1989ss06 _073108_

1989ss06 _073108_.pdf

NPDES Permit Regulations and Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Final Rule)

OMB: 2040-0250

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 2040-0250 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

**** DRAFT ****
Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request for
NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(Final Rule)

July 2008

EPA ICR NO. 1989.06

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20460

Prepared with support from:
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place
Fairfax, VA 22030
EPA Contract #EP-C-05-046
Tetra Tech Project # 18974-07

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION........................................... 2
1(a) Title of the Information Collection...................................................................................... 2
1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract .......................................................................................... 2
1(c) Relationship of NPDES CAFO Program ICRs ................................................................... 4
2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION.................................................................. 5
2(a) Need and Authority for the Collection ................................................................................ 5
2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data ...................................................................................... 5
3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ... 6
3(a) Nonduplication .................................................................................................................... 6
3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB................................................. 7
3(c) Consultations ....................................................................................................................... 7
3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection .................................................................................... 7
3(e) General Guidelines .............................................................................................................. 7
3(f) Confidentiality ..................................................................................................................... 8
3(g) Sensitive Questions ............................................................................................................. 8
4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED.................................... 8
4(a) Respondents/SIC Codes ...................................................................................................... 8
4 (b) Information Requested ..................................................................................................... 13
5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED—AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT .................................................. 17
5(a) Agency Activities .............................................................................................................. 17
5(b) Collection Methodology and Management ....................................................................... 17
5(c) Small Entity Flexibility ..................................................................................................... 17
5(d) Collection Schedule........................................................................................................... 18
6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION .............................. 19
6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden ......................................................................................... 19
6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs............................................................................................ 23
6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost ................................................................................ 25
6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs................................... 25
6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables................................................................... 28
6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden .......................................................................................... 32
6(g) Burden Statement .............................................................................................................. 32
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 35
APPENDIX................................................................................................................................... 36

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4–1. CAFO Standard Industrial Classification codes and size thresholds........................... 9
Table 4–2. CAFO universe and discharging CAFOs................................................................... 12
Table 4–3. Discharging CAFOs that land apply and CAFOs that will use the narrative rate
approach .................................................................................................................... 12
Table 5–1. SBA and EPA Small Business thresholds for animal sectors.................................... 18
Table 6–1. Burden for NMP-related activities for CAFOs and frequency of response............... 20
Table 6–2. Burden for certification for CAFOs and frequency of response................................ 20
Table 6–3. Burden for annual reporting for CAFOs and frequency of response......................... 21
Table 6–4. Burden for NMP-related activities for States and frequency of response ................. 22
Table 6–5. Burden for voluntary certification for States and frequency of response .................. 23
Table 6–6. Wage rates used to value CAFO-related burdens ...................................................... 24
Table 6–7. Annual average respondent burden and cost – CAFOs ............................................. 26
Table 6–8. Annual average respondent burden and cost – States................................................ 26
Table 6–9. Annual average respondent burden and cost – CAFOs and States............................ 27
Table 6–10. Annual average Federal government burden and cost............................................. 27
Table 6–11. CAFO burden and cost increase from new provisions ............................................ 28
Table 6–12. State burden and cost increase from new provisions ............................................... 29
Table 6–13. Agency burden and cost increase from new provisions .......................................... 29
Table 6–14. CAFO burden and cost reductions summary........................................................... 30
Table 6–15. State burden and cost reduction summary ............................................................... 30
Table 6–16. Agency burden and cost reduction summary........................................................... 31
Table 6–17. Hour and burden increase for all respondents from new provisions ....................... 33
Table 6–18. Net hour and burden change for all respondents ..................................................... 33
Table 6–19. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Analysis ............................................................. 33

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
1(a) Title of the Information Collection
ICR: NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(Final Rule)
EPA ICR: 1989.06
OMB Control Number: 2040-0250
1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract
On February 12, 2003, EPA promulgated a final rule that revised and updated regulations for the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Effluent Limitations Guideline
(ELG) requirements for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) (68 FR 7176).
Subsequently, on February 28, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
vacated certain provisions of the 2003 regulations and remanded others to EPA in its ruling in
the Waterkeeper court case (Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 [2nd Cir. 2005]).
In response to the decision of the Second Circuit Court, referred to in this ICR as the
Waterkeeper decision, EPA is revising the original 2003 CAFO regulations. The final rule that
revises the 2003 CAFO regulations is based on proposed regulations published June 30, 2006 (71
FR 37,744), a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) published on March 7,
2008 (72 FR 12,321), and on comments received relating to the proposals. This ICR estimates
the information collection burden effects associated specifically with the revisions to the CAFO
rules in response to the Waterkeeper decision.
The 2003 CAFO rule was accompanied by ICR No. 1989.02. That ICR was renewed by EPA as
ICR No. 1989.04 on November 1, 2006. The 2006 proposed rule was accompanied by a draft
ICR, ICR No. 1989.03, and the SNPRM was accompanied by draft ICR No. 1989.05.
During the public comment periods for the 2006 proposed rule and 2008 SNPRM, EPA received
a limited number of comments on the impacts analysis presented with the proposed rules. For the
2006 proposed rule, commenters stated that the Agency should recognize that operators without
permits will continue to incur costs under the regulation in order to meet the burden of proof
required to qualify for the agricultural stormwater exemption. In response to these commenters,
EPA revised the burden analysis as presented in this ICR to reflect more fully that the absence of
a permit does not excuse a facility from needing to implement nutrient management practices. As
a consequence, the burden for CAFOs in this ICR includes $12.2 million annually that was not
included in the earlier ICR. EPA received very limited comment on the impacts analysis
presented with the SNPRM.
As stated above, this ICR provides an estimate of the information collection hour and cost
burden impacts associated specifically with the final revisions to the 2003 CAFO regulations

resulting from the Waterkeeper decision in 2005. In particular, this ICR includes the burden and
cost changes expected to result from the court’s mandate to EPA to:
•
•

Remove the unilateral Duty to Apply for permits for all CAFOs.
Add requirements for Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs) to be submitted with permit
applications, reviewed by permit authorities and the public, and incorporated into permits.

The ICR also presents the burden impacts from the new voluntary option for CAFOs to certify
that their facility does not discharge.
The burden assessment is calculated using a baseline of the information collection burden
imposed under the 2003 CAFO rule, as modified and recalculated to reflect an updated industry
universe for 2008. See Section 1(c) for further discussion.
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). CAFOs are classified as point sources and, thus, may be subject to permit requirements at
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 122 and the feedlot ELG requirements at 40 CFR
412. NPDES permit requirements typically include permit applications, recordkeeping,
reporting, and other information collection activities.
Section 402(b) provides that States (including U.S. Territories and Indian Tribes) may be
authorized to administer NPDES programs once the Agency is assured that a State program
meets minimum Federal requirements. As of the date this ICR was completed, 45 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. Of these, 44 are
responsible for issuing NPDES permits to CAFOs (called “authorized States” hereafter).1 EPA
and authorized State permitting authorities typically receive, review, manage, and report
information collected under the NPDES permitting program, including CAFO permits.
Information collected by the NPDES Program Director (of either an authorized State or EPA)
about facilities and operating procedures is used to develop permit conditions and to document
that a permittee is in compliance with permit requirements. Information is collected using permit
application forms and annual reports and through compliance evaluation inspections. Permitting
authorities enter data into the Permit Compliance System (PCS) or the NPDES Integrated
Compliance Information System NPDES-ICIS), the Agency's old and modernized NPDES
program databases, respectively.
The Agency estimates total labor burden to all respondents (both CAFOs and States) at nearly 3
million labor hours annually to meet all the information collection burden requirements under the
1

EPA retains authority for NPDES discharge permits for agricultural facilities in Oklahoma; thus, only 44 States
are authorized to issue permits to CAFOs. EPA is not aware of any CAFOs in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
3

revised, final NPDES CAFO regulations. EPA estimates that the changes to the burden for
information collection specifically resulting from the revisions is an annual average net decrease
of 25,514 hours for the respondents, including a decrease of 54,084 hours annually for CAFO
respondents and an increase of 28,570 hours annually for State respondents. The total operation
and maintenance (O&M) cost decrease as a result of the revisions is estimated at $488,432
annually, all of it from reduced burden to State respondents due to a reduced number of public
notices for individual and general permit applications and public hearings. This decrease in
O&M cost compares to an estimated total capital and O&M costs under the CAFO regulations as
a whole of nearly $7.8 million annually. No change in capital costs is anticipated from this
action.2
For costing purposes, the analysis assumes that all CAFOs either apply for a permit or submit the
voluntary “no discharge” certification, and that the facilities that do apply for permits are those
facilities in animal sectors with operational and design characteristics historically associated with
discharges. Because the certification option is voluntary and EPA did not have information to
determine how many “no discharge” CAFOs might seek this alternative, the Agency elected to
assume that all “nondischargers” apply for certification. The Agency believes this is a
conservative burden estimate for the ICR. Accordingly, the ICR estimates that by the end of the
2010, as many as 16,299 CAFOs out of a total 22,129 CAFOs may need permit coverage due to
discharges. The CAFOs that are presumed to seek certification are the portion of the CAFO
universe assumed not to discharge—a total of 5,830 facilities by the end of 2010. How these
figures are derived is explained in Section 4.
These estimates include the time required to review instructions, search existing data sources,
gather and maintain all necessary data, and complete and review the information collected.
1(c) Relationship of NPDES CAFO Program ICRs
The 2003 CAFO rule ICR covered the information collection burden imposed under the 2003
rule for the period from June 2003 to June 2006 (ICR No. 1989.02). EPA renewed that ICR in
2006 to address the paperwork collection burden from implementation of the CAFO program
through 2009 (ICR No. 1989.04). The scope of this current ICR (ICR No. 1989.06) is limited to
the changes in information collection burden that will be imposed under the revised NPDES
CAFO regulations as a result of the February 2005 Waterkeeper decision.
The analysis of net burden estimates presented in this ICR controls for an adjusted calculation of
baseline impacts. EPA made this adjustment to reflect improved projections of industry size for
the modeling period used in this ICR compared to the industry projections available at the time
of the 2006 ICR renewal.

Calculations for this ICR were performed using linked MS Excel spreadsheets; therefore, calculations mentioned
in the text may not match exactly due to individual rounding.
4

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION
2(a) Need and 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.). CAFOs are defined as point sources for
purposes of the NPDES program (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1362). Under 33 U.S.C. Section 1311 and
Section 1342, a discharging CAFO must obtain an NPDES permit and comply with the terms of
that permit, which may include appropriate conditions on data and information collection.
Furthermore, 33 U.S.C. Section 1318 provides authority for information collection (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, monitoring, sampling, and other information as needed), which applies
to point sources.
EPA and authorized States need the information generated by the regulatory revisions that
pertain to CAFOs to respond to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Waterkeeper
Alliance v. EPA and to implement CWA requirements effectively. This rule revises the final
2003 CAFO rule, which updated EPA’s original Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) (40
CFR Part 412) and NPDES (40 CFR Part 122) regulations for CAFOs promulgated in the mid1970s.
Permit authorities incur the changes in information collection burden as part of ensuring that
their NPDES programs implement the final rule. Under 40 CFR Part 123, State NPDES
programs must, at all times, be in compliance with Federal regulations.
2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data
EPA and authorized State permitting authorities use the information routinely collected through
NPDES applications and compliance evaluations in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

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

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER
COLLECTION CRITERIA
3(a) Nonduplication
The information collection pursuant to the regulatory changes is site-specific and therefore not
available from existing sources of information.
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., United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], United States
Geological Survey [USGS], Food and Drug Administration [FDA], National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]) and
States. To support development of the USDA/EPA Unified National Strategy for animal feeding
operations (AFOs) and the 2003 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 addressed under the CAFO
regulations. In addition, EPA used publicly available information to a significant extent.
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:
•
•

EPA’s Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information SystemNPDES (ICIS-NPDES); and
USDA Census of Agriculture.

EPA’s PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases are used to store information about facilities that hold
NPDES permits. They help EPA monitor the compliance status of permitted facilities. PCS and
ICIS-NPDES hold only data items associated with existing NPDES permits, applications,
inspections, and enforcement actions and focus on discharge requirements. This information
collection is not duplicative of data already in PCS and ICIS-NPDES.
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 5 years. Census of Agriculture data are subject to
restrictions with regard to what type of data may be released, when, and to whom. Generally,
6

facility-level data may not be released. Therefore, the information in the Census of Agriculture
database cannot fulfill EPA’s data needs for purposes of administering the NPDES program, and
this information collection is not duplicative of the data available from NASS.
3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB
A summary of the ICR analysis will be published in the rule notice in the Federal Register. The
notice will summarize comments on the content and impact of the rule received in response to
the impacts analysis presented with the 2006 proposed rule and 2008 SNPRM, and EPA’s
responses.
3(c) Consultations
The preamble to the 2003 CAFO regulation describes how EPA actively involved interested
parties in the development of the final 2003 rule (68 FR 7188). EPA has worked extensively with
EPA Regions and numerous States to develop the requirements and related burden/cost
assumptions described in this ICR.
EPA proactively communicated with key stakeholders to inform them of general plans for rule
revision and to seek input, where applicable. EPA received over 580 comment letters on the
2006 proposed rule and 107 on the SNPRM from CAFO industry, environmental, and State
regulatory stakeholders. EPA conducted six public outreach meetings across the country in
addition to nationally aired webcasts so stakeholders would be better prepared to comment on the
rule. EPA also made presentations on the proposals at a variety of national conferences and
meetings, including the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control’s CAFO
Roundtable attended by State regulators and at meetings requested specifically to discuss these
rule revisions by both industry and environmental group stakeholders.
EPA has also worked closely with USDA. The Agency held a series of staff-level work sessions
with counterparts at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) at USDA to ensure
technical rigor in the approach proposed for all aspects of the rule.
3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection
EPA has made every effort to establish NPDES permit and associated information collection
requirements that minimize the burden on respondents while promoting the protection of water
quality. NPDES permit applications are the primary form of information collection for regulated
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 5 years, thereby disallowing less frequent collection than anticipated by this
ICR.
3(e) General Guidelines
This information collection complies with Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines (5 CFR
1320.5(d)(2)).
7

3(f) Confidentiality
Under the rule, permitted CAFOs must submit an NMP and keep a record on-site (or readily
available). These plans can contain confidential business information (CBI). 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 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2 (40 CFR 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 CBI
and potential delays in processing of applications for individual permits and Notice of Intents
(NOIs) for general permits.
3(g) Sensitive Questions
This ICR does not ask AFO or CAFO operators sensitive questions concerning private matters
(e.g., religious beliefs).

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
This analysis estimates the 3-year information collection burden based on the universe of
respondents projected to exist for the period spanning January 2008 through December 2010.
Although some of the compliance dates for the new requirements occur in 2009, certain
facilities will need to comply with the new requirements as soon as the final rule becomes
effective. For example, the July 2007 date change rule extended dates for newly defined CAFOs
to seek permit coverage out to February 27, 2009. However, the date change rule did not affect
the applicable date for seeking permit coverage for existing facilities defined as CAFOs prior to
the 2003 CAFO rule, nor does it apply to newly constructed CAFOs not subject to new source
performance standards (NSPS) or to new source CAFOs subject to NSPS that discharge or
propose to discharge. In addition, the Agency did not prepare growth projections for the industry
out to 2011 due to the uncertainties associated with animal agriculture growth arising from
market volatility. To allow the Agency to submit a calendar year-based information collection
request to OMB and to restrict uncertainties associated with out-year projections, the Agency has
based the ICR estimates on a modeling period spanning January 2008 to December 2010.
4(a) Respondents/SIC Codes
The two categories of respondents are the owners or operators of CAFOs and the 44 authorized
States that issue permits to CAFOs. Among CAFO respondents, those that discharge or propose
to discharge must apply for a permit, and facilities that do not discharge are all assumed to
submit “no discharge” certifications and continue to incur on-going costs of nutrient
management planning.
EPA categorizes CAFOs on the basis of the primary type of animal produced by the operation.
Table 4–1 lists the major categories along with their North American Industry Classification

System (NAICS) codes and the corresponding four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
codes. Note that some industry classification codes may overlap more than one of the categories
defined by EPA under the final regulations. For example, swine of any size have the same
NAICS or SIC codes.
Table 4–1 also provides the applicable animal thresholds. EPA uses these thresholds to
distinguish which AFOs are CAFOs. All Large AFOs are defined as CAFOs. An AFO in the
medium size category is defined as a CAFO if it meets one of two discharge criteria:
•
•

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

Table 4–1. CAFO Standard Industrial Classification codes and size thresholds
Size thresholds
NAICS code
(SIC code)
Animal type
Large
Medium
112111 (0212, 0241),
Beef cattle, heifers, calves or
> 1,000
300–1,000
veal calves for either slaughter
112112 (0211)
or replacement
112111, 112120 (0241)
Dairy cattle—mature dairy
> 700
200–700
cattle (whether milked or dry
cows) and heifer replacement
112210 (0213)
Swine—each weighing over 25
> 2,500
750–2,500
kilograms—or approximately
55 pounds
Immature swine—each
> 10,000
3,000–10,000
weighing less than 25
kilograms, or approximately 55
pounds
112310 (0252)
Chickens—laying hens, using
> 30,000
9,000–30,000
liquid manure handling system
112310 (0252)
Chickens—laying hens, if other > 82,000
25,000–82,000
than liquid manure handling
system
112320 (0251)
Chickens other than laying
> 125,000 37,500–125,000
hens—broilers, fryers and
roasters, if other than liquid
manure handling system*
112330 (0253)
Turkeys
> 55,000
16,500–55,000
112390 (0259)
Ducks, wet manure handling
> 5,000
1,500–5,000
Ducks, dry manure handling
> 40,000
12,000–40,000
112410 (0214)
Sheep or lambs
> 10,000
3,000-10,000
112920 (0272)
Horses
> 500
150-500

Small
< 300

< 200

< 750

< 3,000

< 9,000
< 25,000

< 37,500

< 16,500
< 1,500
< 12,000
< 3,000
< 150

NAICS code
(SIC code)

Animal type

Large

Size thresholds
Medium

Small

*Modeling of burden impacts in this ICR does not include an industry category for broilers, fryers or roaster operations with liquid
manure operations since operations in this animal sector are typically designed for dry manure handling.

An AFO in the smallest size category may become a CAFO through designation by the permit
authority if the facility is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the U.S. Any
designation must be preceded by an on-site inspection, and facilities designated as CAFOs must
meet the two discharge criteria noted above. A medium AFO that is not defined as a CAFO may
also be designated as a CAFO if it is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the U.S.
Under the 2003 CAFO rule, all CAFOs had a duty to apply for an NPDES permit3 either by
submitting an NOI to be covered by a general permit or by submitting an application for an
individual permit. This final rulemaking narrows this requirement such that only those CAFOs
that discharge or propose to discharge must apply for a permit 4 and establishes a voluntary
certification process for facilities that do not discharge or propose to discharge.
Table 4-2 shows the estimates of total numbers of CAFOs used in developing the respondent
universe for this ICR. In the interim period between when the 2003 CAFO rule ICR was
prepared and the development of this ICR, the animal agricultural industry has continued to
change. These changes have included further growth and consolidation, which has resulted in a
greater number of AFOs that meet the size threshold for being defined as a Large CAFO. The
projections also reflect more robust estimates from States and EPA regions on numbers of
CAFOs in each State. It is important to account for changes to the industry when comparing
burdens assessed in the various CAFO program ICRs. See Section 1(c) for further discussion.
In addition, the analysis of net burden estimates presented in this ICR controls for an adjusted
calculation of baseline impacts. EPA made this adjustment to reflect improved projections of
industry size for the modeling period used in this ICR compared to the industry projections
available at the time of the 2006 ICR renewal.
Table 4–2 shows EPA’s estimate of the number of CAFOs that have operational or design
characteristics historically associated with discharges. The information presented in Table 4–2
was generated by EPA staff using data from the 1997 and 2002 Census of Agriculture, NASS
bulletins, National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) species reports, 2003
Demographics Report, and industry data sources and comments. According to this information,
EPA estimates that as of 2008 as many as 15,281 CAFOs could be discharging to waters of the
U.S. These figures include both facilities defined as CAFOs that have discharges or proposed to
discharge, as well as facilities designated as CAFOs because they are significant contributors of
pollutants to waters of the U.S.
In order to project the universe of respondents experiencing cost impacts under the different
approaches for developing rates of application, EPA used as a starting point the number of
CAFOs that land apply manure, litter or process wastewater by animal type. The number of
3
4

CAFOs that received a “no potential to discharge” determination were not required to seek permit coverage.
This change took effect following the Second Circuit decision, but is being first codified under the 2008 final rule.
10

discharging CAFOs in each animal sector that land apply as shown in Table 4–3 is obtained by
multiplying the number of discharging CAFOs from Table 4–2 by the percentage of facilities
that land apply in each sector. For costing purposes, EPA assumed that one half of discharging
CAFOs that land apply would use the narrative rate approach which offers the most flexibility to
operators. The other half is assumed to use the linear approach. (See table 4–3.)
For purposes of costing burden impacts of certification, the ICR assumes that all facilities that do
not seek a permit (i.e., those facilities assumed to have no discharge) will seek certification. This
assumption does not represent a precise breakout of facilities because there are no information
sources that can help EPA determine which facilities will seek the “no discharge” certification.

Table 4–2. CAFO universe and discharging CAFOs
2008
CAFO
Category
Beef
Veal
Heifer
Dairy
Swine
Layers(wet)
Layers(dry)
Broilers
Turkeys
Ducks
Horses
Total

CAFO
Universe
2,640
17
366
2,725
8,705
508
1,103
3,556
674
43
348
20,685

2009

Discharging Non-permitted
CAFO
Discharging
CAFOs
facilities
Universe
CAFOs
2,365
275
2,796
2,505
13
4
17
13
315
51
383
330
2,725
0
2,845
2,845
7,012
1,693
8,869
7,143
508
0
498
498
414
689
1,113
416
1,333
2,223
3,731
1,396
253
421
706
264
34
9
43
34
309
39
362
321
15,281
5,404
21,363
15,765

2010
Nonpermitted
facilities
291
4
53
0
1,726
0
697
2,335
442
9
41
5,598

CAFO
Discharging
Universe
CAFOs
2,872
2,572
17
13
399
343
2,965
2,965
9,201
7,405
482
482
1,122
418
3,906
1,455
746
278
43
34
376
334
22,129
16,299

Nonpermitted
facilities
300
4
56
0
1,796
0
704
2,451
468
9
42
5,830

Note: Projections are based on NAHMS species reports, 2003 Demographics Report, and 2002 Census of Agriculture changes from 1997 Census. The
figures by sector include both large and medium CAFOs as well as other facilities designated as CAFOs due to discharges.

Table 4–3. Discharging CAFOs that land apply and CAFOs that will use the narrative rate approach
2008
2009
% Facilities
Discharging ½ of discharging Discharging
½ of discharging
CAFO
that use land
CAFOs that
CAFOs that land CAFOs that
CAFOs that land
a
application
Category
land apply
apply
land apply
apply
Beef
83%
1,963
982
2,079
1,040
Veal
100%
13
7
13
7
Heifer
100%
315
158
330
165
Dairy
78%
2,126
1,063
2,219
1,110
Swine
80%
5,610
2,805
5,714
2,857
Layers(wet)
47%
239
120
234
117
Layers(dry)
47%
195
98
196
98
Broilers
69%
920
460
963
482
Turkeys
61%
154
77
161
81
Ducks
100%
34
17
34
17
Horses
100%
309
155
321
161
Total
11,878
5,942
12,264
6,135
a.

Estimates from EPA ICR 1989.04

Discharging
CAFOs that
land apply
2,135
13
343
2,313
5,924
227
196
1,004
170
34
334
12,693

2010
½ of discharging
CAFOs that land
apply
1,068
7
172
1,157
2,962
114
98
502
85
17
167
6,349

4 (b) Information Requested
4(b)(i) Data Items, Including Record-keeping Requirements
CAFO Data Items
The following actions were not required under the 2003 rule and are new under the revised rule:
Submittal of Nutrient Management Plan (NMP). (40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x)) An NMP must be
submitted as part of an NPDES permit application. In addition, the submission of an NOI to
obtain coverage under a general permit must include an NMP. The 2003 CAFO rule required
facilities to develop an NMP and to maintain the NMP on-site and make it available to the permit
authority upon request. The 2003 rule did not require the NMP to be submitted to the permit
authority for review prior to permit coverage. The 2003 rule specifies the content of the NMP,
which has not changed under this rule.
Changes to an NMP. (40 CFR 122.42(e)(6)) When changes are made to an NMP, the CAFO
must provide a copy of the revised NMP to the Director. Certain changes need not be provided
where such changes are consistent with specified land application rates; however, a current copy
of the NMP must be maintained on site, or be readily available.
Annual Reporting. (122.42(e)(4)(viii)) The final rule includes new annual reporting requirements
for facilities regardless of the approach selected for converting rates of application into terms of
the NMP for the permit.
No Discharge Certification Option. (122.23(i)) The owner or operator of a CAFO that meets the
eligibility criteria in 122.23(i)(2) may certify to the Director that the CAFO does not discharge or
propose to discharge. As part of the certification, the owner or operator of a CAFO must
document, based on an objective assessment of the conditions at the CAFO, that the CAFO is
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in a manner such that the CAFO does not
discharge or propose to discharge. Documentation for the certification must demonstrate that:
•

The CAFO’s production area is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as
not to discharge or propose to discharge. The CAFO must maintain documentation on
site that demonstrates that:
o any open surface manure storage structures are designed, constructed,
operated, and maintained to achieve no discharge based on a technical
evaluation in accordance with the elements of the technical evaluation set
forth in 40 CFR 412.46(a)(1)(i)-(vii);
o any part of the CAFO’s production area that is not addressed by
122.23(i)(2)(i)(A) is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained such that
there can be no discharge of manure, litter, or process wastewater;
o the CAFO implements the additional measures set forth in 40 CFR 412.37(a)
and (b); and
13

•

The CAFO maintains on site and implements an up-to-date nutrient management plan
that addresses, at a minimum, the elements of section 122.42(e)(1)(i)-(ix) and 40 CFR
412.37(c), and that includes all land application areas under the control of the CAFO
where the CAFO will land-apply manure, litter, or process wastewater, and that
includes all operation and maintenance practices necessary to ensure that the CAFO
will not discharge or propose to discharge.

The final rule states under 122.23(i)(3) that the CAFO owner or operator who chooses to certify
must complete and submit to the Director a certification that includes, at a minimum, the
following information:
•
•
•
•
•

The legal name, address and phone number of the CAFO owner or operator;
The CAFO name and address, the county name and the latitude and longitude where
the CAFO is located;
A statement that describes the manner in which the CAFO satisfies the eligibility
requirements identified in 122.23(i)(2);
The certification statement as specified in 122.23(i)(3)(iv); and
Signatures in accordance with the signatory requirements of 40 CFR 122.22.
State Data Items

State NPDES Program Modification. Authorized State NPDES programs must comply with the
final Federal rule, and States may need to modify their existing State NPDES regulations in order
to achieve full compliance. Federal regulations specifying program revision are found in 40 CFR
123.62.
Submittal of NMP. (40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x)) Authorized States receive the NMPs as part of each
NPDES permit application or NOI to obtain coverage under an NPDES general permit.
Public Notice/Comment. (40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x) and 122.42(e)(5)) Authorized States must
provide notice and opportunity for comment on draft NMPs and NMP terms to be incorporated
into permits. (Existing NPDES regulations require notice and comment on draft NPDES
permits—see 40 CFR 124.10, and ICRs 0168.08, 0226.17, 1427.07, and 0029.08.)
Public Hearing. (40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x)) Authorized States must provide opportunity for a
public hearing when there is significant public interest in the NMP provisions of a draft NPDES
CAFO permit. (Existing NPDES regulations provide for the opportunity for a public hearing for
a draft NPDES permit—see 40 CFR 124.11, and ICRs 0168.08, 0226.17, 1427.07, and 0029.08.)
Changes to an NMP. (40 CFR 122.42(e)(6)) When changes are made to an NMP, the Director
must review the changes and determine whether changes to the terms of the NMP included in the
permit are required and whether such changes are substantial and a warrant a change to the
permit as well as public notice.

No Discharge Certification Option. (122.23(i)) In order to certify that a CAFO does not
discharge or propose to discharge, the CAFO owner or operator must complete and submit to the
Director a certification. Directors must then log and file each certification/recertification.
4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities
CAFO Activities
Submittal of NMP. (40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x) and 122.28(b)(2)(vii) and (h)) All CAFOs that
discharge or propose to discharge must submit an NMP as part their NPDES permit application.
In addition, NOIs submitted to obtain coverage under an NPDES general permit must include an
NMP. For purposes of comparison, the 2003 CAFO rule required that facilities develop and
implement an NMP so this is not a new requirement. The NMP also had to be maintained on-site
and made available to the permit authority upon request.
Changes to an NMP. (40 CFR 122.42(e)(6)) When changes are made to an NMP, the CAFO
must provide a copy of the revised NMP to the Director. Certain changes need not be provided
where such changes are consistent with specified land application rates; however, a current copy
of the NMP must be maintained on site. EPA estimates for purposes of the analysis that the
availability of the narrative rate approach will translate into a 50 percent reduction in permit
modifications that need to be submitted to the permit authorities as a consequence reducing
changes to the NMPs that would lead to substantial permit modifications.
No Discharge Certification Option. (122.23(i)) If an owner or operator wishes to certify that a
CAFO does not discharge or propose to discharge, they must document, based on an objective
assessment of the conditions at the CAFO, that the CAFO is designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained in a manner such that the CAFO does not discharge or propose to discharge.
Additional activities would include:
(i) The CAFO’s production area must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so
as not to discharge or propose to discharge. The CAFO must maintain documentation on site
or be made readily available: EPA estimates that this activity will require a simple
engineering analysis consisting of a description of a non-discharging facility.
(ii) The CAFO develops and implements an up-to-date nutrient management plan that
addresses, at a minimum, the elements of section 122.42(e)(1)(i)-(ix) and that includes all
land application areas where the CAFO will land-apply manure.
(iii) The CAFO implements operation and maintenance practices necessary to satisfy the
requirements of paragraphs122.23(h)(2)(i)-(ii) for the CAFO production area and land
application areas. There are no added costs to CAFOs—this is presumed to be part of
standard business operations.
As part of certifying that a CAFO does not discharge or propose to discharge, the CAFO owner
or operator must complete and submit the certification to the permit authority.

Annual Reporting. (122.42(e)(4)(viii)) The final rule includes additional annual reporting
requirements for all approaches for incorporating terms of the NMP into the permit. For this
ICR, the burden for annual reporting for permitted CAFOs was increased by one hour to two
hours per CAFO from the 2003 final rule estimates (only the additional one hour is included in
this ICR).

State Activities
State NPDES Program Modification. 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
and submit a request for program modification to EPA.
Review of NMP. (40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x) and 122.42(e)(5)) Authorized States must review the
NMP, as part of the permit application or NOI, for compliance with applicable NPDES CAFO
regulations. In addition, authorized States must determine the terms of the NMP that are to be
incorporated into the permit. (Existing regulations require the review of application information,
the use of application information in developing permit requirements, and the drafting of permit
conditions on the basis for the permit record. See, 40 CFR sections 124.3, 124.6 and 124.9, as
well as 123.25. Also see ICRs 0168.08, 0226.17, 1427.07, and 0029.08.)
Public Notice/Comment. (40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x) and 122.42(e)(5)) Authorized States must
provide public notice and an opportunity for comment on the NMP and the NMP terms for the
permit. (Existing NPDES regulations require notice and comment on draft NPDES permits—see
40 CFR 124.10, and ICRs 0168.08, 0226.17, 1427.07, and 0029.08). All significant public
comments must be addressed by the permitting authority.
Public Hearing. (40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x)) Authorized States must conduct a public hearing when
there is significant public interest in the NMP provisions of a draft NPDES CAFO permit. (See
existing 40 CFR 124.11 through 13).
Changes to an NMP. (40 CFR 122.42(e)(6)) When changes are made to an NMP, the Director
must review the changes and determine whether changes to the terms of the NMP are required
and whether such changes are substantial. EPA believes that the new narrative rate approach
introduced in the final rule will translate into a 50 percent reduction in permit modifications that
need to be processed by permit authorities as a consequence of allowing operators to make
changes to the rates of application in the NMP without needing to process these changes as
substantial modifications. This reduction in modification will also reduce the State burden to
respond to public comments.
No Discharge Certification Option. 122.23(i) In order to certify that a CAFO does not discharge
or propose to discharge, the CAFO owner or operator must complete and submit to the Director a
no discharge certification. Directors must log and file each certification/recertification.
Annual Reporting. (122.42(e)(4)(viii)) The final rule would not impose additional requirements
to States.
16

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED—AGENCY ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(a) Agency Activities
EPA has permitting responsibilities in the six States where it is the permitting authority for
CAFOs. In those States, the Agency’s permitting activities would be similar to the activities
described for authorized States (see section 4(b) of this document). These activities are not
included in the burden and cost estimates for this ICR in accordance with the 2005 EPA ICR
Handbook.
The original CAFO NPDES ICR (OMB NO: 2040–0250, EPA ICR: 1989.02) accounted for the
EPA burden to evaluate the requests for program modifications submitted by authorized States to
implement the final rule. Under OMB and EPA ICR guidance, EPA burden is not included as
part of respondent burden.
5(b) 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 PCS or ICIS-NPDES database. The PCS database is a
national database that contains information on permit issuance, permit limits and monitoring, and
other facility information. However, PCS does not include some of the data elements necessary
for CAFO facilities. It is being replaced by a modernized system, ICIS-NPDES, which does
include all of the CAFO-specific data elements. Appropriate information provided on permit
application forms or NOI forms will be entered into PCS (or ICIS-NPDES) or an NOI database.
5(c) Small Entity Flexibility
The current NPDES program distinguishes small CAFOs on the basis of the number or
concentration of animals and their environmental impact. Small, Medium, and Large operations
are defined in Table 4–1.
Whereas EPA establishes thresholds on the basis of the number of animals, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) uses revenue-based thresholds to distinguish small agricultural operations
from larger operations. Consequently, EPA developed a model to convert the SBA’s revenue
thresholds to the number of animals by sector. EPA used the SBA’s revenue-based definitions
(except for laying hens) and data from USDA and the industry for this effort. 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
Animal sector
SBA threshold Corresponding SBA
CAFO Size
NAICS code
animal threshold
Threshold
(SIC code)
(revenue in
a
millions)
(number of animals) (number of animals)
112112 (0211)
Beef cattle feedlots
$1.5
1,400
Large > 1,000
b
112111,
Dairy farms and dairy heifer
$0.75
300
Large > 700
112120 (0241) replacement production
Medium > 200
c
112210 (0213)
Hogs
$0.75
2,100
Large > 2,500
Medium > 750
d
112310 (0252)
Chicken eggs
$1.5
61,000
Large > 30,000
112320 (0251)
Broiler, fryer, roaster
$0.75
375,000
Large > 125,000
chickens
112330 (0253) Turkeys and turkey eggs
$0.75
37,500
Large > 55,000
a. SBA thresholds effective February 22, 2002. Classification is met if the operation has revenue equal to or less than
the threshold cited.
b. Mature dairy cattle.
c. Each weighing over 25 kilograms.
d. 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.

As in the 2003 CAFO rule, EPA’s premise continues to be that any regulatory burden should
focus on those operations posing the greatest risk to water quality and public health—especially
operations with large numbers of animals. As section 6 shows, this rule would result in a net
reduction in burden on CAFO respondents, including small entities, due to the reduced number
of operations that would be required to obtain a permit. In addition, new estimates of burden on
small entities described below are relatively small. The rule does not alter the fact that the CAFO
ELG requirements apply to Large CAFOs, and that permitting authorities, which are mainly
State agencies, will establish technology-based requirements for small and medium CAFOs on
the basis of best professional judgment (BPJ).
5(d) Collection Schedule
This ICR, when final, will cover the initial 3-year period following promulgation of the final
rule. For this ICR, annual burden estimates are based on universe of respondents estimated to
exist in the 3-year period spanning January 2008 through December 2010.
Under the rule to address the Second Circuit Court decision, an NMP must be submitted as part
of the permit application or NOI submission for coverage under a general permit. This ICR
assumes that one-fifth of existing permitted CAFOs would renew their permits in each year
covered by the ICR (based on the 5-year NPDES permit term). In addition, a specific number of
new and designated CAFOs were assumed to seek permits in each of these years.
Before EPA considered the narrative rate approach presented in the final rule, it estimated that 11
percent of permitted facilities would need permit modifications each year due to substantial
changes to their NMPs. For the 2006 proposed rule ICR, EPA assumed that each year one
percent of NMPs would change enough to trigger a substantial modification of the permit. Based
on subsequent consultations with USDA, EPA revised this projection upwards to 11 percent.
18

(This estimate was based on USDA estimates that such modifications would take place once per
permit cycle for 45 percent of facilities, and twice for between 0 and 10 percent of facilities.)
EPA estimates for purposes of the analysis that CAFOs choosing the narrative approach (one
half of discharging CAFOs that land apply) to express rates of application will experience a 50
percent reduction in permit modifications. This is because the narrative approach results in
fewer changes to the NMPs that would later necessitate substantial permit modifications.
Note: This is a significant increase in the frequency the Agency uses for significant modifications
in other industries, which is typically 1 percent of permits. This is because of the dynamic nature
of NMPs and the resulting need for more frequent changes to the portions of permits relating to
NMPs.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION
The summaries below provide brief descriptions of CAFO and State activities, and Tables 6–6
through 6–8 summarize the results.
Exhibits A through F in the Appendix provide additional information regarding the burden and
cost assumptions. Because none of the technical requirements were affected by the court’s
decision, no separate Economic Analysis was conducted to support these requirements.
Therefore, the impacts in this ICR are only associated with reporting and review burden by the
industry and authorized States in response specifically to the Waterkeeper decision.
6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden
CAFO Burden
Table 6–1 specifies the burden hours per response for each new activity required of CAFOs
under this rule. All other burdens associated with the 2003 CAFO rule are addressed in the
existing EPA ICR No.1989.04.
New activity under the final rule includes a requirement that all permitted CAFOs must submit
an NMP as part their NPDES permit application (40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x)). In addition, NOIs to
obtain coverage under an NPDES general permit must include an NMP. For purposes of
comparison, the 2003 CAFO rule already required that facilities that had to develop an NMP had
to maintain the NMP on-site and make it available to the permit authority upon request. EPA
estimates that new requirement for submittal of an NMP will require 0.5 hours every 5 years.
EPA also estimates that any permit modifications required by permitting authorities following
NMP review may necessitate changes to NMPs that will result in an added burden to CAFOs of
11.5 hours per response. To determine the added burden to CAFOs for NMP modifications as
directed by permit authorities, EPA estimates that the burden to modify and update an NMP
would be 20 percent of the original NMP development burden. EPA calculated average plan
development burden for an average discharging CAFO using the same burden estimate for NMP
development as in the active CAFO NPDES ICR (OMB No: 2040–0250, EPA ICR: 1989.04).

The result is an average plan development burden of approximately 57.7 hours. Because NMPs
are still required, the amount of time required to prepare them is not revisited in this ICR.
In addition, when a permitted CAFO changes its NMP, the CAFO must provide a copy of the
current (i.e., changed) NMP to the Director (certain changes need not be provided where such
changes are consistent with specified land application rates). For purposes of this ICR, EPA’s
burden estimate for submitting any revised plans is 30 minutes.
Table 6–1. Burden for NMP-related activities for CAFOs and frequency of response
Activities
Hours per
Frequency of
response
response
Nutrient Management Plan
Submit Nutrient Management Plan
0.5
every 5 years
a,b
Modify Nutrient Management Plan
11.5
every year
Submit NMP updates and modifications
0.5
every year
a.

EPA assumed that every year, 11 percent of NMPs would require substantial changes as a result of permit
modifications, except for CAFOs using the narrative approach to express rates of application which will
experience a 50 percent reduction in permit modifications that need to be submitted to the permit authorities .
See Section 5(d).
The burden estimate is 20 percent of the burden to develop an NMP. See active CAFOS NPDES ICR (OMB NO:
2040-0250, EPA ICR: 1989.04).

Under the rule to address the Second Circuit Court decision, the original provision in the 2003
CAFO rule that required that all CAFOs had a duty to apply for an NPDES permit, either by
submitting an NOI to be covered by a general permit, or by submitting an application for an
individual permit was narrowed, such that only those CAFOs that discharge or propose to
discharge must apply for a permit.
For the purposes of this analysis, CAFOs that do not have a duty to apply for an NPDES permit
will incur certain costs as part of qualifying for the agricultural stormwater exemption. These
costs are carried forward for nonpermitted facilities as a subset of the original costs accounted
for in the 2003 rule ICR and include start up costs, costs to develop, update, and document
nutrient management planning, costs to perform activities related to inspection and sampling
(costed as the same burden as costs for permitted facilities), and capital and O&M costs. (The
capital and O&M cost that non-permitted facilities would have incurred under the 2003 rule are
equivalent to the capital and O&M costs incurred in the qualification for an agricultural
stormwater exemption.)
For purposes of calculating the burden and cost of voluntary certification, EPA assumed that
facilities choosing to certify will do so within the first two years of this option being available.
The assumptions for estimating the burden for the additional activities required for the
certification are presented in Table 6–2. (For additional tables see Exhibit B in the Appendix.)
Table 6–2. Burden for certification for CAFOs and frequency of response
Hours per
Response
CAFO Activities
Eligibility Criteria
Preparing the paperwork for the certification documentation
2.0
20

Frequency of
Response
every

years

Engineering analysis
Submission to the Director

4.0
0.5

every
every

5
5

years
years

For this ICR, the burden for annual reporting for permitted CAFOs as shown in Table 6-3 was
increased by one hour from one hour in the 2003 final rule estimates. This change is warranted
due to the increase in burden as a result of the additional annual reporting requirements in the
final rule.
Table 6–3. Burden for annual reporting for CAFOs and frequency of response
Hours per
Response
CAFO Activities
Prepare annual report (additional burden)
1.0

Frequency of
Response
Every year

State Burden
States will realize a reduction in burden due to the reduction in number of CAFOs needing
permits. However, States will experience an increase in burden due to additional efforts to
process NMPs for those CAFOs that do receive NPDES permits and to log and file no-discharge
certifications. Additionally, authorized States will need to modify their NPDES programs to
incorporate the new requirements contained in the final rule. Rule modification is a one-time
activity. Following rule modification, the authorized States will need to request EPA approval
for the modifications made to their NPDES programs in response to the final rule.
In particular, under the rule to address the Second Circuit Court decision, authorized States will
incur burden associated with reviewing NMPs, determining terms of the permit, and providing
public notice of the NMP portion of each permit or NOI, opportunity to comment and,
potentially, public hearings. All other categories of burden associated with the 2003 CAFO rule
are addressed in the existing EPA ICR No.1989.04. States will also incur burden to develop their
program modifications to reflect the final rule. Table 6–4 specifies the burden hours per response
for each permit authority under this rule.
Authorized States must review the NMP as part of the permit application or NOI to determine
compliance with applicable NPDES CAFO regulations. In addition, authorized States must
determine the terms of the NMP that are to be incorporated into the permit.
Authorized States must provide public notice and an opportunity for comment on the NMP and
the terms of the NMP included in a draft NPDES CAFO permit or NOI. In addition, authorized
States must conduct public hearings when warranted due to significant public interest. To
estimate the burden associated with general permits and NOIs as shown in Table 6-4, EPA has
assumed that 12 percent of the NOIs submitted would result in a public hearing related to the
general permit; and that the labor burden associated with the hearing, should one be called for,
would be 200 hours. The magnitude of the public hearing burden for the general permit is
assumed to be the same as the burden in the active ICR for public hearings for individual CAFO
NPDES permits (OMB No. 2040–0250, EPA ICR No. 1989.04). EPA has also assumed that for
individual permits, the inclusion of the NMP with the permit application would not lead to a
significant increase in public hearings. (Individual permits are already required to be public
21

noticed under existing NPDES requirements for individual permits; hence, the associated labor
burden was already accounted for in the active ICR for the CAFO NPDES program.)
Authorized States must review any subsequent changes to NMPs and determine whether changes
warrant a substantial modification to the permit. They also must provide an opportunity for
public comment when changes are substantial.
Table 6–4. Burden for NMP-related activities for States and frequency of response
Activities
Hours per
Frequency of
response
response
Program Modification
80.0
One time
a
State General NPDES Permit and NOI Activities
Review NMP (administrative) and determine NMP Terms
20.0
every 5 years
b
Public hearings resulting from NMPs submitted with NOIs
200.0
every 5 years
State Individual Permit Application Activities
Review NMP (administrative) and determine NMP Terms
20.0
every 5 years
c
State General NPDES Permit and NOI Activities Due to Significant NMP Modifications
Review and approve NOIs/recordkeeping
4.0
every year
Public hearings
40.0
every year
Review NMP (administrative) and determine NMP Terms
4.0
every year
Notify public, respond to comments
1.0
every year
c
State Individual Permit Application Activities Due to Significant NMP Modifications
Review and approve permits/recordkeeping
Public hearings
Review NMP (administrative) and determine NMP Terms
Notify public, respond to comments

20.0
40.0
4.0
1.0

every year
every year
every year
every year

a. Time for public notification and response to comments for NOIs was already accounted for in the active ICR
covering the CAFO NPDES program (OMB No. 2040–0250, EPA ICR No. 1989.04).
b. EPA has assumed that 12 percent of NOIs submitted would result in a public hearing. This assumption was carried
forward from the assumption in the active ICR for the labor burden associated with public hearings for CAFO NPDES
(OMB No. 2040–0250, EPA ICR No. 1989.04).
c. EPA assumed that every year, 11 percent of NMPs would require substantial changes as a result of permit
modifications, except for CAFOs using the narrative approach to express rates of application which will experience a
50 percent reduction in permit modifications that need to be submitted to the permit authorities . See Section 5(d).

For the active CAFOS NPDES ICR (OMB No. 2040–0250, EPA ICR No. 1989.04), EPA
assumed that 30 percent of CAFOs apply for an individual NPDES permit and 70 percent submit
an NOI for coverage under a general permit. This ICR retains this ratio.
Note that all other burden associated with the 2003 CAFO rule is addressed in the existing EPA
ICR No.1989.04. Table 6–4 specifies the burden hours per response under this rule. For the State
burden estimate, most of the assumptions regarding level of effort and frequency of response
were carried forward from the 2003 CAFO Rule CAFOS NPDES ICR (OMB No: 2040-0250,
EPA ICR: 1989.04). New assumptions for this ICR are:
•

For the 2003 rule ICR, EPA accounted for the fact that certain states exceeded 2003 CAFO
rule requirements with respect to NMP submissions. More specifically, EPA’s review of
22

•

State programs indicated that as many as 49 percent of CAFOs were already required to
submit their NMPs to the permit authority, and that 24 percent of CAFOs in authorized States
were already subject to comprehensive technical review of their NMP. Updated
communications from EPA Regional staff have made clear that an even greater number of
States already go beyond the 2003 rule requirements in that regard. As a consequence, EPA
is updating its costing assumptions to reflect that 72 percent of CAFOs are already required
to submit their NMPs to the permit authority and 42 percent of CAFOs in authorized States
are subject to comprehensive technical review of their NMPs (USEPA, April 2007). See
Exhibit H in the Appendix.
Nonauthorized States have 3.4 percent of CAFOs (Kellogg et al., 2000). This number is used
for purposes of estimating the number of CAFOs where EPA is the permitting authority.
Although this ICR only covers the regulatory authority related burden to authorized States,
EPA’s burden and costs are calculated and presented for informational purposes.

If a CAFO owner or operator wishes to certify that a CAFO does not discharge or propose to
discharge, they must complete and submit to the Director a no discharge certification. As shown
on Table 6–5, EPA estimates 30 minutes for States to log and file each certification. (For
additional tables see the Appendix.)
Table 6–5. Burden for voluntary certification for States and frequency of response
Hours per Frequency of
Response
Response
State Activities
Log and file each certification
0.5
Every 5 years

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs
This section describes how EPA derived the cost to respondents for each of the activities
described above. Costs for this ICR are presented in 2007 dollars to allow easy comparison to
other cost estimates developed for the 2006 proposed rule and subsequent calculations that
followed the proposed rule analysis.
6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs
CAFO Labor Costs
To obtain cost estimates at the CAFO level, EPA multiplied the burdens reported in Tables 6–1
to 6–3 by the appropriate labor rate in Table 6–6.

Table 6–6. Wage rates used to value CAFO-related burdens
Source
Labor category
Original rate
Farm Operator/Owner

$18.50/hr

Farm Laborer

$9.07/hr

Agronomist

$26.67

BLS: 45-1011 First-Line
Supervisors/Managers of
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry
Workers
BLS: 45-2093 Farmworkers,
Farm and Ranch Animals
BLS: BLS: 19-1013 Soil and
Plant Scientists

Conversion
2004 to 2007
1.5 benefits
multiplier
2004 to 2007
1.5 benefits
multiplier
2004 to 2007
1.5 benefits
multiplier

Hourly rate
($2007)
$30.24

$14.83

$43.60

Note: Original rates are from the May 2004 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. EPA adjusted the wage to 2007 dollars using the Employment Costs
Index for Private Workers values for the first quarter of 2004 (95.7) and the first quarter of 2007 (104.3) and a fringe
rate of 50 percent.

State Labor Costs
EPA used a wage rate of $40.38 to value State labor burden, which was based on the mean
hourly wage rate of $23.13 for Conservation Scientists (SOC 19-1031) from the May 2004
National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS 999200—
State Government (OES designation). EPA adjusted the wage to 2007 dollars using the
Employment Costs Index for State and Local workers values for the first quarter of 2004 (95.5)
and the first quarter of 2007 (104.2) and a fringe rate of 60 percent.
Agency Labor Costs
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 2007 General Schedule reported an
hourly rate of $26.98. Multiplying this rate by 1.6 to incorporate typical Federal benefits (OPM,
1999), EPA obtained a final hourly rate of $43.17. However, as stated earlier, these costs are not
included in the total burden estimate for the CAFO rule revisions.
6(b)(ii) Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance (O&M)Costs
CAFO Capital and O&M Costs
The rule to respond to the Second Circuit Court decision would not impose additional capital and
O&M costs on CAFOs.
State O&M Costs
The rule to respond to the Second Circuit Court decision would not impose additional O&M
costs on States. (Compared to the O&M burden under the 2003 rule, the 2008 final rule will
result in a net reduction in O&M burden to States due to the reduction in number of permits
processed.)

6(b)(iii) Capital Start-up vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
See 6(b)(ii), above.
6(b)(iv) Annualizing Capital Costs
See 6(b)(ii), above.
6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost
EPA has the same categories of burden as States for the six States where it is the NPDES
permitting authority for CAFOs. For unauthorized States, EPA will incur burden associated with
reviewing NMPs, providing public notice, opportunity to comment, and potential hearings. EPA
must also log and file no-discharge certifications.
6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs
Tables 6–7 to 6–9 presents the annual burden and costs for all CAFO operators and authorized
State regulatory authorities to address the Second Circuit Court decision. In Table 6–10 annual
Federal government cost and burden is presented. Detailed information used to populate these
tables in presented in the Appendix to this document.

Table 6–7. Annual average respondent burden and cost – CAFOs
Baseline
(2003 rule)
requirements
applied to
discharging
a
CAFOs

Baseline
(2003 rule)
All CAFOs
require
permit
Total Permitted CAFOs at the beginning
of the ICR period (2008)
Total Non-permitted CAFOs at the
beginning of the ICR period (2008)
Annual Number of Responses (See
Exhibit D)
Total Annual Hour Burden (hours)
Total Annual Capital/O&M Costs
Total Annual Labor Costs
Total Annual Costs

Burden
Increment
due to NMPrelated
activities

Burden
increment
due to
nutrient mgmt
planning at
nonpermitted
facilities

Burden
increment due
to voluntary
certification

Annual
Totals
Under Final
Rule

Net
Change—
Baseline to
Final Rule

20,685

15,281

-5,404

5,404

134,290
2,667,599
$6,211,515
$47,832,169
$54,043,684

97,702
1,964,538
$4,223,009
$35,801,930
$40,024,938

146,095
2,613,514
$6,211,515
$47,622,761
$53,834,277

11,805
-54,084
$0
($209,407)
($209,407)

19,560
33,114
$0
$1,217,011
$1,217,011

23,003
603,231
$1,988,507
$10,221,839
$12,210,346

5,830
12,632
$0
$381,982
$381,982

a. Refer to Exhibit G in the Appendix concerning net reductions from the Court’s decision to require NPDES permits only from dischargers.
Note: Totals may not match exactly due to individual rounding.

Table 6–8. Annual average respondent burden and cost – States

Annual Number of Responses (See
Exhibit D)
Total Annual Hour Burden (hours)
Total Annual Capital/O&M Costs
Total Annual Labor Costs
Total Annual Costs

Baseline
(2003 rule)
All CAFOs
require
permit

Baseline
(2003 rule)
requirements
applied to
discharging
a
CAFOs

34,031
356,518
$2,057,440
$14,396,213
$16,453,653

25,084
263,476
$1,569,009
$10,639,176
$12,208,185

Burden
Increment
due to NMPrelated
activities
6,427
120,673
$0
$4,872,791
$4,872,791

Burden
increment
due to
nutrient mgmt
planning at
nonpermitted
facilities

Burden
increment due
to voluntary
certification

Annual
Totals
Under Final
Rule

0
0
$0
$0
$0

1,877
939
$0
$37,897
$37,897

33,388
385,088
$1,569,009
$15,549,864
$17,118,872

Net
Change—
Baseline to
Final Rule
-642
28,570
($488,432)
$1,153,651
$665,220

Table 6–9. Annual average respondent burden and cost – CAFOs and States

Annual Number of Responses (See
Exhibit D)
Total Annual Hour Burden (hours)
Total Annual Capital/O&M Costs
Total Annual Labor Costs
Total Annual Costs

Baseline
(2003 rule)
All CAFOs
require
permit

Baseline
(2003 rule)
requirements
applied to
discharging
a
CAFOs

168,321
3,024,117
$8,268,955
$62,228,381
$70,497,337

122,786
2,228,014
$5,792,017
$46,441,106
$52,233,123

Burden
Increment
due to NMPrelated
activities
25,987
153,787
$0
$6,089,802
$6,089,802

Burden
increment
due to
nutrient mgmt
planning at
nonpermitted
facilities

Burden
increment due
to voluntary
certification

Annual
Totals
Under Final
Rule

23,003
603,231
$1,988,507
$10,221,839
$12,210,346

7,707
13,570
$0
$419,878
$419,878

179,483
2,998,603
$7,780,524
$63,172,625
$70,953,149

Net
Change—
Baseline to
Final Rule
11,162
-25,514
($488,432)
$944,244
$455,812

Table 6–10. Annual average Federal government burden and cost

Baseline
(2003 rule)
All CAFOs
require
permit
Annual Number of Responses (See
Exhibit D)
Total Annual Hour Burden (hours)
Total Annual Capital/O&M Costs
Total Annual Labor Costs
Total Annual Costs

1,203
12,931
$166,038
$558,217
$724,255

Baseline
(2003 rule)
requirements
applied to
discharging
a
CAFOs

Burden
Increment
due to NMPrelated
activities

887
9,549
$130,091
$412,231
$542,323

277
5,253
$0
$226,787
$226,787

Burden
increment
due to
nutrient mgmt
planning at
nonpermitted
facilities

Burden
increment due
to voluntary
certification

Annual
Totals
Under Final
Rule

0
0
$0
$0
$0

66
33
$0
$1,432
$1,432

1,230
14,836
$130,091
$640,450
$770,542

Net
Change—
Baseline to
Final Rule
27
1,905
($35,947)
$82,233
$46,286

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables
Table 6–11 presents a yearly cost increase breakdown and 3-year ICR period summary for
CAFOs subject to the new provisions in the final rule. There will be a total of 76,171 CAFO
responses over the 3-year period with an average of 25,390 CAFO responses for each year under
this ICR (See Exhibit D in the Appendix for details).5 Total CAFO respondent costs over the 3year period will be $4,796,978 with an average annual total cost for all CAFO respondents of
$1,598,993.
CAFO respondents for each year represent the facilities that will incur additional information
collection activities as a result of the new provisions. These are either new facilities or facilities
due to renew their permits, or facilities that amend their NMPs. Although the ICR final burden
totals do account for the costs to nonpermitted facilities of performing the nutrient management
planning necessary to qualify for the agricultural stormwater exemption, that portion of the
respondent burden is not presented in the table below since that burden is retained from the cost
impacts to CAFO respondents presented in the existing, approved CAFO NPDES ICR.
Table 6–11. CAFO burden and cost increase from new provisions
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
2008
2009
2010
Item
49,637
51,898
35,701
Burden
(hours)
17,983
18,661
16,531
Respondents
a
(number)
27,059
28,230
20,882
Responses
(number)
$1,709,878
$1,784,743
$1,302,357
Costs (labor)
$0
$0
$0
Costs (capital)
$0
$0
$0
Costs (O&M)
$1,709,878
$1,784,743
$1,302,357
Total Costs

3-Year
total

Annual average

137,236

45,745

22,129

17,725

76,171

25,390

$4,796,978
$0
$0
$4,796,978

$1,598,993
$0
$0
$1,598,993

a. Respondents are not new respondents not previously impacted by the CAFO regulations but respondents
required to perform additional activities as a result of this rule.

Table 6–12 presents a yearly cost increase breakdown and 3-year ICR period summary for the 44
authorized States. These numbers reflect only burden and cost associated with the new
provisions in the regulatory changes to the NPDES CAFO regulations that address the February
2005 Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision. There will be a total of 24,911 responses during
the 3-year ICR period with an average of 8,304 responses for each year under this ICR (See
Exhibit D in the Appendix for details).6 Total State burden over the 3-year period is 364,836
hours with an average annual average State burden of 121,612 hours. State cost increases will
total $14,732,063 for the 3-year ICR period with an average annual cost increase of $4,910,688.
5

CAFO responses do not mean number of CAFOs. The revised regulation does not impact additional facilities, but
some facilities are required to perform additional activities as a result of this rule.
6
State responses do not mean number of CAFOs. The revised regulation does not impact additional facilities, but
some facilities are required to perform additional activities as a result of this rule.
28

Table 6–12. State burden and cost increase from new provisions
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
3-Year
Annual
average
total
2008
2009
2010
Item
119,837
122,925
122,074
364,836
121,612
Burden
(hours)
44
44
44
44
44
Respondents
a
(number)
8,868
9,231
6,812
24,911
8,304
Responses
(number)
$4,839,003
$4,963,699
$4,929,361 $14,732,063 $4,910,688
Costs (labor)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Costs (O&M)
$4,839,003
$4,963,699
$4,929,361
$14,732,063
$4,910,688
Total Costs
a. Respondents are not new respondents not previously impacted by the CAFO regulations but respondents required
to perform additional activities as a result of this rule.

Table 6–13 presents a yearly cost increase and 3-year ICR period summary for EPA. EPA is
responsible for the implementation of the NPDES CAFO permit program where no State agency
has been authorized to do so. These numbers reflect only burden and cost associated with the
new provisions in the regulatory changes to the NPDES CAFO regulations that address the
February 2005 Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision. There will be a total of 1,030
responses during the 3-year ICR period with an average of 343 responses for each year under this
ICR. Total agency burden increase is 15,860 hours for the 3-year period with an average annual
increase of 5,287 hours. Agency costs will increase $684,657 for the 3-year ICR period with an
average annual cost increase of $228,219.
Table 6–13. Agency burden and cost increase from new provisions
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
2008
2009
2010
Item
5,233
5,308
5,319
Burden
(hours)
362
376
292
Responses
(number)
$225,918
$229,126
$229,612
Costs (labor)
$0
$0
$0
Costs (O&M)
$225,918
$229,126
$229,612
Total Costs

3-year
total

Annual
average

15,860

5,287

1,030

343

$684,657 $228,219
$0
$0
$684,657 $228,219

Table 6–14 presents a yearly breakdown and 3-year ICR period summary for the burden and cost
reduction expected to be experienced by CAFOs as a result of the court’s decision in 2005 to
require NPDES permits only from dischargers. There will be an estimated 3,727 fewer CAFO
respondents applying for permits over the 3-year ICR compared with what would have been
required under the provisions of the 2003 CAFO rule for permitting all CAFOs. Nevertheless, all
CAFOs not applying for a permit would still need to make sure they qualify for the agricultural
stormwater exemption. Total CAFO respondent costs will be $5,425,200 less than it would have
been under the 2003 CAFO rule, with an average annual total cost of reduction to CAFOs of
$1,808,400.
29

Table 6–14. CAFO burden and cost reductions summary
Year 1
Year 2
2008
2009
Item
Burden
(hours)
96,156
99,662
Respondents
a
(number)
0
0
Responses
(number)
13,086
13,562
$1,741,905
$1,806,078
Costs (labor)
$0
$0
Costs (capital)
$0
$0
Costs (O&M)
$1,741,905
$1,806,078
Total Costs

3-Year
total

Year 3
2010

Annual
average

103,670

299,488

99,829

14,110
40,758
13,586
$1,877,217 $5,425,200 $1,808,400
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,877,217 $5,425,200 $1,808,400

a. There will be a total of 3,727 fewer CAFO respondents applying for permits over the 3-year ICR compared with
what would have been required under the 2003 CAFO rule. Nevertheless, all CAFOs not applying for a permit would
still need to qualify for agricultural stormwater exemptions, so the ICR does not present a net reduction in CAFO
respondents due to the new provisions.

Table 6–15 presents a yearly breakdown and 3-year ICR period summary for the 44 States that
have been authorized to implement the NPDES CAFO permit program. These numbers reflect
only burden and cost reduction expected to result from the court’s decision in 2005 to require
NPDES permits only from dischargers. There will be a total of 26,839 fewer responses during
the 3-year ICR period with an average of 8,946 responses for each year under this ICR. Total
State burden reduction is 279,126 hours with an average annual average reduction of 93,042
hours. State total costs will be reduced by $12,736,404 for the 3-year ICR period with an average
annual cost reduction of $4,245,468.
Table 6–15. State burden and cost reduction summary
Year 1
Year 2
2008
2009
Item
89,483
93,221
Burden
(hours)
0
0
Respondents
(number)
8,617
8,939
Responses
(number)
$3,613,325
$3,764,269
Costs (labor)
$469,698
$490,526
Costs (O&M)
$4,083,022
$4,254,795
Total Costs

Year 3
2010

3-Year
total

Annual
average

96,422

279,126

93,042

9,283

26,839

8,946

$3,893,516 $11,271,110 $3,757,037
$505,071 $1,465,295 $488,432
$4,398,587 $12,736,404 $4,245,468

In summary, Table 6-15 reflects a net reduction in both burden and O&M costs for authorized
States driven by a decrease in the number of permits as a result of the revised rule. Exhibit G in
the Appendix provides additional information documenting the reduction in both burden and
costs for authorized States as a result of the Court’s decision to require NPDES permits only
from dischargers.
30

Table 6–16 presents a yearly breakdown and 3-year ICR period summary for the burden and cost
reductions to EPA. EPA is responsible for the implementation of the NPDES CAFO permit
program where no other agency has been authorized to do so. These numbers reflect only burden
and cost reduction expected to result from the court’s decision in 2005 to require NPDES permits
only from CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge. There will be a total of 950 fewer
responses over the 3-year ICR compared with what would have been required under the 2003
CAFO rule period as a result of the Second Circuit decision, with an average of 317 fewer
responses for each year under this ICR. Total agency burden reduction is 10,145 hours with an
average annual reduction of 3,382 hours. Agency total costs will be $545,797 less for the 3-year
ICR period with an average annual cost reduction of $181,932.
Table 6–16. Agency burden and cost reduction summary
Year 1
Year 2
2008
2009
Item
3,272
3,383
Burden
(hours)
305
316
Responses
(number)
$141,268
$146,056
Costs (labor)
$34,635
$36,053
Costs (O&M)
$175,903
$182,108
Total Costs

3-year
total

Year 3
2010

Annual
average

3,489

10,145

3,382

328

950

317

$150,633
$37,152
$187,786

$437,958 $145,986
$107,840 $35,947
$545,797 $181,932

In summary, Table 6-16 reflects a net reduction in both burden and O&M cost to EPA due to the
decrease in the number of permits. Please refer to Exhibit G in the Appendix for additional
information documenting the reduction in both burden and costs for EPA as a result of the
Court’s decision to require NPDES permits only from CAFOs that discharge or propose to
discharge.

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden
This ICR presents the burden impacts of EPA’s response to Second Circuit Court decision. The
analysis of net burden impacts from the Waterkeeper-related revisions presented in this ICR
controls for an adjusted calculation of baseline impacts compared to baseline impacts originally
presented in the 2006 ICR renewal (EPA ICR No. 1989.04):
- Impacts presented in this current ICR are based on the three-year period spanning
2008-2010, whereas the 2006 ICR renewal modeled impacts for the three years
spanning 2006-2008.
- This current ICR reflects improved projections of industry size for the modeling
period used in this ICR compared to the industry projections available at the time
of the 2006 ICR renewal. (See section 4 for details on industry projections used
in this ICR.)
The improved industry size estimates used for this ICR project fewer CAFOs for the modeling
period 2008-2010 than the industry size extrapolations presented with the 2006 ICR renewal.
This reduction is the result of improved, more detailed projections that take into account the
cyclical nature of animal agriculture.
In the burden adjustment calculations shown in the Agency’s official information collection
request to the Office of Management and Budget (transmitted electronically), the figures
presented as "Change due to adjustment in Agency estimate" show a reduction in impacts as an
artifact of these improved, but smaller, estimates of future industry size. This adjustment—
exogenous to any impacts relating to regulatory revisions—allows for more meaningful “before”
and “after” comparisons and allows the Agency to isolate the impacts due exclusively to the
Waterkeeper-related changes as shown in Table 6–19 later in this section.
6(g) Burden Statement
Table 6–17 summarizes the total increased burden and cost of changes to CAFOs and States
associated with the new requirements in the rule to address the Waterkeeper decision.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden increase associated with the new
provisions from the regulatory changes is estimated to average 167,357 hours (121,612 hours for
State respondents and 45,745 hours for CAFO respondents). The annual average estimate of
17,769 respondents includes 44 States and 17,725 CAFO respondents. The annual average
number of responses is 33,694 (8,304 State responses and 25,390 CAFO responses).

Table 6–17. Hour and burden increase for all respondents from new provisions
Item
3-year total
Annual average
502,072
167,357
Total respondent burden (hours)
a
22,173
17,769
Total respondents (number)
101,082
33,694
Total responses (number)
Total respondent labor costs
Total respondent capital and O&M costs
Total respondent cost for all activities

$19,529,041
$0
$19,529,041

$6,509,680
$0
$6,509,680

a. Respondents are not new respondents not previously impacted by the CAFO regulations but rather
respondents required to perform additional activities as a result of this rule. Respondent totals do not
reflect nonpermitted facilities undertaking nutrient management planning since that burden is transferred
from the cost analysis for permitted facilities under the 2003 rule.

Table 6–18 summarizes the total net change in labor burden and cost from the rule to address the
Waterkeeper decision. These calculations reflect both the burden increase due to the added NMP
provisions as well as the burden reduction resulting from the court’s decision to require NPDES
permits only from dischargers. This information is broken down by category of respondent in
Tables 6–7 and 6–8.
Table 6–18. Net hour and burden change for all respondents
Item
3-year total
Total respondent burden (hours)
-76,542
a
Total respondents (number)
0
Total responses (number)
33,486
Total respondent labor costs
$2,832,731
b
Total respondent capital and O&M costs
($1,465,295)
Total respondent cost for all activities
$1,367,437

Annual average
-25,514
0
11,162
$944,244
($488,432)
$455,812

a. There will be a total of 3,727 fewer CAFO respondents applying for permits over the 3-year ICR
compared with what would have been required under the 2003 CAFO rule. Nevertheless, all CAFOs not
applying for a permit would still need to qualify for agricultural stormwater exemptions.
b. Reductions in capital and O&M costs are the result of O&M cost reductions to States as shown on
Table 6-15.

Table 6–19 summarizes the total burden and cost for all respondents under the revised CAFO
rule for the years 2008-2010 assessed in this ICR. The numbers in this table were calculated by
updating the baseline 2003 Rule ICR burden impacts to reflect industry size in the years 2008
through the end of 2010 and then accounting for the impacts of the revisions resulting from the
Waterkeeper decision.
Table 6–19. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Analysis

Total Baseline
PRA Burden:
Based on 2003
CAFO Rule
a
Requirements
33

Total
Amended
PRA Burden:
Based on
Final Rule
Requirements

Net
Change in
Paperwork
Burden
(2003
Rule
Compared
to Final
Rule)

CAFOs needing permits (2008)
CAFOs seeking agricultural stormwater exemption only
(2008)
Total CAFOs (2008)
Annualized costs CAFOS
Base NPDES Permit
c
New NMP Provisions
(in $millions)
Agricultural
Stormwater
Exemption
Certification
Total CAFO Burden
Permitting
Authorities
Base NPDES Permit
New NMP Provisions
Certification
Total Permit
Authority Burden
All
Respondents

20,685

15,281

n/a
20,685
$54.0
n/a

5,404
20,685
$40.0
$1.2

($14.02)
$1.22

n/a
n/a
$54.0

$12.2
$0.4
$53.8

$12.21
$0.38
($0.21)

$16.5
n/a
n/a

$12.2
$4.9
$0.04

($4.25)
$4.87
$0.04

$16.5

$17.1

$0.67

$70.5

$71.0

$0.46

a. 2003 baseline impacts adjusted to reflect current labor rates and growth in facilities.
b. Facility totals are annualized over 5 years in burden calculations presented below to reflect CWA requirements for
NPDES permit renewal every 5 years.
c. Annualized costs represent labor, capital and O&M.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use 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 at 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
In summary, using these updated estimates of the CAFO universe, EPA’s analysis for the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) projects (as shown in Table 6–19) that CAFO operators and
permitting authorities will together experience an increase in total annual administrative burden
of approximately $0.46 million as a result of the EPA regulations to address the court decision.
More specifically, CAFO operators will experience a $0.21 million reduction in annual
administrative burden, and permitting authorities will experience a $0.67 million increase in
annual administrative burden. The reduction in burden for CAFOs is driven principally by the
decrease in the number of facilities likely to need permits. For permitting authorities, the
decrease in burden due to the smaller number of facilities seeking permits is offset by a
concomitant increase in administrative burden arising from the new costs to address the NMPrelated review requirements arising from the court’s decision.
.
34

REFERENCES
Kellogg, R.L., C.H. Lander, D.C. Moffitt, and N. Gollehon. 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative to
the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal
Trends for the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.
[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/pubs/manntr.pdf]
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D.C.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D.C.
USDOL (U.S. Department of Labor). 2004. May 2004 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D.C.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). December 2002. Supporting Statement for the
Information Collection Request for the Final NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (EPA ICR NO. 1989.02). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, D.C.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). November 2005. ICR Handbook: EPA’s
Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,
Collection Strategies Division, Washington, D.C.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). May 2006. Supporting Statement for the
Information Collection Request for the Final NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (EPA ICR NO. 1989.04). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, D.C.
OPM (Office of Personnel Management). 1999. Work Years and Personnel Costs: Fiscal Year
1998. OMSOE-OWI-98-1, Office of Personnel Management, Washington, D.C.
OPM (Office of Personnel Management). 2007. Salary Table 2007-GS, Hourly/Overtime Rates
by Grade and Step. Office of Personnel Management, Washington, D.C.
Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005)

APPENDIX

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	Microsoft Word - 1989ss06 _073108_.doc
Author	nbonnely
File Modified	2008-07-31
File Created	2008-07-31