 4 hours to report on the inspection and maintain records. Based on best professional judgement, EPA used the 16 hour estimate in its analysis.

Table 6  3. Burden Estimates for an Approved State by Activity ( first two activities may not belong in ICR)

Activities Frequency per State Burden Hours per Response1 NPDES Program Modification Request one time 250 Implementation: General Permits General permit development Review and approval of NOIs one time per CAFO 1,290 4 Implementation: Individual Permits Review Forms 1 and 2B, issue public notification, respond to comments Public hearing per CAFO per CAFO 100 200 Compliance Evaluation Activities Review CAFO annual reports Facility inspections per CAFO per CAFO 4 16 1. A response is the completion of an activity and the duration and frequency of responses can vary. For example, each of the following is considered a response: the one time effort to request NPDES program modification, reviewing permit applications, and annual NOI publications.

6b Estimating Respondent Costs This section describes how EPA derived the cost per respondent for each of the activities described above. Additional detail is provided in Exhibits A. 1 and A. 2 in Appendix 3. 34 6b( i) Estimating Labor Costs CAFO Labor Costs EPA multiplied the burdens reported above by the wage rates in Table 6  4 to obtain cost estimates at the CAFO level. Table 6  5 identifies which wage rate was used for each activity and reports the annual cost per CAFO by activity.

Table 6  4. Wage Rates Used to Value CAFO Related Burdens Labor Category Original Rate Source Conversion Hourly Rate ($ 1999)

Farm Operator/ Owner $ 20/ hr U. S. EPA ( 2000a) ( 1997 to 2001) 1 $ 21.83 Farm Laborer $ 10/ hr U. S. EPA ( 2000a) ( 1997 to 2001) 1 $ 11.00 Agronomist2 $ 52,160/ yr U. S. EPA ( 2000c) 2080 hrs/ yr 1.33 benefits multiplier $ 36.23 1. The index of average prices paid by farmers increased from 361 in 1997 to 394 in 2001 ( USDA, 2001). 2. BLS ( 2001) reported a median annual salary of $ 52,160 in 2000 dollars for agricultural scientists. EPA divided this by 2,080 hours to obtain an hourly rate of $ 25.08. EPA escalated the wage to 2001 dollars using an inflation factor of 1.085 based on BLS reported average earnings for professional specialty occupations within private service producing industries ( BLS, 2002). Employee benefits from this same occupational category were used to derive a 1.33 loading factor to account for employee benefits. The resulting hourly labor rate for an agronomist is $ 36.23.

Table 6  5. Annual Cost per CAFO by Activity Activities Annual Burden ( labor category) Labor Cost1 ($)

Read/ Understand the Rule 3 ( operator/ owner) $ 66 Permit Application Activities Complete/ submit Notice of Intent for general permit Complete/ submit individual permit application 9 ( operator/ owner) 9 ( operator/ owner) $ 196 $ 196 ELG Data Collection and Record Keeping Activities Conduct visual inspections and maintain records Manure application equipment calibration Manure sampling Soil sampling 93 ( laborer) 4 ( laborer) 2 ( laborer) 9 ( laborer) $ 1,023 $ 44 $ 25 $ 96 NPDES Record Keeping and Reporting Activities Develop/ revise nutrient management plan Off site transfer record keeping Submit annual report to permitting authority Attend on site Compliance Evaluation Inspection 53 ( third party agronomist) 14 ( laborer) 1 ( operator/ owner) 4 ( operator/ owner) $ 1,908 $ 154 $ 22 $ 87 1. All annual labor costs are rounded to the nearest dollar. Unit costs may not match hour and wage rate detail due to independent rounding for presentation. Unit costs depend on which wage rate is used to value the labor burden. 35 State Labor Costs EPA used a wage rate of $ 29.78 to value State labor burden, which was based on the mean hourly wage rate of $ 20.53 for Conservation Scientists ( SOC 19 1031) employed in the public sector ( BLS, 2001). That rate was escalated from 2000 dollars to 2001 dollars using the Employment Cost Index, which indicates a 3.6% increase in wages and salaries for state and local government workers from December 2000 to December 2001 ( BLS, 2002c). Then, the escalated wage rate of $ 21.27 ($ 20.53 H 1.036) was converted to a loaded wage rate using a total compensation to wage ratio of 1.4, which was the ratio in 2001 for all state and local workers ( BLS, 2002b).

Table 6  6. Annual Cost per State Agency by Activity Activities Burden ( hours) Annual Labor Cost1 ($ 29.78/ hour)

NPDES Program Modification Request 250 $ 7,445 Implementation: General Permits General permit development Review and approval of NOIs 1,290 4 $ 38,417 $ 119 Implementation: Individual Permits Review Forms 1 and 2B, issue public notification, respond to comments Public hearing 100 200 $ 2,978 $ 5,956 Compliance Evaluation Activities Review CAFO annual reports Facility inspections 4 16 $ 119 $ 476 1. All annual labor costs are rounded to the nearest dollar.

6b( ii) Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs CAFO Capital and O& M Costs A CAFO facility incurs capital costs when it purchases equipment or builds structures that are needed for compliance with the rule's reporting and record keeping requirements that the facility would not use otherwise. The capital costs included in this ICR are based on those used in the social cost analysis for the final rule, which are documented in U. S. EPA ( 2002a, b).

Capital costs relevant to this ICR include purchasing a soil auger to collect soil samples and a manure sampler. CAFOs applying some manure on site will also need to obtain a scale to calibrate the spreader and all facilities will also need to install depth markers in their lagoons. All operations will need to develop the NMP elements that pertain to the production area. The cost of $ 1,050 represents an out of pocket expenditure to obtain an engineering analysis of the waste storage volume requirements needed to comply with the final rule. This burden will occur 36 the first time a facility requests coverage under the revised regulations and should not need to be updated unless the operation undergoes a significant change in operation.

To incorporate capital expenditures in EPA's estimate of annual burden, all capital costs have been amortized over a 10 year period assuming a 7 percent interest rate. This is the amortization method used to estimate annualized costs for the economic analysis of the proposed rule ( U. S. EPA, 2002c).

A facility incurs O& M costs when it regularly uses services, materials, or supplies needed to comply with the rule's reporting and record keeping requirements that the facility will not use otherwise. Any cost for the operation and upkeep of capital equipment is considered O& M costs. For the final rule, O& M costs include laboratory analysis of soil and manure, the cost of using a tractor to calibrate the manure spreader, and a general record keeping cost. All costs were based on the cost analysis for the final rule and are documented in U. S. EPA ( 2002).

Table 6  7 summarizes the capital and O& M costs associated with the record keeping and reporting activities.

Table 6  7. Annual Capital and O& M Cost per CAFO ( 2001 dollars)

Activities Frequency per CAFO Annual Cost ($) 1 Capital Costs2 Soil auger for sampling Manure sampler Lagoon depth marker installation Scale for calibrating manure spreader ( two scales) Engineering analysis for production area NMP elements one time one time one time one time one time $ 27 $ 33 $ 33 $ 546 $ 1,050 O& M Costs3 Lab analysis of soil sample Lab analysis of manure sample Use of tractor during manure calibration Other direct costs for record keeping every 3 years annual annual annual $ 95 $ 117 $ 65 $ 88 1. Costs are taken from rule support documents ( U. S. EPA, 2002a, b). These estimates have been escalated from 1997 dollars to 2001 dollars using a Farm Production Cost Index ( USDA, 2001). 2. All capital costs are reported as total costs. They are amortized over 10 years at a 7% discount rate for use in the analysis. 3. All O& M costs are from rule support documents ( U. S. EPA, 2002a, b). The soil lab analysis cost, which accrues every three years, is included in the ICR burden estimate in the year it accrues.

State O& M Costs States will incur publication costs to issue public notices during general permit development and for each individual permit. EPA assumed that States would publish one notice to request comments on the draft general permit and one notice per individual permit. In the event an 37 individual permit require a public hearing, a public notice is required. The publication cost per public notice is $ 1,060, which is based on the assumption that notices will be placed in four publications at an average cost of $ 265 ( U. S. EPA, 2002c).

6c Estimating Agency Burden and Cost EPA will incur burden to review modification requests for State NPDES programs. The burden estimate for reviewing and approving a program modification request in an active NPDES ICR (" NPDES and Sewage Sludge Management State Program Requirements," OMB NO. 2040 0057, EPA ICR 0168.07) 50 hours.

EPA is also responsible for writing NPDES permits for CAFOs in the seven States ( Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oklahoma) that either do not have an approved program or do not issue CAFO permits. Based on CAFO data, EPA estimated that CAFOs in these states represent 3 percent of the total number of CAFOs ( U. S. EPA, 2002c). In these instances, EPA is responsible for the activities and associated burdens and costs that would otherwise be incurred by a State, excluding the general permit development, rule adoption, and application burden. The permitting burden estimates for EPA, shown in Table 6 8, are the same as State burdens.

Table 6  8. EPA Burden and Cost Estimates Activities Frequency Burden Hours per Response1 Labor Cost ($ 39.94/ hr)

Review State Modification Requests per State 50 $ 1,997 General Permit Activities3 Review and approval of NOIs per CAFO 4 $ 160 Individual Permit Activities4 Review Forms 1 and 2B, issue public notification, respond to comments Public hearing per CAFO per CAFO 100 200 $ 3,994 $ 7,988 Compliance Evaluation Activities Review CAFO annual reports Facility inspections per CAFO per CAFO 4 16 $ 160 $ 639 1. A response is the completion of an activity and the duration and frequency of responses can vary. For example, each of the following is considered a response: one time reviews of a State program request or reviewing a CAFOs permit application.

EPA used an hourly wage rate for a GS12, Step One Federal employee to estimate the cost of the Agency staff. The U. S. Office of Personnel Management 2001 General Schedule reported a base annual salary of $ 51,927. EPA divided this by 2,080 hours to obtain an hourly rate of $ 24.96. Multiplying this rate by 1.6 to incorporate typical Federal benefits ( OPM, 1999), EPA obtained a final hourly rate of $ 39.94. Table 6  8 includes EPA's cost per response. 38 6d Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs EPA's estimate of total burden and costs is the product of the burden and cost estimates per activity or response, provided above, and the number of CAFOs or States expected to perform specific activities each year. As noted in Section 5d, the compliance schedule for the first three years after promulgation of the final rule is complex because EPA expects different CAFO groups to have different compliance schedules and somewhat different compliance needs ( e. g., not all CAFOs incur the off site transfer burden and land application related burdens). Exhibit B in Appendix 3 summarizes the compliance schedule and Exhibits A. 4 and A. 5 show the number of CAFO and State respondents and responses, respectively, on an annual basis for the first three years. Exhibits A. 6 and A. 7 in Appendix 3 report the associated annual burden estimates and annual costs, respectively.

In addition to estimating the fraction of CAFOs in approved States, EPA derived assumptions to distribute the permits among general and individual permits as well as the number of individual permits requiring hearings. Although the active EPA ICR 0226.15 assumed that only 5 percent of all CAFO permits obtained individual permits, in this ICR, EPA has assumed that  subsequent to the final rule  30 percent of CAFOs will apply for an individual NPDES permit and 70 percent will submit an NOI for coverage under a general permit. EPA chose this more conservative estimate because only 22 of the 43 approved States have general permits for CAFOs. Although EPA predominantly uses general permits in the States where it is responsible for CAFO permits and believes that many of the newly permitted CAFOs can be covered by a general permit, it is possible that some States will continue to rely on individual permits. There is no readily available information to derive an estimate of the distribution. 4 6e Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables This section provides a description of bottom line burden and cost estimates for the final rule. Table 6  9 provides a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden hours, and costs for CAFO and State respondents. Detailed information can be found in Appendix 3.

6e( i) CAFO Respondents and State Respondents The bottom line burden hours and costs shown in Table 6  9 reflect the average annual burden hours and costs for all ICR related activities performed by respondents during the ICR approval period. These estimates are net of burden for 45 individual permit applications that represent the overlap between this ICR and the Applications ICR. The Applications ICR contains 135 individual permit applications for CAFOs per year. EPA assumed the 4 month overlap ( from January 1, 2003 to April 30,2003) contained one third or 45 of those applications. In the active ICR, the CAFO burden per application was 9 hours and the State burden for review was 1 hour 4 Because CAFO permit information is not consistently available through PCS and because States use a variety of NPDES and non NPDES permits to regulate CAFO activities, EPA has not been able determine what proportion of the existing permits are general permits. 39 per application. Thus, EPA netted out 405 hours of CAFO burden and 45 hours of State burden from the 2003 burden estimates reported for this ICR.

The final burden and cost estimates can be used to calculate mean burden and cost per respondent. As reported in Exhibit A. 8 in Appendix 3, the total number of CAFO respondents in the first three years is 35,737, which double counts any CAFOs that perform annual activities more than once during the three year ICR approval period. The annual average number of respondents is 11,912 ( 35,737 ) 3). The total burden over three years is 4.9 million hours, which results in the annual average burden of 1.6 million hours reported in Table 6  8 ( 4.9 ) 3). Dividing the annual average burden of 1.6 million hours by 11,912 respondents, EPA estimated that the annual average burden per CAFO respondent is approximately 138 hours. The annual average labor cost per respondent is $ 2,130 ($ 25.4 million ) 11,912). These estimates include burden to prepare the land application portion of the NMP, which may be a third party burden. Annual average total cost including capital and O& M expenses is $ 2,652 ($ 31.60 million )

11,912).

The State burden and cost estimates in Table 6  9 can be used to calculate mean burden and cost per State; actual burdens and costs will vary with the number of CAFOs in each State. There are 43 States that will incur the burden and costs described above. On average, 29 States will incur burden each year, which assumes a gradual phase in across States of program changes over a two year period. Dividing the annual average burden of almost 253,000 hours for all States by 29 gives an average per State burden of 8,700 hours. Similarly, the average annual cost per State is $ 0.26 million for labor and $ 0.32 million including O& M costs as well.

Table 6  9. Summary of Average Annual CAFO and State Respondents, Burden Hours, and Costs for the ICR Approval Period ( Costs in millions $ 1999)

Respondent Respondents Responses Burden ( million hours) Labor Costs Capital Costs O & M Costs Total Costs CAFOs 11,912 83,932 1.64 $ 25.4 $ 2.9 $ 3.3 $ 31.6 States 29 16,946 0.25 $ 7.5 $ 0 $ 1.7 $ 9.2 Total 11,941 100,879 1.89 $ 32.9 $ 2.9 $ 5.0 $ 40.8 Detail may not add to totals because of independent rounding.

6e( ii) Bottom Line Agency Burden and Cost EPA estimated the Agency burden and cost using the compliance schedule described in Section 5d. In Appendix 3, Exhibit A. 5 shows how many CAFO permits will be processed per year during the three year ICR approval period and Exhibits A. 6 and A. 7 in Appendix 3 show the corresponding burden and cost estimates. Under the final rule, the average annual burden for EPA is estimated to be approximately 8,150 hours and the average annual cost will be $ 326,000.

6f Burden Statement 40 EPA estimates that the total average annual public burden for this information collection request would be 1.89 million hours, including 0.25 million hours for State respondents and 1.64 million hours for all CAFO respondents covered by this ICR. This estimate includes the time required to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain all necessary data, and complete and review the information collection. The annual average estimate of 11,941 respondents includes 29 States and 11,912 CAFO respondents. The annual average number of responses is 100,879, which includes 16,946 State responses and 83,932 CAFO responses. Average annual capital costs are $ 2.9 million and O& M costs are $ 5.0 million.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 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 the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose 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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 C. F. R. Part 9 and 48 C. F. R. Chapter 15.

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, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17 th Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number ( 1989.02) and OMB control number in any correspondence. 41 This page left intentionally blank. 42 References Allen, P. 1999 ( May 19). Personal Communication. Environmental Program Manager, Maryland Department of Environment, Water Management Administration. ( 310) 631 3323.

Bazzell, D. 2001. Public Comment Submitted in Response to EPA's CAFO Rule. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Doc# CAFO201450.

Bureau of Labor. 2002a. Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers. www. bls. gov.

. 2002b. Employer Cost for Employee Compensation. www. bls. gov. ( Series Id. CCU310000290000D, Total compensation, Public Administration, State and local government)

. 2002c. Employment Cost Index. www. bls. gov. ( Series Id: ECU20003A, Wages and salaries, State and local government)

. 2001. 2000 National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. www. bls. gov. ( SIC 902  State Government)

Coats, A. 2002. EPA Region 2. Personal communication. July 24, 2002.

Domingo, D. 2002. EPA Region 10. Personal communication. July 24, 2002.

Government Pay Tables, 2001. http:// www. seemyad. com/ gov/ USAPAY. htm Hammerberg, E. 2002. Maryland Department of the Environment. Personal Communication. March 8, 2002. ( 410) 631 3345.

Harsch, J. 2002. Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Personal communication. July 31, 2002.

Jones, C.; Speck, S.; Daily, F. 2001. Public Comment Submitted in Response to EPA's CAFO Rule. Ohio Department of Agriculture; Ohio Department of Natural Resources; Ohio EPA. Doc# CAFO201851.

KauzLoric, P. 1999. Personal Communication. Dairy Program Coordinator, Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, Olympia, WA. May 11, 1999. ( 360) 407 6413.

Kirkpatrick, B. 2002. Personal Communication. Arkansas Dept of Environmental Quality. April 2, 2002. ( 501) 682 0655.

Muldener, K. 2001. Public Comment Submitted in Response to EPA's CAFO Rule. Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Doc# CAFO202366. 43 Pirner, S. 2001. Public Comment Submitted in Response to EPA's CAFO Rule. South Dakota Departments of Environment and Natural Resources and Department of Agriculture. Doc# CAFO201739. Sylvester, S. 2002. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication. August 1, 2002.

Tilley, M., and Kirkpatrick B. 2002 ( March 12). Personal Communication. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. ( 501) 682 0655.

U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA). 2001. Normalized Market Clearing Price Estimates, National Level Indices ( Table 2).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA). 2000/ 2a. Cost Model Development Document for Beef and Dairy CAFOs.

         . 2000/ 2b. Cost Model Development Document for Swine and Poultry CAFOs.

         . 2000/ 2c. Development Document for the Proposed Regulatory Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Feedlot Effluent Limitations Guidelines.

         . 2001 ( March). State Compendium: Programs and Regulatory Activities Related to Animal Feeding Operations.

Office of Personnel Management ( OPM). 1999. Work Years and Personnel Costs: Fiscal Year 1998. OMSOE OWI 98 12 Washington, D. C.: U. S. Office of Personnel Management.

Van Soestbergen, J. 2002 ( March 11). Personal Communication. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

Willhite, M. 2001 ( July 30). Public Comment Submitted in Response to EPA's CAFO Rule. Illinois EPA. Doc# CAFO202080.

Wrenn, B. 2002 ( August 15). Personal Communication. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 44 Appendix 1. Legal Authority United States Code, Title 33 ( Navigation and Navigable Waters), Chapter 26 ( Water Pollution Prevention and Control), Subchapter III ( Standards and Enforcement)

Sec. 1311. Effluent limitations Sec. 1318. Records and reports; inspections United States Code, Title 33 ( Navigation and Navigable Waters), Chapter 26 ( Water Pollution Prevention and Control), Subchapter IV ( Permits and Licences)

Sec. 1341. Certification Sec. 1342. National pollutant discharge elimination system United States Code, Title 33 ( Navigation and Navigable Waters), Chapter 26 ( Water Pollution Prevention and Control), Subchapter V ( General Provisions)

Sec. 1362. Definitions Clean Water Act Section 308. Inspections, monitoring, and entry 45 45 United States Code Title 33 ( Navigation and Navigable Waters) Chapter 26 ( Water Pollution Prevention and Control) Subchapter III ( Standards and Enforcement)

Sec. 1311. Effluent limitations ( 5) ( a) Illegality of pollutant discharges except in compliance with law Except as in compliance with this section and sections 1312, 1316, 1317, 1328, 1342, and 1344 of this title, the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful.

( b) Timetable for achievement of objectives In order to carry out the objective of this chapter there shall be achieved  ( 1) ( A) not later than July 1, 1977, effluent limitations for point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, ( i) which shall require the application of the best practicable control technology currently available as defined by the Administrator pursuant to section 1314( b) of this title, or ( ii) in the case of a discharge into a publicly owned treatment works which meets the requirements of subparagraph ( B) of this paragraph, which shall require compliance with any applicable pretreatment requirements and any requirements under section 1317 of this title; and ( B) for publicly owned treatment works in existence on July 1, 1977, or approved pursuant to section 1283 of this title prior to June 30, 1974 ( for which construction must be completed within four years of approval), effluent limitations based upon secondary treatment as defined by the Administrator pursuant to section 1314( d)( 1) of this title; or, ( C) not later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent limitation, including those necessary to meet water quality standards, treatment standards, or schedules of compliance, established pursuant to any State law or regulations ( under authority preserved by section 1370 of this title) or any other Federal law or regulation, or required to implement any applicable water quality standard established pursuant to this chapter. ( 2) ( A) for pollutants identified in subparagraphs ( C), ( D), and ( F) of this paragraph, effluent limitations for categories and classes of point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, which ( i) shall require application of the best available technology economically achievable for such category or class, which will result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as determined in accordance with regulations issued by the 46 46 Administrator pursuant to section 1314( b)( 2) of this title, which such effluent limitations shall require the elimination of discharges of all pollutants if the Administrator finds, on the basis of information available to him ( including information developed pursuant to section 1325 of this title), that such elimination is technologically and economically achievable for a category or class of point sources as determined in accordance with regulations issued by the Administrator pursuant to section 1314( b)( 2) of this title, or ( ii) in the case of the introduction of a pollutant into a publicly owned treatment works which meets the requirements of subparagraph ( B) of this paragraph, shall require compliance with any applicable pretreatment requirements and any other requirement under section 1317 of this title; ( B) Repealed. Pub. L. 97 117, Sec. 21( b), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1632. ( C) with respect to all toxic pollutants referred to in table 1 of Committee Print Numbered 95 30 of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives compliance with effluent limitations in accordance with subparagraph ( A) of this paragraph as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are promulgated under section 1314( b) of this title, and in no case later than March 31, 1989; ( D) for all toxic pollutants listed under paragraph ( 1) of subsection ( a) of section 1317 of this title which are not referred to in subparagraph ( C) of this paragraph compliance with effluent limitations in accordance with subparagraph ( A) of this paragraph as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are promulgated under section 1314( b) of this title, and in no case later than March 31, 1989; ( E) as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are promulgated under section 1314( b) of this title, and in no case later than March 31, 1989, compliance with effluent limitations for categories and classes of point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, which in the case of pollutants identified pursuant to section 1314( a)( 4) of this title shall require application of the best conventional pollutant control technology as determined in accordance with regulations issued by the Administrator pursuant to section 1314( b)( 4) of this title; and ( F) for all pollutants ( other than those subject to subparagraphs ( C), ( D), or ( E) of this paragraph) compliance with effluent limitations in accordance with subparagraph ( A) of this paragraph as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than 3 years after the date such limitations are established, and in no case later than March 31, 1989. ( 3) ( A) for effluent limitations under paragraph ( 1)( A)( i) of this subsection promulgated after January 1, 1982, and requiring a level of control substantially greater or based on fundamentally different control technology than under permits for an industrial 47 47 category issued before such date, compliance as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are promulgated under section 1314( b) of this title, and in no case later than March 31, 1989; and ( B) for any effluent limitation in accordance with paragraph ( 1)( A)( i), ( 2)( A)( i), or ( 2)( E) of this subsection established only on the basis of section 1342( a)( 1) of this title in a permit issued after February 4, 1987, compliance as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are established, and in no case later than March 31, 1989.

( c) Modification of timetable The Administrator may modify the requirements of subsection ( b)( 2)( A) of this section with respect to any point source for which a permit application is filed after July 1, 1977, upon a showing by the owner or operator of such point source satisfactory to the Administrator that such modified requirements ( 1) will represent the maximum use of technology within the economic capability of the owner or operator; and ( 2) will result in reasonable further progress toward the elimination of the discharge of pollutants. ( d) Review and revision of effluent limitations Any effluent limitation required by paragraph ( 2) of subsection ( b) of this section shall be reviewed at least every five years and, if appropriate, revised pursuant to the procedure established under such paragraph.

( e) All point discharge source application of effluent limitations Effluent limitations established pursuant to this section or section 1312 of this title shall be applied to all point sources of discharge of pollutants in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

( f) Illegality of discharge of radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agents, high level radioactive waste, or medical waste Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter it shall be unlawful to discharge any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent, any high level radioactive waste, or any medical waste, into the navigable waters.

( g) Modifications for certain nonconventional pollutants ( 1) General authority The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State, may modify the requirements of subsection ( b)( 2)( A) of this section with respect to the discharge from any point source of ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols ( 4AAP) ( when determined by the Administrator to be a pollutant covered by subsection ( b)( 2)( F) of this section) and any other pollutant which the Administrator lists under paragraph ( 4) of this subsection. 48 48 ( 2) Requirements for granting modifications A modification under this subsection shall be granted only upon a showing by the owner or operator of a point source satisfactory to the Administrator that  ( A) such modified requirements will result at a minimum in compliance with the requirements of subsection ( b)( 1)( A) or ( C) of this section, whichever is applicable; ( B) such modified requirements will not result in any additional requirements on any other point or nonpoint source; and ( C) such modification will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of that water quality which shall assure protection of public water supplies, and the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities, in and on the water and such modification will not result in the discharge of pollutants in quantities which may reasonably be anticipated to pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment because of bioaccumulation, persistency in the environment, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity ( including carcinogenicity, mutagenicity or teratogenicity), or synergistic propensities. ( 3) Limitation on authority to apply for subsection ( c) modification If an owner or operator of a point source applies for a modification under this subsection with respect to the discharge of any pollutant, such owner or operator shall be eligible to apply for modification under subsection ( c) of this section with respect to such pollutant only during the same time period as he is eligible to apply for a modification under this subsection. ( 4) Procedures for listing additional pollutants ( A) General authority Upon petition of any person, the Administrator may add any pollutant to the list of pollutants for which modification under this section is authorized ( except for pollutants identified pursuant to section 1314( a)( 4) of this title, toxic pollutants subject to section 1317( a) of this title, and the thermal component of discharges) in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. ( B) Requirements for listing  ( i) Sufficient information The person petitioning for listing of an additional pollutant under this subsection shall submit to the Administrator sufficient information to make the determinations required by this subparagraph.  ( ii) Toxic criteria determination The Administrator shall determine whether or not the pollutant meets the criteria for listing as a toxic pollutant under section 1317( a) of this title.  ( iii) Listing as toxic pollutant 49 49 If the Administrator determines that the pollutant meets the criteria for listing as a toxic pollutant under section 1317( a) of this title, the Administrator shall list the pollutant as a toxic pollutant under section 1317( a) of this title.  ( iv) Nonconventional criteria determination If the Administrator determines that the pollutant does not meet the criteria for listing as a toxic pollutant under such section and determines that adequate test methods and sufficient data are available to make the determinations required by paragraph ( 2) of this subsection with respect to the pollutant, the Administrator shall add the pollutant to the list of pollutants specified in paragraph ( 1) of this subsection for which modifications are authorized under this subsection. ( C) Requirements for filing of petitions A petition for listing of a pollutant under this paragraph   ( i) must be filed not later than 270 days after the date of promulgation of an  ( ii) may be filed before promulgation of such guideline; and  ( iii) may be filed with an application for a modification under paragraph ( 1) with ( D) Deadline for approval of petition A decision to add a pollutant to the list of pollutants for which modifications under this subsection are authorized must be made within 270 days after the date of promulgation of an applicable effluent guideline under section 1314 of this title. ( E) Burden of proof The burden of proof for making the determinations under subparagraph ( B) shall be on the petitioner. ( 5) Removal of pollutants The Administrator may remove any pollutant from the list of pollutants for which modifications are authorized under this subsection if the Administrator determines that adequate test methods and sufficient data are no longer available for determining whether or not modifications may be granted with respect to such pollutant under paragraph ( 2) of this subsection.