INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE August 2005 EPA ICR Number 1639.05 OMB Control Number 2040 0180 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water/ Office of Wastewater Management EPA East Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20460 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 SHORT CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 USE AND USERS OF INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.1 IDENTIFICATION, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.2 INFORMATION RELATED TO DISCHARGES INTO THE GREAT LAKES SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.0 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION COLLECTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3 INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4 RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION, METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . 10 4.1 GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2 COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3 SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.4 COLLECTION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.0 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1 NONDUPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2 CONSULTATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3 EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4 GENERAL GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.5 CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1.1 APPLICATIONS BURDEN AND COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.1.2 DISCHARGE AND MONITORING REPORT BURDEN AND COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.1.3 MODIFICATION AND VARIANCE BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.2 ESTIMATING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COSTS . . . . . . 28 6.2.1 GOVERNMENT APPLICATIONS BURDEN AND COST . . . 29 6.2.2 GOVERNMENT MONITORING BURDEN AND COST . . . . 29 6.2.3 GOVERNMENT REGULATORY RELIEF OPTION BURDEN AND COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.3 TOTAL UPDATED BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 1 Where EPA approval has not been obtained, EPA has specified by rule the provisions that apply.

1 1.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1.1 TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION The title of this Information Collection Request ( ICR) is National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. This ICR revises the existing estimates of burden and costs to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permittees and governments ( Federal, State, local) presented in the prior ICR of the same title ( OMB Control Number 2040 0180), which expired on September 30, 2004. For purposes of the 2005 proposed collection notice and request for public comments, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) updated the 2004 burden and costs shown in this report to reflect any relevant program changes, the transfer of some burden to the Water Quality Standards ICR ( OMB Control Number 2040 0049), and increases in labor costs since 2001, the year of the last update. The following sections describe the information collected and the cost of collection.

1.2 SHORT CHARACTERIZATION This ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( hereafter referred to as the Guidance). Some of the burden hours associated with applications and compliance in this ICR have been placed in the Water Quality Standards ( WQS) ICR. The splitting of these hours was done to avoid double counting of the burden.

The Guidance identifies minimum water quality criteria, implementation procedures, and antidegradation provisions for the Great Lakes System. Implementation of these provisions is dependent upon implementation of provisions consistent with the final Guidance by State or Tribal agencies or, if necessary, EPA. Each of the Great Lakes System States has developed and obtained EPA approval1 of water quality standards, antidegradation provisions, and implementation procedures consistent with EPA's Great Lakes Guidance.

The Great Lakes System is comprised of eight States: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. In the Great Lakes Basin, there are 516 major dischargers  319 are major municipal dischargers, and 197 are major industrial dischargers; and 2,194 minor dischargers. In sum there are 2,710 dischargers ( 516 major, and 2,194minor) that will be affected by State, Tribal, or EPA promulgated provisions consistent with the Guidance.

The Clean Water Act ( CWA) authorized EPA to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants or combinations of pollutants to the waters of the United States. EPA and authorized States regulate discharges to waters of the United States through NPDES programs. Such Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 2 discharges include domestic wastewater, industrial wastewater, storm water as well as others. To protect human health, aquatic life, and wildlife in the Great Lakes System, Congress enacted, on November 16, 1990, the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act ( CPA). Section 101 of the CPA amended Section 118 of the CWA and directed EPA to publish water quality guidance for the Great Lakes that:

° conforms to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement ° is no less restrictive than the CWA and national water quality criteria and guidance ° specifies numerical limits on pollutants in ambient Great Lake waters that protect human health, aquatic life, and wildlife ° provides guidance on minimum water quality standards, antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for the Great Lakes system.

Within two years after publication the final guidance ( i. e., March 23, 1997), the CPA requires the Great Lakes States to adopt water quality standards, antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for waters within the Great Lakes System that are consistent with the guidance. If a Great Lakes State fails to adopt necessary standards, policies and procedures, EPA was required to promulgate them two years after the final guidance was published. Each of the Great Lakes System States has developed and obtained EPA approval of water quality standards, antidegradation provisions, and implementation procedures consistent with EPA's Great Lakes Guidance. ( See, 65 FR 47864, Aug. 4, 2000; 65 FR 59732, Oct. 6, 2000; 65 FR 66502, Nov. 6, 2000; 65 FR 48517, Aug. 8, 2000; 65 FR 49573, Aug. 14, 2000).

Based on the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative ( GLWQI), a new Part 132 of Title 40, Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System was promulgated. The Guidance includes:

° minimum methodologies for setting numerical water quality criteria for all pollutants ( except for what are referred to as Table 5 pollutants) to protect human health, wildlife, and aquatic life ° minimum antidegradation policy and procedures to maintain existing water quality ° minimum implementation procedures to translate the criteria and antidegradation policy into controls for specific sources of pollutants To conform with requirements promulgated by Great Lakes States or Tribes consistent the final Guidance, NPDES permit applicants have to submit additional information for NPDES permit modification, renewal or issuance. Elements that may result in information collection or record keeping burden include the following: Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 3 ° permit applicants may be required to identify whether the 138 pollutants of initial focus are present in their discharges ( numerical water quality criteria have been determined for 30 of the 138 pollutants of initial focus)

° permittees may be required to conduct additional monitoring in cases where existing permits do not address pollutants for which numeric water quality criteria have been included in the final Guidance ° at facilities with water quality based effluent limits ( WQBELs) that are established below the quantification level ( as signified, for example, by the most sensitive analytical methods specified in or approved under 40 CFR Part 136 for a given pollutant), permits will establish an actual limit exactly as calculated and samples analyzed in accordance with the analytical method specified in the permit and other application procedures that are below the quantification level shall be deemed in compliance with the WQBEL; however, permittees are required to conduct pollutant minimization programs to review and monitor potential pollutant sources and implement control strategies and may also be required to conduct a bio uptake monitoring program for bioaccumulative chemicals of concern ( BCCs)

The final Guidance includes two methodologies for developing numeric water quality criteria to protect human health and aquatic life, and one methodology to protect wildlife. The Tier I approach is used when certain minimum data requirements are met. Under the Tier II approach, water quality values can be calculated based on fewer data than the full minimum data required for a Tier I calculation. The Tier II approach was designed to provide a methodology for evaluating pollutants and interpreting narrative water quality criteria when there is insufficient data to develop Tier I criteria. To reflect the increased uncertainty associated with fewer data points, criteria developed using the Tier II approach will generally be more stringent than criteria developed using the Tier I approach.

This ICR presents the estimated burden and costs associated with implementation of the Guidance. The total annual burden to all respondents is estimated to be 28,797 hours with an associated cost of $ 3,070,186. The following sections describe the information collected and the cost of collection. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 4 2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2.1 NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION The primary objective of the CWA is " to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters" ( Section 101( a)). CWA Section 402 establishes the NPDES program to regulate the discharge of any pollutant or combination of pollutants from point sources into the waters of the United States. CWA Section 402( a), as amended, authorizes the EPA Administrator to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants if those discharges meet the following requirements:

° all applicable requirements of CWA Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403 ° any conditions the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions and objectives of the CWA.

Section 101 of the CPA amends Section 118 of the CWA and directs EPA to publish water quality guidance for the Great Lakes system. Provisions of the Guidance are codified in 40 CFR Part 132. The Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria, implementation procedures, and antidegradation provisions for the Great Lakes system. Under the Guidance, EPA and authorized NPDES permitting authorities may need point source dischargers in the Great Lakes Basin to collect and submit information to:

° implement methodologies for setting numerical water quality criteria and values promulgated by States and Tribes ( Great Lakes States and Tribes will use methodologies consistent with the Guidance when revising existing or promulgating new water quality criteria)

° evaluate requests for permit changes using antidegradation policies and procedures consistent with the Guidance ° further the pollution prevention policy that focuses on the virtual elimination of toxic discharges into the Great Lakes system ° translate provisions consistent with the elements of the Guidance into controls for point sources of pollutants ° identify facilities that require additional permit conditions ( i. e., those that are discharging pollutants at levels of concern into the Great Lakes system)

° identify new pollutants in existing discharges ° evaluate water quality in the Great Lakes ° determine violations of State and Tribal provisions consistent with the Guidance. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 2The previous Great Lakes ICR ( EPA ICR Number 1639.04) identified bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria as additional information that could be needed. All burden hours associated with the execution of bioassays have been transferred to the Water Quality Standards ICR ( OMB Control Number 2040 0049).

5 2.2 USE AND USERS OF INFORMATION Although permit applicants collect and submit many types of information, this information can be broadly categorized as identification details ( e. g., name, location, and facility description) and as information related to pollutant discharges into the Great Lakes.

2.2.1 IDENTIFICATION, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY Permitting authorities currently require dischargers to provide information such as the name, location, and description of facilities to identify the facilities that require permits. EPA and authorized NPDES States store much of this basic information in the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) database. PCS provides EPA with a nationwide inventory of NPDES permit holders. EPA uses the information contained in the PCS to develop reports on permit issuance, backlogs, and compliance rates. The Agency also uses the information to respond to public and Congressional inquiries, develop and guide its policies, formulate its budgets, assist States in acquiring authority for permitting programs, and manage its programs to ensure national consistency in permitting.

2.2.2 INFORMATION RELATED TO DISCHARGES INTO THE GREAT LAKES SYSTEM NPDES permit applications and requests for supplemental information currently require information about wastewater treatment systems, pollutants, discharge rates and volumes, whole effluent toxicity testing and other data. To implement State, Tribal, or EPA promulgated provisions consistent with the Guidance, additional information may be necessary on the following2:

° monitoring ( pollutant specific and whole effluent toxicity or WET) ° pollutant minimization programs ° antidegradation policy/ demonstrations ° regulatory relief options ( e. g., variances from water quality criteria).

This information may be used to ensure compliance with provisions consistent with the Guidance and to re evaluate existing permit conditions and monitoring requirements. Data on discharges is entered into PCS and STORET ( an EPA database for ambient water quality data). Results of water quality criteria testing will be entered into an EPA Information Clearinghouse database. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 6 3.0 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION COLLECTED 3.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF RESPONDENTS NPDES permits are required any time there is a point source discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States, regardless of the type of discharger. Consequently, all point source dischargers must apply for an NPDES permit. In addition, permits issued to point sources that discharge into the Great Lakes system will be required to include provisions, as applicable, implementing State and Tribal requirements consistent with the final Guidance.

Based on a review of active permits from PCS, EPA determined that 516 major and 2,194 minor point sources would be affected ( see Exhibit 3 1). Potentially affected facilities were determined based on their discharge location ( HUC), facility location ( lat/ long), zip code, or receiving water name. Unfortunately PCS information lacks the quality and completeness to allow one single parameter to be used, and in the process some assumption had to be made ( e. g., if discharge location is not available, when a facility is located in the Great Lakes watershed, it is assumed that it discharges to it).

EXHIBIT 3 1 SUMMARY OF CATEGORY OF DISCHARGERS POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY THE GREAT LAKES GUIDANCE Discharger Category SIC Code Number of Dischargers Major Dischargers Mining 10,14 12 Food 20 11 Pulp and Paper 26 41 Inorganic Chemical Man 281 14 Org. Chemical Man./ Petroleum Refining 28,29 20 Metal Manufacturing 33 28 Metal Finishing 34,35,36,37 14 Steam Electric 4911 54 Miscellaneous 3 Municipal ( POTWs) 4952 319 Subtotal 516 Minor Dischargers Non Municipal 969 Municipal 4952 1,225 Subtotal 2,194 Total Dischargers 2,710 Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 7 The analysis from PCS shows a reduction in the number of potentially affected facilities from the 2001 ICR, which had 588 major and 3,207 minor facilities. This could be the result of recent efforts to remove inactive or duplicate permits from PCS, and EPA believes that the new estimates are a better representation of the number of potentially affected facilities.

EPA distinguishes between major and minor point sources under the NPDES permitting program. EPA designates major municipal dischargers as those: serving at least 10,000 persons; having a design flow in excess of 1 million gallons per day; having significant amounts of toxics in their effluent; discharging into waters of significant concern; or designated as such by the permitting authority. In characterizing major industrial dischargers, EPA considers several factors, including the concentration of toxic pollutants in the discharge as well as the volume discharged. Major sources in the Great Lakes System include 319 municipal ( publicly owned treatment works or POTWs) and 197 industrial sources. Minor dischargers are all those permittees that are not designated as major dischargers. Minor sources may discharge contaminated process wastes that could have a significant toxic component, or have other characteristics addressed by the Guidance. EPA determined that there are 2,194 minor dischargers in the Great Lakes System. Of these, 1,225 sources were determined to be municipal dischargers and 969 non municipal dischargers.

3.2 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq), EPA solicited comments on the proposed information collection in the Federal Register prior to submitting this renewal ICR to the Office of Management and Budget ( 70 FR 30944, May 31, 2005). EPA received one comment that did not pertain to this ICR.

3.3 INFORMATION REQUESTED Information collection associated with the implementation of the Guidance will ultimately affect the burden and costs of program elements estimated in other ICRs that have been developed under the NPDES program as codified in 40 CFR part 122. This ICR will estimate the burdens and costs associated with information collection activities that may be over and above those burdens and costs already estimated in the other NPDES ICRs. These other ICRs include:

° Information Collection Request for Application for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge Permit and the Sewage Sludge Management Permit ( hereafter, the Applications ICR) effective through June, 2006 ( OMB No. 2040 0086)

° Information Collection Request for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Discharge Monitoring Reports ( hereafter, the Discharge and Monitoring Report ICR), extension currently under review at OMB ( OMB No. 2040 0004) Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 8 ° Information Collection Request for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Modification and Variance Requests ( hereafter, the Modification and Variance ICR), effective through November, 2006 ( OMB No. 2040 0068).

° Information Collection Request for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Sewage Sludge Management State Programs, effective through November, 2006 ( OMB No. 2040 0057).

Generally, States ( and potentially Tribes) have adopted provisions consistent with the Guidance. In addition, EPA has included recommendations or guidance on other issues that permitting authorities may choose to incorporate into their water programs. EPA assumes that most States/ Tribes will implement the recommendations provided in the Guidance. As such, EPA has included burden and costs associated with these recommendations throughout this ICR. Burdens and costs, therefore, may be overstated in some places.

Applications ICR To collect information requested for the NPDES program, EPA has developed standard application forms for most applicants. Standard application forms include: Standard Form A; Short Form A; Forms 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2S; and the Uniform Federal Transportation/ Utility System Application Form ( see the Applications ICR for more detailed information).

For some permits and application requirements, EPA has not developed standard application forms. In some cases, standard forms are not appropriate; in others, EPA is currently developing appropriate forms. This ICR calculates the burden to respondents for supplying information addressing implementation of State, Tribal, or Federal provisions consistent with the Guidance that may be in addition to existing application requirements of the authorized NPDES permitting program.

Information collection requirements necessitated by the Guidance that may affect the overall burden and costs associated with the Applications ICR include:

° studies to identify and provide information on antidegradation control measures that will guard against the reduction of water quality in the Great Lakes system ° whole effluent toxicity testing required to meet minimum data requirements to evaluate the need for WET limits.

Discharge Monitoring Report ICR Discharge monitoring information collection relates to monitoring and reporting requirements included in NPDES permits issued to point source discharges of pollutants to surface waters of the United States. These requirements pertain to collection and analyses of samples and the reporting of summary information to the permitting authority. The permitting Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 9 authority uses the data as the primary source of information to assess compliance with permit limitations. Data also are used for modifying or adding new permit requirements, assessing and/ or developing effluent guidelines, and assessing the need for water quality based limits in a permit.

Information collection requirements specified in the Guidance that affect the overall burdens and costs estimated in the Discharge Monitoring Report ICR include monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements for:

° WQBEL compliance monitoring; ° WET limit compliance monitoring; and ° pollutant minimization programs ( PMPs).

Modification and Variance ICR Section 301 of the CWA authorizes EPA and States with the authority to establish and modify NPDES permit conditions or to vary the effluent limitations established in NPDES permits. Section 405 of the CWA allows States with sludge management authority to issue and modify permits that regulate the use and disposal of sewage sludge. The Modification and Variance ICR describes the data requirements necessary for a permitting authority to determine ( 1) whether NPDES or sewage sludge management permit conditions should be modified, or ( 2) whether a request for a variance from certain NPDES permit conditions should be granted.

Under the Guidance, several additional regulatory relief options are allowed if appropriate documentation is submitted to substantiate and justify them. In sum, relief options for dischargers to the Great Lakes include mechanisms such as variances from criteria, alternative mixing zones, phased total maximum daily loadings ( TMDLs), and site specific criteria. All of these mechanisms are available under the CWA and existing NPDES programs. Therefore, this ICR includes information collection and record keeping activities associated with analyses and reporting to request regulatory relief from Guidance requirements which are in excess of what would already be covered under the existing Modification and Variance ICR.

3.4 RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES Respondents may be required to submit a variety of different information items for State, Tribal or subsequent Federal implementation of the Guidance. This ICR explains these activities in detail for each Guidance provision that may result in respondent information collection or record keeping activities ( see Section 6.1). In general, respondent activities will include the following:

° Preparing Basic Information  This includes reading instructions or reviewing regulatory application requirements, gathering general information, typing or filling out forms, drafting letters, reviewing applications or other materials, and mailing completed submissions. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 10 ° Generating Detailed Information  Detailed information may include data on production levels, data on effluent characteristics, pollutant minimization programs, financial estimates, engineering data, socio economic data, or other information required by permitting authorities.

° Sampling and Analyzing Discharges  This may involve pollutant analyses, biological toxicity testing, predicting in stream impacts, field monitoring, bioconcentration testing, or other scientific analyses.

° Maintaining Records  All NPDES permittees must keep records of the data used to complete their applications and to demonstrate their compliance for at least three years. First time applicants may need to develop a record keeping system, enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping entails collecting and filing raw data. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 11 4.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION, METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 4.1 GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES When permitting authorities receive NPDES permit applications, they must review them for completeness. If an application is incomplete, the authorities must notify the applicant and request the missing information. Completed applications must be assigned to permit writers, who then review the applications in more detail as they develop permit conditions. Permit authorities must also enter certain application data into PCS and STORET.

Additional information may also be requested by the permit writer to assist in developing discharge limits or other permit conditions. These data or special studies must be reviewed by the permit writer. This information may be submitted prior to issuance or during the term of the permit.

Specific Guidance program elements that may necessitate additional government review include:

° antidegradation demonstrations ° PMPs ° requests for regulatory relief ( e. g., variances).

In addition to activities associated with reviewing respondent applications, the State permitting authorities may experience other information collection and record keeping burdens associated with implementation of the Guidance. However, in accordance with OMB guidelines covering ICRs, State information collection and record keeping burdens not associated with respondent activities are not included in this ICR.

4.2 COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT EPA maintains some application data in the Agency's databases, PCS and STORET. This technology reduces the burden to EPA Headquarters for gathering and analyzing national permit and water quality data. Because each information collection activity associated with implementation of the Guidance will contain unique information, and because permittees submit applications only once every 5 years, improved information technology may not be effective in further reducing respondent burden.

4.3 SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY For many reasons, EPA believes the information collection and reporting requirements described in this ICR do not place an unreasonable burden on small business. For example: Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 12 ° the amount of information required increases as the size of a facility increases ° facilities submit permit applications infrequently ( e. g., once every five years)

° since many small entities do not discharge any toxic pollutants, or they discharge pollutants to a sewage treatment plant, they may not be required to have NPDES permits and thus will not experience an information collection burden associated with the Guidance.

Note however, some information collection and record keeping burdens associated with implementation of the Guidance cannot easily be reduced for small businesses. This is true for two reasons:

° NPDES permitting authorities need certain basic information from all permittees to make permitting decisions ° the CWA requires all point source dischargers to obtain NPDES permits, regardless of size.

Therefore, all businesses that discharge directly into the waters of the Great Lakes system must submit necessary permitting information, including information to satisfy requirements that are consistent with the Guidance.

4.4 COLLECTION SCHEDULE The CWA requires permittees to reapply for permits at least every five years, although permit writers may issue permits with a shorter duration. Most respondents submit applications every five years. When calculating burden, this ICR assumes that all permit applicants affected by the implementation of the Guidance follow this five year schedule.

Great Lakes States and Tribes must adopt monitoring and reporting provisions consistent with those specified in the Guidance. These will be determined on a case by case basis by the permitting authority and will be individually specified in NPDES permits. Generally, monitoring requirements will take effect upon issuance of the permit and will be in place throughout the life of the permit.

Information collection associated with regulatory relief requests based on State, Tribal, or Federal provisions consistent with the Guidance will occur only when a permittee decides to seek such relief. EPA presumes that the few relief requests expected will continue to take place at time of permit reissuance. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 13 5.0 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 5.1 NONDUPLICATION EPA has examined all the reporting requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 403, 501, and 503. The Agency also has consulted the following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere:

° EPA's Information Systems Inventory ° EPA's Inventory of Information Collection Requests ° Federal Information Locator System ° Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule ( 53 CFR 51698) ° EPA's Toxics Release Inventory.

Examination of these databases revealed no duplicate requirements. Therefore, EPA has concluded that it has no other way to obtain the information addressed in this ICR.

5.2 CONSULTATIONS The major provisions in the proposed Guidance were developed over a two year period by the eight Great Lakes States, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. National Park Service, EPA, and members of the public. On December 6, 1991, the Great Lakes States recommended that EPA publish the draft Guidance in the Federal Register for public review and comment. EPA generally used the draft ratified by the Steering Committee as the basis for preparing the proposed guidance published in the Federal Register on April 16, 1993 ( 58 CFR 20802). However, EPA modified the package to reflect statutory and regulatory requirements and EPA policy considerations, to propose procedures for State and Tribal adoption of the final Guidance, to provide suitable discussion of various alternative options, to accommodate necessary format changes, and to respond to comments made by EPA's Science Advisory Board. Where modifications were made, the preamble to the proposal described both the modification and the original Steering Committee approved guidelines, and invited public comment on both. All elements approved by the Steering Committee were either incorporated in the proposed Guidance or discussed in the preamble to the proposal. The 150 day public comment period on the proposal closed on September 13, 1993.

To evaluate the public comments and prepare the final guidance, EPA's Office of Water created a Task Force to oversee 21 workgroups composed of EPA management and staff from Headquarters and Regions 2, 3, and 5 ( the Regions with Great Lakes States). To enhance intergovernmental partnership as part of Executive Order No. 12875 and to stay abreast of public expectations for the final Guidance, the Agency directed the Task Force to keep local, State and Tribal government officials, co regulators, the regulated community and environmental interests informed. During the post proposal process, the Task Force and workgroups participated in over Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 14 35 meetings with over 500 stakeholder representatives. The comments and issues raised by the stakeholders were incorporated into the docket and considered by the Agency in its option selection process and regulatory impact analysis for developing the final Guidance. The Fish and Wildlife Service's ( FWS) comments resulted in formal interagency consultation on two issues regarding endangered species and culminated in a written Biological Opinion form FWS in 1994, which is in the docket.

These meetings kept EPA apprised of the most current scientific information and data to consider in developing the final Guidance. As a result, EPA provided notice of data availability and opportunity for public comment on August 30, 1994 ( 59 CFR 44678). EPA received 23,000 pages of comments, data, and information from over 5,700 commenters in response to these notices and from meetings with members of the public. In response to the States' concerns, the final Guidance contains less detailed procedures for implementation, providing maximum flexibility for States and Tribes. EPA also considered comments regarding the relative contribution of pollutants by non permitted sources, discharges to polluted waters, maintaining present water quality, the mercury criteria, and mixing zones.

5.3 EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION Requirements consistent with the Guidance have been promulgated by the States or Tribes or, where necessary, by EPA, and then implemented through the water quality and permitting programs. Permitted facilities must reapply for NPDES permits before their existing permits expire, generally once every five years. The CWA prohibits issuance of NPDES permits with terms longer than five years. Less frequent permit applications would not provide the permitting authority with sufficiently current data to establish effective limitations or conditions when issuing permits. Less frequent permit issuance would also hinder the ability of EPA and the regulated community to take advantage of technological improvements as they occur.

The specific consequences of less frequent collection associated with monitoring and reporting requirements implementing the provisions in the Guidance are no different than the consequences for permittees not subject to the Guidance. A detailed discussion of these consequences are described in the Discharge Monitoring Report ICR. However, note that:

° permits written based on infrequent monitoring data may not adequately represent peak release ° reductions in monitoring frequency reduce the representation of discharge monitoring data relative to true waste discharge characteristics.

Since permittees will decide whether or not to apply for regulatory relief ( e. g., variances from water quality criteria) from provisions implementing the Guidance, and generally pursuing relief is a one time effort for the permittee, less frequent information collection associated with Guidance regulatory relief procedures is not relevant. Less frequent information collection would not provide the permitting authority and EPA with sufficient information to meet their Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 15 responsibilities for review and approval of regulatory relief under the under the CWA and the Guidance.

5.4 GENERAL GUIDELINES This information collection complies with the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines ( 5 CFR § 1320.6).

5.5 CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS Permit applications may contain confidential business information. If this is the case, the respondent may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. However, CWA Section 308( b) specifically states that effluent data may not be treated as confidential.

No questions of a sensitive nature are associated with this information collection. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 16 6.0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6.1 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST EPA has estimated the total respondent burden associated with implementation of provisions consistent with the Guidance to be 28,797 hours annually ( see Exhibit 6.1). Burden hours have been separated based on the following existing NPDES ICRs that would be modified by the new burden ( see also Section 3.2):

° Applications ICR ° Discharge Monitoring Report ICR ° Modification and Variance ICR.

EXHIBIT 6 1 SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT BURDEN Increase in Respondent Burden ( Hours per Year)

Applications Burden 1,782 Discharge Monitoring Report Burden 16,381 Modification and Variance Burden 10,634 Total Respondent Burden 28,797 Respondent costs are the sum of labor costs and contractor costs. Total respondent costs associated with the information collection requirements of State/ Tribal or Federal provisions consistent with the Guidance were estimated to be $ 3,070,186 annually ( see Exhibit 6 2). In calculating this cost, EPA assumed the following:

Estimates for Federal and State labor rates were based on the 2003 US Labor department figures adjusted to January 2005 dollars with the Employment Cost Index, whereby the average annual salary for Federal and State employees is $ 51,126; this is equivalent to the salary of a GS 9, Step 10 Federal employee. At 2,080 available labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 24.58. Overhead costs for Federal and State employees are estimated by EPA to be 60 percent ( EPA ICR Handbook), or $ 14.75 per hour, which results in a total hourly rate of $ 39.33 ($ 24.58 + $ 14.75).

The average annual salary in the private sector is 14 percent higher than Federal and State salaries, creating an average annual salary of $ 58,284 and an hourly rate of $ 28.02 in January 2005 dollars. Assuming a fringe rate of 50 percent and a 67 percent overhead and profit rate, the Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 3The previous Great Lakes ICR ( EPA ICR Number 1639.04) included in the application burden and cost estimates, bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria. Those burden hours ( 760 burden hours from dischargers and 2,134 burden hours from state government) were transferred to the water Quality Standards ICR ( OMB Control Number 2040 0049).

17 total private sector hourly rate is $ 70.19 [$ 28.02* 1.5* 1.67].

Estimates for local pretreatment control authority employees ( i. e., POTW employees) were based on the 2002 US Labor department figures for the wages and salaries value for State and local government workers adjusted to January 2005 dollars with the Employment Cost Index plus a 50 percent overhead burden; this is equivalent to an hourly rate of $ 34.26 ($ 22.84 + $ 11.42).

Respondent costs estimated in this ICR are those associated with the Guidance and are over and above the respondent costs estimated in the following ICRs which deal with similar costs and burdens for the NPDES permitting program:

° Applications ICR ° Discharge Monitoring Report ICR ° Modification and Variance ICR.

EXHIBIT 6 2 SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT COST Annual Respondent Cost ($ 2005)

Applications Cost $ 797,565 Monitoring Cost $ 1,575,104 Modification and Variance Cost $ 697,518 Total Respondent Cost $ 3,070,186 6.1.1 APPLICATIONS BURDEN AND COST The increase in respondent burden associated with NPDES permit applications was estimated to be approximately 1,782 hours annually, costing respondents approximately $ 797,565 annually. Respondent application burden and costs are associated with: 3 ° studies to identify and provide information on antidegradation control measures that will guard against the reduction of water quality in the Great Lakes system ° whole effluent toxicity testing required to meet minimum data requirements to Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 18 evaluate the need for WET limits.

Antidegradation Policy Burden The antidegradation provisions in the final Guidance applies to the discharge of nondeminimus levels of pollutants to high quality waters. However, the criteria for when an antidegradation demonstration must be performed are different for bioaccumulative chemicals of concern ( BCCs) and non BCCs. The purpose of the demonstration is to confirm that the permittee has evaluated options to reduce the extent of the need to lower water quality. In general, an antidegradation demonstration consists of first performing a pollution prevention alternatives analysis to identify prudent and feasible alternatives. If no pollution prevention alternatives are deemed prudent and feasible, then the permittee must identify alternative or enhanced treatment techniques. Finally, a permittee must demonstrate that the lowering of water quality is necessary to ensure social and economic development.

Based on compliance cost analyses performed for the regulatory impact analysis of the final Guidance, EPA expects that five percent of the 2,710 permittees ( approximately 136) will discharge BCCs. Assuming that one fifth of these permittees will prepare and submit an antidegradation demonstration in any given year ( given a permit term of five years), 27 demonstrations will be submitted annually for BCCs. Assuming that 60 hours are required to prepare the demonstration for BCCs, then the permittee burden is estimated to be about 1,620 hours.

EPA expects that another five percent of the permittees ( approximately 136) are likely to request an increase in permit limits for non BCCs. Assuming that one fifth of these permittees will prepare and submit an antidegradation demonstration in any given year ( given a permit term of five years), 27 demonstrations will be submitted annually for non BCCs. Assuming that 40 hours are required to prepare the demonstration for BCCs, then the permittee burden is estimated to be about 1,080 hours. The combined permittee burden associated with antidegradation demonstrations for BCCs and non BCCs is thus 2,700 hours. This burden estimate is split equally between water quality standards and permits. Thus, the burden estimate for this item in this ICR is 1,350 hours ( the remaining 1,350 hours were transferred to the Water Quality Standards ICR). Note that these estimates may be conservative since all States already are required to have antidegredation requirements in their programs.

EPA also determined that it would take a State about two days to review an antidegradation demonstration. Based on a total of 54 antidegradation policy demonstrations submitted annually, the State applications burden is 864 hours. This burden estimate also is split equally between water quality standards and permits. Thus, the burden estimate for this item in this ICR is 432 hours ( the remaining 432 hours were transferred to the Water Quality Standards ICR). This estimate does not include burden and costs associated with implementing current antidegradation requirements. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 19 Overall, the antidegradation policy burden in this ICR is 1,782 hours. As indicated above, within the Water Quality Standards ICR, an additional 1,782 hours were transferred to cover the antidegradation policy burden.

Exhibit 6 3 summarizes the estimated discharger's labor costs associated with implementation of provisions consistent with the Guidance antidegradation provisions. Acknowledging that 57% of the permittees affected by antidegradation provisions are POTWs, the permittee cost is estimated to be $ 67,809 EXHIBIT 6 3 SUMMARY OF LABOR COST FOR ANTIDEGRADATION ($ 2004)

# of Facilities Burden Estimate Cost per Hour Estimated Labor Cost Municipal  BCCs 15 450.00 $ 34.26 $ 15,417 Non Municipal  BCCs 12 360.00 $ 70.19 $ 25,268 Municipal  non BCCs 15 300.00 $ 34.26 $ 10,278 Non Municipal  non BCCs 12 240.00 $ 70.19 $ 16,846 Permittee Subtotal 54 1,350.00 $ 67,809 State Subtotal 54 432.00 $ 39.33 $ 16,991 Total 54 1,782.00 $ 84,800 1. Based on 76 discharger and 76 State responses per year.

WET Data Collection Burden A minimum of one year of quarterly acute or chronic WET testing using a fish and a macroinvertebrate ( e. g., daphnia) was assumed necessary to evaluate the need for WET limits in a facility's permit. If the minimum data are not available, then the data would be collected during the first year of the permit term. Because this is a one time data collection effort, it has been placed under the application information collection activities. Because WET testing requires specific expertise and equipment, EPA assumed it would be done by a contract laboratory. EPA estimates that 333 dischargers will need to conduct WET testing and, therefore, anticipates 333 responses.

The costs of collecting data, and the costs of monitoring for WET limits were estimated to be $ 604,000 annually in the Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Final Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative ( March 13, 1995). These results are based on the assumption that acute WET tests on average will cost $ 750 and chronic WET tests on Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 20 average will cost $ 1,500. Exhibit 6 4 shows the updated costs to 2005 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.

EXHIBIT 6 4 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT COST FOR COLLECTING DATA AND MONITORING FOR WET LIMITS ( 2005)

Discharger Category Annual O & M ( Contractor) Cost Major Dischargers Mining Food Pulp and Paper Inorganic Chemical Man. Org. Chemical Man./ Petroleum Refining Metal Manufacturing Metal Finishing Steam Electric Miscellaneous Municipal ( POTWs)

Subtotal $ 20,061 $ 0 $ 18,173 $ 0 $ 163,322 $ 0 $ 14,161 $ 14,161 $ 45,315 $ 63,724 $ 338,917 Minor Dischargers Non Municipal Municipal Subtotal $ 0 $ 373,848 $ 373,848 Total $ 712,765 1. Based on 333 discharger responses per year.

Consistency Review Burden and Costs An additional burden that will fall on State governments is the preparation and review of State regulations and criteria for consistency with the Guidance over the course of the first five years of the program. The burden hours associated with these reviews are addressed in the Information Collection Request for Water Quality Standards ( OMB Control Number 2040 0049) effective through August, 2005. Therefore, this ICR does not include burden hours associated with these activities. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 21 6.1.2 DISCHARGE AND MONITORING REPORT BURDEN AND COST The increase in discharge and monitoring report burden due to Guidance provisions addressing monitoring and reporting, is estimated to be 24,607 hours annually. However, some of these monitoring requirement burden hours are addressed in the Water Quality Standards ICR and are not included in this ICR to avoid double counting. The Water Quality Standards ICR covers 8,310 of the total 24,607 hours. Thus, the total burden estimate for monitoring in this ICR is 16,381 hours annually. Due to implementation of Guidance provisions addressing monitoring and reporting, respondent cost are estimated to be $ 1,575,104 annually.

Guidance activities that may result in increased respondent burden and costs include monitoring and reporting requirements for:

° WQBEL compliance monitoring ° WET limit compliance monitoring ° PMPs monitoring and reporting ° bioconcentration studies for BCCs below analytical detection levels.

Since the Guidance does not establish specific record keeping requirements, no additional burdens and costs are assumed for record keeping over those estimated in the Discharge Monitoring Report ICR.

Based on previous experience and interviews with program personnel, EPA determined that approximately 30 percent of Guidance related monitoring associated with WQBELs and PMPs would be conducted by outside laboratories. Because monitoring for WET limits and performing bioconcentration studies require more sophisticated analyses, EPA assumed all WET monitoring and bioconcentration studies would be conducted by outside laboratories.

WQBEL Compliance Monitoring Burden Based on the Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Final Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( March 13, 1995), and the methodology for determining burden developed in the Discharge Monitoring Report ICR, discharger burden associated with the Guidance compliance monitoring was estimated to be 153 hours annually.

Discharger burden for monitoring was based on the pollutants that were determined most likely to need WQBELs based on implementation of methodologies consistent with the Guidance. Current sampling and monitoring frequencies for those Guidance pollutants of initial focus that have current permit limits or monitoring requirements were determined in the Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Final Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( March 13, 1995). Based on the potential for a facility's discharge to exceed Guidancebased WQBELs as well as the variability of the flow and possibly to surpass the treatment employed the need for more frequent monitoring was evaluated. In most cases, existing monitoring requirements in the permit were deemed adequate as State policy often dictated the frequency of monitoring used in a permit. Also, if additional parameters were added, Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 22 the monitoring frequencies were established at a frequency similar to the existing monitoring requirements of other parameters.

The methodology for determining discharger monitoring burden is described in detail in the Discharge Monitoring Report ICR. Briefly, respondent burden for monitoring was defined to equal the sum of the time required to collect samples, time required to analyze pollutants, and the time required to prepare a report. Based on the methodology described in the Discharge Monitoring Report ICR, EPA determined that only the time required to analyze pollutants would increase as a result of WQBEL monitoring based on implementation of the Guidance. The Discharge Monitoring Report ICR estimated that one half hour would be required for each monitoring event ( i. e., each pollutant) per year. Thus, the time required to analyze for pollutants is defined as:

Burden = Number of Pollutants * 0.5 Hours/ Pollutant Based on the results from the Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Final Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( March 13, 1995), EPA estimated that an additional 176 facilities will require WQBEL monitoring for 306 pollutants as a result of implementation of State, Tribal, or Federal provisions consistent with the Guidance ( see Exhibit 6 5). This results in a monitoring burden of 153 hours each year.

Assuming approximately 70 percent of WQBEL monitoring is conducted in house and based on the analytical costs provided in the Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Final Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( March 13, 1995) and the 2001 ICR, it is possible to estimate the analytical burden to respondent ( see Exhibit 6 5). However, some of these monitoring requirement burden hours are addressed in the Water Quality Standards ICR and are not included in this ICR to avoid double counting. Exhibit 6 6 presents the total burden for WQBEL Compliance Monitoring and Analysis and the estimated costs after accounting for burden hours addressed in the Water Quality Standards ICR.

Using a similar analysis, the costs of the analysis done by outside contractors were estimated to be $ 105,634.00 ( 1,505 hours contracted at $ 70.19 per hour). Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 23 EXHIBIT 6 5 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN FOR WQBEL COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ANALYSIS 1 Discharger Category Number of Pollutants2 Monitoring Burden ( Hours per Year) Analytical Burden ( Hours per Year) Total Burden Major Dischargers Food and Food Products 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Inorganic Chemicals 12 6.0 224.0 230.0 Metal Finishing 7 3.5 31.0 34.5 Mining 7 3.5 31.0 34.5 Metals Manufacturing 64 32.0 1,113.0 1,145.0 Miscellaneous 8 4.0 115.0 119.0 Municipals ( POTWs) 94 47.0 2,463.0 2,510.0 Organic Chemical Man./ Petroleum Refining 15 7.5 67.0 74.5 Pulp and Paper 83 41.5 961.0 1,002.5 Steam Electric 16 8.0 175.0 183.0 Major Dischargers Subtotal 306 153.0 5,180.0 5,333.0 Minor Dischargers Municipals 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Non Municipals 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Minor Dischargers Subtotal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 306 153.0 5,180.0 5,333.0 1. Burden in this table still includes 1,678 burden hours addressed in the Water Quality Standards ICR. 2. Numbers represent total number of pollutants within an industrial category. Based on 176 discharger responses per year. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 24 EXHIBIT 6 6 SUMMARY OF CORRECTED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COSTS FOR WQBEL COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ANALYSIS 1 Discharger Category Total Corrected Burden Total Corrected Costs ( 2005)

Major Dischargers Food and Food Products 0 $ 0 Inorganic Chemicals 158 $ 11,065 Metal Finishing 24 $ 1,660 Mining 24 $ 1,660 Metals Manufacturing 785 $ 55,086 Miscellaneous 82 $ 5,725 Municipals ( POTWs) 1,720 $ 58,942 Organic Chemical Man./ Petroleum Refining 51 $ 3,584 Pulp and Paper 687 $ 48,230 Steam Electric 125 $ 8,804 Major Dischargers Subtotal 3,655 $ 194,756 Minor Dischargers Municipals 0 0.0 Non Municipals 0 0.0 Minor Dischargers Subtotal 0 0.0 Total 3,655 $ 194,756 1. Burden and cost in this table account for burden hours addressed in the Water Quality Standards ICR.

WET Limit Compliance Monitoring Burden and Cost Similar to pollutant specific WQBELs, if a WET limit is established for a facility, then periodic compliance monitoring would be required. Based on the Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Final Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( March 13, 1995), existing State WET limits and compliance monitoring requirements were deemed adequate for those facilities that required WET limits. Therefore, no additional Guidance burden Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 25 or cost were estimated related to implementation of the provisions for WET compliance monitoring.

Pollutant Minimization Programs Burden and Cost Under the Guidance permittees are required to establish PMPs for pollutants for which WQBELs are below quantification levels. Total discharger burden associated with the establishment of PMPs was estimated to be 4,031 hours annually. Information collection activities associated with PMPs include:

° annual review/ semi annual monitoring of potential sources of the pollutants ° quarterly influent monitoring and reporting ° development and submittal of a control strategy, including implementation of appropriate practicable control measures ° annual status report.

Permittee burden associated with an annual review and semi annual monitoring of potential sources, and quarterly influent monitoring and reporting was calculated based on:

° numbers of potential sources of pollutants and number of pollutants with WQBELs set below the detection limit as identified in the Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Final Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( March 13, 1995) ° the Discharge Monitoring Report ICR methodology for determining time required for analyzing pollutants described above.

The respondent's time required to analyze for pollutants under PMPs was calculated using the following equation:

[(# Potential Sources of Pollutants * 2/ yr) + ( 4/ yr * # WQBELS Set Below MDL)] * 0.5.

EPA estimates that the State government burden for reviewing an approvable control strategy, one component of a permittee's PMP, is about 4 hours per facility. The Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting From Implementation of the Final Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( March 13, 1995) states that about 137 municipal and 40 non municipal facilities would be required to develop approvable control strategies. Therefore, the annual State monitoring burden was estimated to be about 708 hours to review the 177 responses from facilities. State review will yield 177 state responses. The burden hours associated with these reviews are addressed in the Information Collection Request for Water Quality Standards ( OMB Control Number 2040 0049) effective through August, 2005. Therefore, this ICR does not include burden hours associated with these activities.

In sum, respondent burden associated with PMP monitoring is estimated to be about 4,031 hours annually ( see Exhibit 6 7). Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 26 EXHIBIT 6 7 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN FOR IMPLEMENTING PMPS Discharger Category # of Potential Sources of Pollutants 1 # WQBELs Below Detection Levels Burden ( Hours)

Major Dischargers Food and Food Products 0 0 0 Inorganic Chemicals 24 4 32 Metal Finishing 0 0 0 Mining 3 3 9 Metals Manufacturing 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 8 45 98 Municipals ( POTWs) 2,579 549 3,677 Organic Chemicals Man./ Petroleum Refining 15 30 75 Pulp and Paper 46 47 140 Steam Electric 0 0 0 Major Dischargers Subtotal 2,675 678 4,031 Minor Dischargers Municipals 0 0 0 Non Municipals 0 0 0 1. Based on 177 discharger responses and 177 State responses per year.

Discharger cost associated with semi annual monitoring of pollutant sources, and quarterly influent monitoring was estimated to be $ 197,454.00 annually. It was assumed that these sample analyses will be conducted by a contract laboratory.

Based on the costs for approval strategy and for annual reports in the 2001 ICR, EPA estimated the labor burden for each of these activities. Exhibits 6 8 shows the final burden pollution minimization programs. However, some of these burden hours are addressed in the Water Quality Standards ICR and are not included in this ICR to avoid double counting. Exhibit 6 9 presents the total burden for Pollutant Minimization Programs and the estimated costs after accounting for burden hours addressed in the Water Quality Standards ICR. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 27 EXHIBIT 6 8 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN FOR POLLUTANT MINIMIZATION PROGRAMS 1 Discharger Category Burden for PMP Implementation Burden for Approvable Strategy Burden For Annual Report Total Burden Major Dischargers Food and Food Products 0 0 0 0 Inorganic Chemicals 32.00 503.00 101.00 636 Metal Finishing 0 0 0 0 Mining 9.00 189.00 38.00 236 Metals Manufacturing 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 98.00 471.00 94.00 663 Municipals ( POTWs) 3,677.00 8,609.00 1,722.00 14008 Organic Chemical Man./ Petroleum Refining 75.00 471.00 94.00 640 Pulp and Paper 140.00 1,791.00 452.00 2383 Steam Electric 0 0 0 0 Major Dischargers Subtotal 4,031 12,034 2,501 18,566 Minor Dischargers Municipals 0 0 0 0 Non Municipals 0 0 0 0 Minor Dischargers Subtotal 0 0 0 0 Total 4,031 12,034 2,501 18,566 1. Burden in this table still includes 5,840 burden hours addressed in the Water Quality Standards ICR. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 28 EXHIBIT 6 9 SUMMARY OF CORRECTED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST FOR POLLUTANT MINIMIZATION PROGRAMS 1 Discharger Category Total Corrected Burden Total Corrected Costs ( 2005)

Major Dischargers Food and Food Products 0 0 Inorganic Chemicals 436 $ 30,598 Metal Finishing 0 $ 0 Mining 162 $ 11,354 Metals Manufacturing 0 $ 0 Miscellaneous 454 $ 31,897 Municipals ( POTWs) 9,601 $ 328,946 Organic Chemical Man./ Petroleum Refining 439 $ 30,790 Pulp and Paper 1,633 $ 114,646 Steam Electric 0 $ 0 Major Dischargers Subtotal 12,726 $ 546,226 Minor Dischargers Municipals 0 0 Non Municipals 0 0 Minor Dischargers Subtotal 0 0 Total 12,726 $ 546,226 1. Burden and cost in this table account for burden hours addressed in the Water Quality Standards ICR.

Bioconcentration Studies Burden States and Tribes may, but are not required to, direct permittees to use fish monitoring and other bio uptake studies to evaluate PMP performance where WQBELs are established below analytical detection limits. Such studies would require sampling and laboratory analysis of fish tissue. Consistent with the Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Final Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( March 13, 1995), only analytical costs were estimated. Because the fish tissue testing requires special expertise, EPA assumed that permittees would contract with laboratories to conduct such studies. EPA estimates that 170 permittees will Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 29 conduct bioconcentration studies and submit responses.

A contractor cost of $ 5,000 per pollutant for bioconcentration studies was assumed for the costs estimated in the Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Final Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( March 13, 1995). In sum, respondent's annualized O& M costs for bioconcentration studies were estimated to be about $ 531,033 in 2005 dollars.

6.1.3 MODIFICATION AND VARIANCE BURDEN Additional respondent burden associated with preparing requests for regulatory relief options available through the Guidance is estimated to be 10,634 hours.

To be granted relief from provisions adopted consistent with the Guidance, it is assumed that the permittee will need to perform additional monitoring or special studies, etc., to support its request. Based on EPA's Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Final Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( March 13, 1995), under the low end cost estimate EPA conservatively estimates that regulatory relief would be requested for a total of 87 pollutants ( from 59 facilities). EPA assumes that one fifth ( or about 18) will be requested each year. This will yield 18 permittee responses per year. Permittee burden to prepare and submit a request for regulatory relief will vary depending upon the type of relief being pursued ( e. g., criteria modification, alternative mixing zone, etc.). Based on the analysis for the 2001 ICR, total respondent burden to prepare and submit variance requests is estimated to be 9,050 hours annually, at a cost of $ 635,220 EPA estimated the state government burden associated with requests for regulatory regulation relief to be approximately 1,584 hours. This review of the 18 permittee requests will result in 18 state responses per year. To determine the States' burden, EPA estimated that the governments would require:

four hours to review a regulatory relief request for completion, including any contact with the permittee for additional information

four hours for public notice and comment ( assuming the regulatory relief mechanism is independent of regular permit public notice)

ten days ( 80 hours) to analyze the regulatory relief option request, justify the decision, and prepare a permit modification if necessary.

EPA estimated the cost to State government associated with requests for regulatory relief to be $ 62,299 6.2 ESTIMATING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COSTS EPA estimated annual Federal government burden to be approximately 400 hours and cost $ 15,732. State/ Federal EPA estimated little additional Federal government applications burden Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 30 or cost because all the Great Lakes States are authorized NPDES permitting authorities.

6.2.1 GOVERNMENT APPLICATIONS BURDEN AND COST Burden and Costs Associated With Studies to Support the Development of Water Quality Criteria EPA estimated an annual burden to the Federal government of 400 hours to set up and maintain the water quality database to serve as the Information Clearinghouse. This results in a cost of $ 15,732.

Consistency Review Burden and Costs The burden to the Federal government is the review of State regulations and criteria for consistency with the Guidance over the course of the first five years of the program. The review of such materials will require a burden of 120 hours per State ( i. e., 960 hours for all Great Lakes States or 192 hours per year). The annual cost associated with the preparation of the materials is $ 7,551.

6.2.2 GOVERNMENT MONITORING BURDEN AND COST EPA estimated no additional Federal government monitoring burden or cost.

6.2.3 GOVERNMENT REGULATORY RELIEF OPTION BURDEN AND COST No additional burden or cost was estimated for the Federal government.

6.3 TOTAL UPDATED BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS Exhibit 6 10 presents the total burden and costs to respondents and the State government in 2005 dollars. To update this cost to reflect increases in labor costs, EPA applied the latest US Department of Labor reports on labor statistics adjusted to January 2005 using the employment cost index. Other non labor costs were adjusted using the Consumer Price Index.

The Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance Reporting Requirements ICR approved by OMB in 2001 contains line by line estimates of burden hours similar to the estimates presented in this document. Some of the burden contemplated in the 2001 ICR has been transfer to the Water Quality Standards ICR ( OMB Control Number 2040 0049). Exhibit 6.11 presents a comparison of burden estimates between the 2001 and the 2005 ICR. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 31 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OW 2003 0030, which is available for public viewing at the EPA Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Water Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OW 2003 0030 and OMB Control Number 2040 0180 in any correspondence. Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 32 EXHIBIT 6 10 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST ESTIMATES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF GREAT LAKES GUIDANCE ($ 2005)

Requirement Discharger State Government Total Number of Responses Burden ( Hours) Labor Cost O& M Cost Number of Responses Burden ( Hours) Labor Cost Number of Responses Burden ( Hours) Cost Applications Water Quality Criteria 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 $ 0 Antidegradation Policy 76 1350 $ 67,809 $ 0 76 432 $ 16,991 152 1,782 $ 84,800 WET Data Collection 333 0 $ 0 $ 712,765 0 0 $ 0 333 0 $ 712,765 Applications Subtotal 409 1350 $ 67,809 $ 712,765 76 432 $ 16,991 485 1,782 $ 797,565 Monitoring WQBELs 176 3,655 $ 194,756 $ 105,634 0 0 $ 0 176 3,655 $ 300,390 WET Limits 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 $ 0 PMPs 177 12,726 $ 546,226 $ 197,454 0 0 $ 0 177 12,726 $ 743,680 BCCs 170 0 $ 0 $ 531,033 0 0 $ 0 170 0 $ 531,033 Monitoring Subtotal 523 16381 $ 740,983 $ 834,121 0 0 $ 0 523 16,381 $ 1,575,104 Regulatory Relief Options 18 9,050 $ 635,220 $ 0 18 1,584 $ 62,299 36 10,634 $ 697,518 Total Guidance 950 26,781 $ 1,444,011 $ 1,546,886 94 2,016 $ 79,289 1,044 28,797 $ 3,070,186 Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR 33 EXHIBIT 6 11 CHANGE IN BURDEN 2005 2001 Discharger Burden ( Hours) State Burden ( Hours) Discharger Burden ( Hours) State Burden ( Hours) Reason Applications Water Quality Criteria 0 0 760 2,314 Transfer to the Water Quality Standards ICR Antidegradation Policy 1,350 432 3,800 1,216 Transfer to the Water Quality Standards ICR,

decrease in potentially affected facilities WET Data Collection 0 0 0 0 Consistency Review 0 0 0 64 Transfer to the Water Quality Standards ICR Applications Subtotal 1,350 432 4,560 3,594 Monitoring WQBELs 3,655 0 5,333 0 Transfer to the Water Quality Standards ICR WET Limits 0 0 0 0 PMPs 12,726 0 18,566 708 Transfer to the Water Quality Standards ICR BCCs 0 0 0 0 Monitoring Subtotal 16,381 0 23,899 708 Regulatory Relief Options 9,050 1,584 9,050 1,584 Total Guidance 26,781 2,016 37,509 5,886