° Via an on line query using EPA's Envirofacts Data Warehouse and Applications website at http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ index_ java. html. Accessing data via Envirofacts provides a method to combine PCS data with other EPA databases and mapping tools.

5c. Small Entity Flexibility The minimum design intake flow requirements in today's proposed rule would exclude all but one small entity from the compliance requirements. The affected facility is estimated to have a cost to revenue ratio of less than one percent.

EPA considers the proposed information collection and reporting requirements to be the minimum necessary to ensure that the section 316( b) goal of " minimizing adverse environmental impact" is met. Because small entities constitute a very small share of the potentially affected facilities and because only a small percentage of all small entities in the affected industries are subject to the rule, providing them greater flexibility such as less frequent data collection and reporting requirements would not have a large effect on their overall burden, but could have an adverse impact on the effectiveness of the proposed rule. Furthermore, because the reporting requirements differ by source waterbody type and compliance alternative selected, entities of all sizes have the flexibility to minimize their total compliance costs including the costs and burden of information collection requirements.

5d. Collection Schedule Under the 50 MGD for all waterbodies option, EPA anticipates that 56 Phase III existing manufacturing and 31 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities would fall within the scope of the proposed rule during the first three years after promulgation. Due to the multiple years of data that would be collected for the Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study, the permitting process is anticipated to take up to three years to complete. However, of the 56 existing manufacturing and 31 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities projected to fall within the scope of the proposed rule during the ICR approval period, 65 ( 46 existing manufacturers and 19 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities) are scheduled to have permits issued during the three year ICR approval period; these facilities would be on an accelerated schedule and thus would receive their permits as scheduled. EPA assumes that these facilities would have reopener clauses included in their permits to allow for the results of the Impingement Mortality and 49 November 24, 2004 Entrainment Characterization Studies to be submitted after permit issuance and for the permits to be modified based on the results of these studies, if necessary. The remaining 22 ( 10 existing manufacturers and 12 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities) would not receive their initial permit renewals until after the ICR approval period, and thus would have sufficient time to perform their Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Studies prior to receiving their initial permit renewals.

Fifty six existing manufacturing facilities begin the application process during the ICR approval period. Of these 56 manufacturers, 27 would complete the process and annual monitoring and biannual reporting activities. Of the 31 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities that begin the application process during the ICR approval period, 20 would begin annual monitoring and reporting activities.

Under the 200 MGD for all waterbodies option, EPA anticipates that 13 Phase III existing manufacturing and 31 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities would fall within the scope of the proposed rule during the first three years after promulgation. Of the 13 existing manufacturing and 31 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities projected to fall within the scope of the proposed rule during the ICR approval period, 28 ( 9 existing manufacturers and 19 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities) are scheduled to have permits issued during the three year ICR approval period; these facilities would be on an accelerated schedule and thus would receive their permits as scheduled. The remaining 16 ( 4 existing manufacturers and 12 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities) would not receive their initial permit renewals until after the ICR approval period, and thus would have sufficient time to perform their Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Studies prior to receiving their initial permit renewals.

Thirteen existing manufacturing facilities begin the application process during the ICR approval period. Of these 13 manufacturers, 5 would complete the process and annual monitoring and biannual reporting activities. Of the 31 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities that begin the application process during the ICR approval period 20 would begin annual monitoring and reporting activities.

Under the 100 MGD for certain waterbodies option, EPA anticipates that 11 Phase III existing manufacturing and 31 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities would fall within the scope of the proposed rule during the first three years after promulgation. Of the 11 existing manufacturing and 31 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities projected to fall within the scope of the proposed rule during the ICR approval period, 27 ( 8 existing manufacturers and 19 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities) are scheduled to have permits issued during the three year ICR approval period; these facilities would be on an accelerated schedule and thus would receive their permits as scheduled. The remaining 15 ( 3 existing manufacturers and 12 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities) would not receive their initial permit renewals until after the ICR approval period, and thus would have sufficient time to perform their Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Studies prior to receiving their initial permit renewals. 50 November 24, 2004 Eleven existing manufacturing facilities begin the application process during the ICR approval period. Of these 11 manufacturers, 7 would complete the process and annual monitoring and biannual reporting activities. Of the 31 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities that begin the application process during the ICR approval period 20 would begin annual monitoring and reporting activities.

Exhibit 5 provides the estimated implementation schedule for the existing manufacturing facilities, during the initial ICR approval period. The schedules for the three options proposed are shown separately on Exhibit 5. Exhibit 6 presents the estimated implementation schedule for the 31 new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities, during the initial ICR approval period.

Exhibit 5. Number of Existing Manufacturing Facilities Assumed to Begin Compliance with Information Collection: Requirements During the ICR Approval Period by Year Type of Activity ICR Approval Period 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 50 MGD All Waterbodies Option Existing Manufacturers Beginning the NPDES Permit Application Process 31 17 8 Existing Manufacturers Beginning Annual Monitoring and Biannual Reporting of Operations 0 12 15 200 MGD All Waterbodies Option Existing Manufacturers Beginning the NPDES Permit Application Process 7 5 1 Existing Manufacturers Beginning Annual Monitoring and Biannual Reporting of Operations 0 1 4 100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option Existing Manufacturers Beginning the NPDES Permit Application Process 8 3 0 Existing Manufacturers Beginning Annual Monitoring and Biannual Reporting of Operations 0 1 6 51 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 6. Number of New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Assumed to Begin Compliance with Information Collection: Requirements During the ICR Approval Period by Year Type of Activity ICR Approval Period 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Beginning the NPDES Permit Application Process 31 0 0 New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Beginning Annual Monitoring and Annual Reporting of Operations 0 7 13 52 November 24, 2004 6. Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection The following sections present the proposed rationale, assumptions made and results of EPA's estimation of burden and costs for the implementation of the section 316( b) Phase III proposed rule. Specific respondent activities were detailed in section 4b( ii).

6a. Estimating Respondent Burden This section describes the burden estimates for facilities and Directors, as well as the methods used and assumptions made to derive them. Respondent activities are separated into those activities associated with the NPDES permit application and those activities associated with monitoring and reporting after the permit is issued. The reason for this is that the permit cycle is every five years, while ICRs would be renewed every three years. Therefore, the application activities occur only once per facility during an ICR approval period, and so they would be considered one time burden for the purpose of this ICR. By contrast, the monitoring activities that occur after issuance of the permit for both manufacturers and new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities occur on an annual basis, while reporting activities occur on a biennial basis for existing manufacturers and on an annual basis for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. For estimates of repermitting burdens see Exhibits A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 12 and A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 13 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturers and Exhibits B. 12 and B. 13 in Appendix B for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities.

Facility Burdens Information collection would require in scope facilities to devote time ( i. e., as measured by staff hours) and resources ( e. g., copies of documents and report mailings) to produce the necessary NPDES permit applications, implementation plans, and biannual or annual status reports, as required. EPA expects that facility employees, including managers, engineers, engineering technicians, statisticians, biologists, biological technicians, draftsmen, and clerical staff, would devote time toward gathering, preparing, and submitting the various documents. To develop representative profiles of each employee's relative contribution, EPA assumed burden estimates that reflect the staffing and expertise typically found in manufacturing facilities and oil and gas extraction facilities. In doing this, EPA considered the time and qualifications necessary to complete a variety of tasks: reviewing instructions, planning responses, researching data sources, gathering and analyzing data, typing or writing the information requested, reviewing results, conferring with permitting authorities and expert consultants, and sending documents. 53 November 24, 2004 EPA anticipates that facilities would use contracted services to perform many of their required sampling and analyzing tasks. The contracted staff are likely to include project managers, biologists, statisticians, and biological technicians. The work done by these contracted employees would be done on site on a regular basis. Therefore, the hourly burdens associated with their work are included in the overall burden estimates for each facility.

For each activity burden assumption, EPA selected time estimates to reflect the expected effort necessary to carry out these activities under normal conditions and reasonable labor efficiency rates. EPA assumed that the majority of the actual work performed by facility staff, such as researching, collecting, and analyzing data, as well as writing the documents, would be carried out by junior technical staff. Burdens associated with managerial and senior engineering staff include time for actions such as occasional or seasonal visits to supervise sampling efforts, as well as periodic review of lab results and documentation. EPA assumed that the facilities would employ a drafter to perform computer aided drafting ( CAD) operations. For contracted employees, EPA assumed that the majority of the work would be carried out by the biologists and the biological technicians.

Exhibits 7 and 8 provide a summary of the hourly burden estimates for facilities performing the NPDES permit application associated with the proposed rule for existing manufacturers and new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities, respectively. Exhibits 9 and 10 provide a summary of the hourly burden estimates for facilities performing annual monitoring, and annual reporting activities for existing manufacturers and new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities, respectively. Activities performed by existing manufacturers differ somewhat from those performed by new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. The reason for this is that the Phase III requirements for existing manufacturers are similar to those promulgated for existing electric generators under Phase II, while the Phase III requirements for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities are consistent with the requirements promulgated for new facilities under § 125.136 of the proposed rule. For a more detailed presentation of hourly burdens for facilities see Exhibits A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 1 and A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 2 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturers and Exhibits B. 1 and B. 2 in Appendix B for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. 54 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 7. Average per Facility Burden for each NPDES Permit Application Activity for Existing Manufacturers Activities Burden ( hrs)

50 MGD All Waterbodies Option 200 MGD All Waterbodies Option 100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option Start up Activities 43 43 43 Permit Application Activities 247 247 247 Proposal for Collection of Information for Comprehensive Demonstration Study 272 272 272 Source Waterbody Flow Information 101 100 na Design and Construction Technology Plan 80 86 92 Freshwater Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study 9,089 9,089 9,089 Marine Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study for Existing Manufacturers 16,783 16,783 16,783 Freshwater Pilot Study for Impingement Only Technology* na na na Freshwater Pilot Study for Impingement & Entrainment Technology 1,556 1,556 1,556 Marine Pilot Study for Impingement Only Technology 1,185 1,185 1,185 Marine Pilot Study for Impingement & Entrainment Technology 1,859 1,859 1,859 Technology Installation and Operation Plan 52 52 52 Verification Monitoring Plan 128 128 128 Total** 31,395 31,400 31,306 * During the initial ICR approval period, no facilities were identified which required pilot study costs for Freshwater Impingement only and these activities were not costed.

** The total does not reflect the average burden for every facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed. 55 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 8. Average per Facility Burden for each NPDES Permit Application Activity for New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Activities Burden( hrs)*

Start up Activities 43 Permit Application Activities 25 Source Waterbody Flow Information 38 Design and Construction Technology Plan 36 Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data for New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities in Gulf of Mexico 751 Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data for New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities in Alaska 2,422 Total** 3,315 * Some of the burdens for new offshore oil and gas facilities are based on the hourly burden for a regional study in the Gulf of Mexico, where the burden is shared by all the participants.

** The total does not reflect the average burden for every facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed. EPA assumed that all new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities would pursue Track I application of today's proposed rule because it is unknown how many facilities would select Track I versus Track II application. Hence the actual burden may be different than presented here.

The activities listed in the first column of Exhibits 7 through 10 correspond to the facility respondent activities outlined earlier in Section 4b( ii). All facilities would be subject to the start up and permit application activities listed in Exhibits 7 and 8. For the other listed activities only a subset of facilities are expected to perform them. The set of activities, that each facility is estimated to perform is based on the rule requirements that the facility is subject to and the type of waterbody from which it withdraws water. For a detailed presentation of the number of facilities performing each activity see Exhibits A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 5 and A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 6 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturers and Exhibits B. 5 and B. 6 in Appendix B for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. 56 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 9. Average Burden per Facility for Annual Monitoring and Reporting Activities for Existing Manufacturers Activities Burden ( hrs)

50 MGD All Waterbodies Option 200 MGD All Waterbodies Option 100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option Biological Monitoring ( Impingement, Freshwater) 379 379 379 Biological Monitoring ( Impingement, Marine) 482 482 482 Biological Monitoring ( Entrainment, Freshwater) 614 614 614 Biological Monitoring ( Entrainment, Marine) 776 776 776 Biannual Status Report Activities 324 324 324 Verification Study 122 122 122 Total 2,697 2,697 2,697 Exhibit 10. Average Burden per Facility for Annual Monitoring and Reporting Activities for New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Activities Burden ( hrs)*

Biological Monitoring ( Impingement, Marine)** 159 Biological Monitoring ( Entrainment, Marine)** 52 Velocity Monitoring 163 Annual Status Report Activities 223 Total*** 597 * Some of the burdens for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities are based on the hourly burden for a regional study in the Gulf of Mexico, where the burden is shared by all the participants.

** The burden for collecting biological monitoring data for impingement and entrainment varies between different operating regions. Therefore the burden reported here is a weighted average for the facility burdens in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

*** The total does not reflect the average burden for every facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed, e. g., MODUs are not required to conduct monitoring except as determined by the Director.

Start Up Activities In Exhibits 7 and 8, the start up burdens account for reading the published regulations, sample permits, and any guidance materials associated with the rule; determining the required staff and resources necessary to successfully complete the application process, 57 November 24, 2004 and meet all monitoring and reporting requirements; and training staff to perform tasks that they would not be required to conduct if the rule were not implemented. It is assumed for the analysis that facilities would receive their reissued permits at the beginning of the year. Thus, during the first year ( 2010), facilities would perform permit application activities for their permits that are reissued at the beginning of the second year ( 2011). It is also assumed that facilities that become subject to the rule during the first three years would be granted an accelerated permit approval process so that permit reissuance is not delayed. In subsequent years, facilities required to perform Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Studies would need to begin collecting monitoring data two to three years prior to permit renewal. Furthermore, all facilities would begin the other permit application activities in the year just prior to receiving their reissued permits. These start up activities, applicable to all facilities, are assumed to be performed by facility management and junior technical staff.

Permit Application Activities Permit application activities refer to the development and submittal of the required elements of the application for reissuance of the NPDES permit.

As part of the permit application process, all Phase III existing manufacturers would gather source water physical data, cooling water intake structure data and cooling water system data. Phase III oil and gas extraction facilities are not required to gather cooling water system data, but they are required to provide information on intake velocity, as well as the source physical data and cooling water intake structure data. EPA anticipates that much of the data required to characterize the waterbody and the cooling water intake structure has already been gathered by the facility, and that much of the actual facility burden is from deriving the requested information from this data.

The Minerals Management Service ( MMS) requires offshore oil and gas extraction facility operators to submit information on cooling water intake structures as part of their drilling plans, so much of the information required for the basic permit application requirements ( e. g., source water physical data, operational narrative of the cooling water system) would have already been compiled. Offshore oil and gas extraction facility operators are assumed to review the MMS information and apply it as needed for the required permit application information. However, it is also assumed that the MMS information would not be completely sufficient to meet all the application information requirements. As a result of the availability of the MMS information, operators are assumed to spend approximately 75% less time than that incurred by land based facilities.

To derive the source water physical data, EPA assumes that junior technical staff would work with a Computer Aided Drafting ( CAD) operator to develop a description of the physical configuration of the source waterbody where the cooling water intake structure is located, including areal dimensions, depths, salinity, and temperature regimes. The CAD operator would produce scaled drawings showing the physical configuration of the source waterbody and prepare locational maps of the waterbody. The junior technical staff would 58 November 24, 2004 use this information and available data to produce a report characterizing and documenting the hydrological and geomorphological features of the source waterbody. Depending on the extent of existing information it may be necessary for some facilities to conduct physical studies to determine the intake's area of influence within the waterbody.

Cooling water intake structure data would be used to develop a report on the operation of the intake structure. EPA assumes that a CAD operator would assist junior technical staff in preparing a narrative description of the configuration of the cooling water intake structure and its location within the waterbody and in the water column, including measurements of the latitude and longitude of the cooling water intake structure. In addition, junior technical staff would develop a narrative that describes the operation of the cooling water intake structure, including design flows, daily hours of operation, number of days of the year in operation, and seasonal changes, if applicable. Management would review and revise this data.

Junior technical staff would also develop a narrative characterizing the facility's cooling water system, which includes a flow distribution and water balance diagram for the facility depicting all sources of water to the facility, recirculating flows, and discharges. Management would review and revise this characterization. EPA also anticipates that the junior technical staff would perform engineering calculations for the source waterbody and cooling water intake structure documents. Management would review and revise these calculations.

In addition, Phase III facilities would be required to comply with Comprehensive Demonstration Study requirements depending on the compliance alternative selected. Facilities that already have a closed cycle recirculating system are not required to submit a Study and facilities that already have a design intake flow of 0.5 feet per second or less are also exempted from impingement requirements. However, facilities choosing to install new technologies rather than reducing flows to levels commensurate with closed cycle recirculating systems are required to gather and submit additional information in the form of a Comprehensive Demonstration Study to confirm that the technology( ies), operational measures and restoration measures proposed and/ or implemented at the intake meet the applicable performance standards. See section 4b( ii) for additional details.

The Study characterizes impingement mortality and entrainment, the operation of the cooling water intake structure, and confirms that the technologies, operational measures and/ or restoration measures the facility has selected and/ or implemented at the cooling water intake structure meet the applicable requirements prior to each permit renewal application. The Study entails a proposal for information collection, source waterbody flow information, an Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study, technology compliance and assessment information, Restoration Plan, Design and Construction Technology Plan, information to support site specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, and a Verification Monitoring Plan. The facility hourly burdens for demonstrating compliance with these 59 November 24, 2004 requirements include developing and submitting narrative descriptions, supporting documentation, and engineering calculations.

Comprehensive Demonstration Study Requirements Proposal for Information Collection As a first step in the Comprehensive Demonstration Study, the facility would develop and submit a proposal for the collection of information to support the Study. EPA assumes that junior technical staff would develop a list and description of any historical studies characterizing impingement and entrainment and/ or the physical and biological conditions in the vicinity of the intakes and their relevancy to the Comprehensive Demonstration Study. The facility management would review the collected information to determine the extent to which existing data are representative of current conditions, are sufficient to develop a scientifically valid estimate of impingement and entrainment, and were collected using appropriate quality assurance/ quality control procedures. Junior technical staff are assumed to develop a description of the proposed and/ or implemented technologies, operational measures and restoration measures to be evaluated in the Comprehensive Demonstration Study. Facility management would review and revise this description. EPA assumes that the new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities would be able to use the MMS information for parts of their proposal for information collection.

Although some facilities are likely to have sufficient available information to forego an extensive monitoring study, EPA assumes that all existing manufacturers performing a Comprehensive Demonstration Study would perform an Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study involving between two and three years of monitoring. Therefore, these facilities would need to develop and submit a source water sampling plan that documents all methods and quality assurance procedures for sampling and data analysis, as well as describes the study area ( including the area of influence of the cooling water intake structure and at least 100 meters beyond). EPA assumes that the junior technical staff would review source water and cooling water intake structure data. They would use this information to write a draft of the source water sampling plan. A CAD operator would assist the junior technical staff in this effort. The facility manager would supervise this effort, review the draft, and consult with the manager of the contracted firm that would perform the monitoring. The contracted manager would review the draft and provide feedback. EPA assumes that all new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities would not perform an Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study. Instead these facilities would submit Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data.

Source Waterbody Flow Information As part of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study, facilities with intakes located on freshwater rivers/ streams would submit source waterbody flow information. This information is used to determine the impact of the cooling water intake structure on the 60 November 24, 2004 natural flow of the source water and is an important factor in determining the appropriate technologies. Similarly, facilities with intakes on freshwater lakes or reservoirs need to determine the extent to which the cooling water intake structure disrupts the thermal stratification of the waterbody. EPA anticipates that most facilities would have ready access to existing flow and thermal stratification information. However, EPA assumes that some facilities would need to take flow or thermal stratification measurements immediately around the intake. Junior technical staff are expected to gather existing information and take measurements for freshwater river and stream flows, and for lakes and reservoirs. Junior technical staff would perform engineering calculations and develop a report. Facility management would review and revise this information.

Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study The required level of effort for the Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study is likely to vary considerably depending on the availability of existing data and the complexity of the habitat and waterbody in which the cooling water intake structure would be located. For the purpose of developing the ICR cost and burden estimates, it is assumed that each existing facility that is required to perform a Comprehensive Demonstration Study would also perform the Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study . EPA assumes that the sampling required for the Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study would take two years for facilities drawing from freshwater bodies and three years for those facilities drawing from marine waters. Therefore, the entire application process can take up to three years to complete. The Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study activities would be performed in years prior to the reissuance of the NPDES permit.

This estimate takes into account that some facilities would have access to existing data, which may allow them to reduce the duration of the monitoring period, while other facilities may require additional time due to the confounding effects of other factors such as very dry years or fish kills due to red tides. Facilities that become subject to the rule within the first three years are assumed to provide the Director with preliminary study results, and complete the monitoring after the permit has been issued, to avoid delays in permit reissuance. The monitoring study consists of an extensive sampling effort performed primarily by contracted employees, and then the characterization of the data in the form of a study report that is produced by both facility and contracted employees.

To accurately characterize the effects of impingement and entrainment on the aquatic communities found in the source water, offshore monitoring would occur at the same time that monitoring for impingement and entrainment is occurring. As a result, EPA assumes that monitoring is performed simultaneously at the facility for impingement and entrainment, and offshore at the edge of the determined zone of influence. Since impingement more often impacts adult organisms, while entrainment affects juvenile organisms, offshore samples would be taken of both juvenile and adult organisms. Therefore, EPA assumes that four types of sampling as presented in Exhibit 11 would occur. 61 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 11. Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study Sample Types Sample Type Location of Sample Impingement Sample* At the intake structure.

Entrainment Sample In the facility.

Offshore Sample for Juvenile Organisms At the edge of the zone of influence.

Offshore Sample for Adult Organisms At the edge of the zone of influence.

* Impingement sampling for New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction facilities is accomplished through the use of a remote monitoring device due to the difficulty of taking direct samples at the site of the intake.

To accurately characterize seasonal and annual fluctuations in aquatic communities impacted by the cooling water intake structure, EPA assumes sampling is performed at the facility on a biweekly basis over two years for freshwater facilities and three years for marine facilities. EPA believes that a sizable majority of the monitoring work would be carried out by the biologists and biological technicians. Over the course of the study, other employees would also spend time contributing to the use of the monitoring data.

Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data ( New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Only)

The data is used to characterize the biological community in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure and to characterize the operation of the cooling water intake structure. The data includes existing data ( if available) supplemented with new field studies as necessary. In an effort to save costs, facilities within a given region may choose to conduct a regional study to collect this information as approved by the Director. EPA recognizes that many offshore oil and gas extraction facilities are regulated under NPDES general permits and that regional studies are often conducted as part of the general permit requirements. MODUs would be exempt from this requirement.

Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico region are assumed to conduct a regional study. Three existing deepwater oil and gas platforms and three MODUs operating in deepwater are assumed chosen for the Gulf of Mexico regional study. There are no new facilities expected in California so there is no California regional study. There is one new facility expected in Alaska, so there is no regional study for Alaska either. Instead the one facility is assumed to perform its own individual monitoring.

For the six Gulf of Mexico facilities and the one Alaska facility, each month a team of biologists and biological technicians is expected to perform the sampling over a two day period. Impingement monitoring is accomplished with the use of a remote monitoring device. The installation of the remote monitoring device is assumed to cost $ 20,000 per facility. The team is transported out to the facility by helicopter and picked up the next day. The cost of the helicopter is assumed to be $ 12,000 per year in the Gulf of Mexico and $ 18,000 per year in Alaska. Monitoring is expected to take place over a three year 62 November 24, 2004 period. The results of the regional study would then be used by each in scope Gulf of Mexico facility to complete their Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data requirements.

Technology and Compliance Assessment Information EPA assumes that the portion of the Design and Construction Technology Plan ( and Technology Installation and Operation Plan, if applicable) associated with evaluation of potential cooling water intake structure effects would be conducted during the year prior to the issuance of the NPDES permit, to allow the facility time to incorporate information from the Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study already underway.

Design and Construction Technology Plan If the facility chooses to use design and construction technologies or operational measures in whole or in part to meet the requirements of § 125.103, the facility would also submit a Design and Construction Technology Plan as part of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study. EPA assumes that a CAD operator would delineate the hydraulic zone of influence, and that junior technical staff would assist the CAD operator, and management would review this work. Junior technical staff would perform engineering calculations to determine anticipated impingement rates, and develop narrative descriptions of the design and operation of all design and construction technologies or operational measures ( existing and proposed), used to meet the requirements to reduce impingement mortality. Management would review the calculations and write up. Those facilities that need to address entrainment would spend approximately the same amount of time performing engineering calculations and developing a narrative description.

As part of the Design and Construction Technology Plan, facilities would include a sitespecific evaluation of the technology( ies) and/ or operational measures. This site specific evaluation can be based on representative studies ( i. e., studies that have been conducted at cooling water intake structures located in the same waterbody type with similar biological characteristics) and/ or site specific technology prototype studies. EPA assumes for the site specific technology prototype studies, that the facilities would conduct an on site pilot study for the technology or operational measure.

In general, pilot study costs vary. The variables that affect pilot study costs are regulations, testing protocols, and testing duration. Pilot equipment is either rented or manufactured to suit specific site conditions. Generally, a typical ratio of total pilot study costs to the actual technology costs is less than one to ten for technologies that cost more than one million dollars. Therefore, EPA assumes that facilities would be willing to spend 10% of the technology installation cost on a pilot study to determine if the technology would function properly when installed and operated. 63 November 24, 2004 An important cost element in the pilot study is the cost of monitoring. EPA realizes that the amount of monitoring necessary would vary depending on the technology and the biological characteristics of the source water. However, EPA assumes that a typical monitoring effort would involve five samples being collected over a twenty four hour period, every two weeks for six months. Facilities would need to analyze the data, summarize the results, and use this information as the basis for their site specific evaluation. EPA estimates that the pilot study monitoring and reporting costs would typically range between $ 50,000 and $ 110,000 for a facility, depending on the source water type and whether the facility would need to monitor for both impingement and entrainment or just impingement.

The installation costs for the range of proposed and/ or implemented technologies vary widely, with the capital costs of the relatively inexpensive technologies being less than $ 500,000. EPA assumes that the financial risk to facilities installing relatively low cost technologies ( in comparison to a facility's overall cost of operation, revenues, or anticipated benefits) are not likely to warrant conducting a pilot study. In these cases, EPA believes that facilities with low cost technology options would forgo a pilot study and install the proposed technology based on existing performance information or manufacturer's guarantee to cover the cost of dismantling the equipment. The facility would then use the impingement and entrainment monitoring data from the Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study to evaluate how well the technology performs. EPA assumes that when the capital cost for the proposed technology is less than $ 500,000 the facility would not perform a pilot study. A pilot study may not be practical for some of the proposed technologies, such as widening the opening of the intake structure to reduce intake velocity. EPA assumes that pilot studies would not be practical for all new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. For those facilities anticipated to install technologies where a pilot study is impractical, EPA assumes, for the purpose of estimating the regulatory economic burden, that they would not perform pilot studies either.

To develop total pilot study cost estimates for facilities, EPA assumes that facilities would spend approximately 10% of the capital costs for installing the proposed technology on a cooling water intake. This cost covers the installation, operation, monitoring, and reporting costs associated with the pilot study. However, EPA assumes that the minimum cost to perform an acceptable pilot study, including monitoring would be $ 150,000. Therefore, if 10% of a facility's technology cost was below $ 150,000, the facility was automatically assigned a cost of $ 150,000. EPA assumes that facilities that choose to demonstrate that they have installed and are properly maintaining and operating an approved technology would provide the Director with the information detailed in the source waterbody flow information and the Technology Installation and Operation Plan and Verification Monitoring Plan. It would be up to the Director's discretion to decide whether they would need to perform a pilot study or the Impingement and Entrainment Characterization Study. However, to be conservative, EPA has assumed that these facilities would perform one or more of these studies. 64 November 24, 2004 Technology Installation and Operation Plan As part of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study, existing manufacturers would include a plan that listed all operational parameters to be monitored, as well as the location and frequency of the annual monitoring efforts. Furthermore, the plan would contain a list of the activities the facility would perform to optimize the efficacy of installed technology and operational measures. Finally, the plan would include the schedule and methodology for assessing the efficacy of any installed design and construction technologies and operational measures in achieving applicable performance standards, including an adaptive management plan for revising design and construction technologies and/ or operational technologies if the assessment indicates that performance standards are not being achieved.

EPA assumes that much of the information required for the Technology Installation and Operation Plan overlaps with the information gathered for the Design and Construction Technology Plan and the Verification Monitoring Plan. The Design and Construction Technology Plan requires a very detailed explanation of the design and operation of new technologies and how they will work to reduce impingement and entrainment at the site of the intake. In developing this information facilities will have to consider issues of installation and maintenance, as well as efficacy assessment. Therefore, EPA assumes that the effort required by facilities to gather this information for the Technology Installation and Operation Plan, reduces the effort burden incurred for the Design and Construction Technology Plan.

Similarly, the time and effort required by the facility to develop a description of monitoring parameters and to characterize efficacy assessment activities directly overlaps with the effort to develop the Verification Monitoring Plan. Therefore, EPA assumes that the burden for these activities is accounted for with the burden incurred for the Verification Monitoring Plan.

According to 125.104( b), facilities that operate and maintain an approved design and construction technology only have to submit the TIOP and Verification Monitoring Plan and they can forgo the Design and Construction Technology Plan. So to avoid underestimating costs, we may want to account for the overlap between the Design and Construction Technology Plan and the TIOP by reducing the burden required for the former rather than the latter.

Restoration Plan Facilities are not required to use restoration measures to maintain fish and shellfish, but may voluntarily choose to use restoration measures to supplement design and construction technologies. EPA thus assumed that facilities would propose to use restoration measures only if additional design and construction technologies and operational measures are not feasible at the facility. Therefore, in order to provide a conservative estimate of burden 65 November 24, 2004 and costs, EPA has not included evaluation of the proposed restoration measures in developing the ICR cost and burden estimates for facilities.

Information to Support Site Specific Determination of Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact Under today's proposed rule, facilities may choose to request a site specific determination of best technology available in lieu of meeting the performance standards of § 125.103( b). If a facility requests a site specific evaluation of best technology available, it would first need to demonstrate to the Director that it meets one of two cost criteria. The first criteria requires the facility to demonstrate that its cost of compliance with the applicable performance standards specified would be significantly greater than the costs considered when the performance standards were established. The second criteria requires a facility to demonstrate that its costs would be significantly greater than the benefits of complying with the performance standards at the facility's site.

For the purpose of developing the ICR cost and burden estimates, EPA assumed that all respondents requesting a site specific determination of best technology available would claim that costs outweighed benefits, and therefore would perform the activities associated with the valuation of monetized benefits of reducing impingement and entrainment, in addition to performing the activities associated with the Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study and the Site specific Technology Plan. Performing the site specific determination is voluntary, so EPA has not included evaluation of the proposed site specific measures in developing the ICR cost and burden estimates for facilities. However, EPA recognizes that respondents choosing to perform activities related to site specific determination of best technology available would incur additional ICR costs. It is estimated that facilities implementing activities related to site specific determination of best technology available, including the preparation of Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study and Site specific Technology Plan would incur an average burden of approximately 700 hours at a cost of $ 35,000 per facility. Depending on the number of facilities with both impingement and entrainment requirements choosing to pursue site specific determination of best technology available, the above ICR burden and cost would be reduced accordingly. In addition, EPA believes that some of the above additional cost would be offset by reductions in technology costs for these facilities since these facilities may receive lowered performance requirements.

Though only a small percentage of the facilities are expected to perform activities related to site specific determination of best technology available, EPA estimated the Director burdens for reviewing site specific studies for all facilities with impingement and entrainment requirements. 66 November 24, 2004 Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study EPA assumes that for a facility to demonstrate to the Director that its actual implementation costs would be higher than those determined by EPA in achieving the performance standards, the facility would need to provide the Director with detailed information about the site, along with engineering calculations and cost estimates used to justify this conclusion. Much of the site specific information would have been gathered during the initial permit application process and the source water baseline biological characterization. Likewise, many of the initial engineering calculations would have been performed for the Design and Construction Technology Plan. Therefore, the main effort for this study would be for the facility to justify the cost estimates it claims that it would incur to install and operate the best technology available to meet the performance standards. EPA assumes that the junior technical staff would develop cost estimates and prepare an initial draft of the study. The facility manager would oversee the work done by the junior staff and revise the initial draft. The junior technical staff would revise and finalize the report for final draft review and preparation of an executive summary by the management. As with the site specific determination, these costs are only incurred by the facility when they voluntarily choose this option. Therefore, they are not included in the aggregate facility cost estimate.

Valuation of Monetized Benefits of Reducing Impingement Mortality and Entrainment After the detailed list of impacted species is developed, facility and contracted staff would work together to develop estimates of the commercial and recreation value of the impacted species and the other species which depend on them as a food source. EPA assumes the biologists contracted to do the Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study would take the lead on developing the monetized benefit estimates to develop a comprehensive valuation of the current impacts from impingement mortality and entrainment at the site and the benefits derived from reducing the impact to commercial and recreational species residing in the source water. The junior technical staff would assist the biologist to develop and revise the monetized benefit estimates. A statistician would help with the development of present value estimates for the technology costs and the monetized benefits so that they can be compared. Facility management and the contracted manager would review and revise the work. As with the site specific determination, these costs are only incurred by the facility when they voluntarily choose this option. Therefore, they are not included in the aggregate facility cost estimate.

Identification and Description of Quantitative and non Monetized Benefits Facilities choosing to demonstrate that their costs would be significantly greater than the benefits of complying with the otherwise applicable requirements would use a comprehensive methodology to fully value the impacts of impingement mortality and entrainment at the site and the benefits achievable by compliance with the applicable requirements. To compare benefits to costs, the facility would have cost estimates. EPA assumes that the facility would use the cost information from Comprehensive Cost 67 November 24, 2004 Evaluation for this purpose. To begin assessment of potential benefits, the facility would need estimates of impingement and entrainment reductions resulting from use of the proposed technology at the facility. EPA assumes that the facility would use the estimates of impingement and entrainment reductions from the Design and Construction Technology Plan for this purpose. The facility would then estimate the potential recreational and commercial value of these organisms over the same period of time that it would be paying for the proposed technology.

EPA assumes that the junior technical staff would review mortality data derived from the Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study, and develop a list of species, their impacted life stages, and corresponding mortality and injury reduction estimates. The facility manager would review and revise this list. As with the site specific determination, these costs are only incurred by the facility when they voluntarily choose this option. Therefore, they are not included in the aggregate facility cost estimate.

Site Specific Technology Plan This plan is based on the Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study, and the valuation of monetized benefits if one was performed by the facility. It describes the design and operation of all design and construction technologies, operational measures, and restoration measures selected, and provides information that demonstrates the effectiveness of the selected technologies or measures for reducing the impacts on the species of concern. As with the site specific determination, these costs are only incurred by the facility when they voluntarily choose this option. Therefore, they are not included in the aggregate facility cost estimate.

EPA assumes that the junior technical staff would develop a narrative description of the technologies and measures selected by the facility. The facility manager would review and revise this description. The facility would document the efficacy of the proposed and/ or implemented technologies or operational measures for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish. EPA assumes that the junior technical staff would document the efficacy of the technologies or measures based on the information used to support a site specific determination of best technology available, and results from representative studies and/ or site specific pilot studies. Facility management would review and revise this document.

Both the narrative description and the documentation of efficacy for the proposed technology or measures would require engineering calculations, design estimates, and drawings. EPA assumes that the junior technical staff would perform this engineering work and facility management would review and revise it. In addition, a biologist would assist the junior technical staff with the efficacy calculations, and the contract manager would review the work. As with the site specific determination, these costs are only incurred by the facility when they voluntarily choose this option. Therefore, they are not included in the aggregate facility cost estimate. 68 November 24, 2004 Verification Monitoring Plan ( For Existing Manufacturing Facilities Only)

As part of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study, existing manufacturers would include a plan to conduct, at a minimum, two years of monitoring to verify the full scale performance of the proposed or implemented technologies, operational measures, or restoration measures. EPA assumes that the junior technical staff would write a plan that describes the frequency and duration for monitoring, the locations to be monitored, the basis for determining the locations, and the information that would be included in the final report. A CAD operator would assist the junior technical staff with the drawings and diagrams contained in the plan. The facility management would oversee the writing of the plan and review/ revise the various drafts of the plan before it is finalized.

In the first two years of operation under their reissued NPDES permits, existing facilities are required to use impingement and entrainment monitoring data to perform verification studies ( as described in their Verification Monitoring Plans) to verify the full scale performance of the proposed or implemented technologies, operational measures and/ or restoration measures. It is assumed that facilities begin verification monitoring when they receive their permits, monitor for 2 years, and submit the monitoring results and study analysis at the beginning of the third year. Thus, EPA assumes that Directors would not be reviewing any verification studies during the initial ICR approval period.

Annual Facility Activities The principle annual activity for most facilities would be biological monitoring. Burden estimates for annual biological monitoring are less than those for the Impingement and Entrainment Characterization Study performed by some facilities as part of the permit application process. Biological monitoring is assumed to be performed at one location on a monthly basis for impingement and on a biweekly basis for entrainment. For the new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, annual monitoring is assumed to be included as part of the regional study. Since the initial monitoring for the study occurs over a three year period, annual monitoring does not begin until after the fourth year which is outside of the ICR approval period.

The monitoring results are analyzed and summarized in a yearly status report for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. Existing manufacturers submit the status reports biennially. Those facilities that submitted a Verification Monitoring Plan as part of their permit application would also use the first two years of monitoring data to produce a verification study. For a more detailed account of the annual burden for facilities see Exhibit A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 2 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturing facilities and Exhibit B. 2 in Appendix B for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. 69 November 24, 2004 Director Burdens The Phase III proposed rule would require Directors to devote time and resources to review and respond to the NPDES permit applications; proposal, study and sampling plans; and biannual or annual status reports submitted to them as required. EPA assumed that all NPDES permit program Directors would also undergo start up activities in preparation for administering the provisions of the section 316( b) Phase III proposed rule. As part of these start up activities, Directors are expected to train junior technical staff on how to review materials submitted by facilities, and then use these materials to determine the specific conditions of each facility's NPDES permit with regard to its cooling water intake structure. In addition, EPA assumes that senior and junior technical staff would spend time to study and understand the rule and in planning activities.

Director Permit Issuance Activities EPA expects that State senior technical, junior technical, and clerical staff would devote time toward gathering, preparing, and submitting the various documents. EPA assumed burden estimates that reflect the staffing and expertise used by States for the NPDES permit administration process. In doing this, EPA considered the time and qualifications necessary to complete various tasks such as: reviewing submitted documents and supporting materials, verifying data sources, planning responses, determining specific permit requirements, writing the actual permit, conferring with facilities and the interested public, and entering the permit information into the PCS database. Exhibits 12 and 13 provide a summary of the hourly burden estimates for Directors performing various activities associated with the proposed rule for existing manufacturers and new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities, respectively. For a more detailed presentation of Director hourly burdens, see Exhibit A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 3 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturers and Exhibit B. 3 in Appendix B for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. Under today's proposed rule, Directors would need to review information submitted by new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities for consistency with § 125.136 of the proposed rule. 70 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 12. Average Director Burden for Activities for Existing Manufacturers Activities Burden ( hrs)

50 MGD All Waterbodies Option 200 MGD All Waterbodies Option 100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option Director Start up Activities ( per State/ Territory) 100 100 100 Director Permit Issuance Activities ( per Facility) 810 716 1,330 Verification Study Review ( per Facility)* 21 21 21 Annual Director Activities ( per Facility) 50 50 50 Total** 981 887 1,501 * Since facilities would monitor for at least two years before submitting their verification study for review, EPA does not anticipate that Directors would incur burden for this activity during the initial ICR approval period.

** The total does not reflect the average director burden for each facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed.

Exhibit 13. Average Director Burden for Activities for New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Activities Burden ( hrs)

Director Start up Activities ( per State/ Territory) 100 Director Permit Issuance Activities ( per Facility) 281 Annual Director Activities ( per Facility) 50 Total* 431 * The total does not reflect the average director burden for each facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed.

Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements The Director would review the Design and Construction Technology Plan to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of the technology or operational measures proposed to meet the requirements of § 125.103. In addition, if the facility proposes restoration measures, the Director would review the Restoration Plan and determine whether the proposed measures, alone or in combination with design and construction technologies and operational measures, would meet the performance standards. For all facilities performing the Comprehensive Demonstration Study, the Director would review and approve the proposed Verification Monitoring Plan, as applicable and require that the monitoring 71 November 24, 2004 continue for a sufficient period of time to demonstrate that the design and construction technology, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures meet the requirements of § 125.103( b) and ( d). For a facility that requests requirements based on site specific best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, the Director would review the application materials submitted and any other information, including quantitative and qualitative benefits, that would be relevant to a determination of whether alternative requirements are appropriate for the facility. In determining the Director burden for review of site specific determination, it is assumed that all facilities with both impingement and entrainment requirements would choose to pursue the site specific alternative. In developing performance requirements for impingement mortality and entrainment for inclusion in a permit, the Director would review information on proposed methods submitted by the facility, evaluate those proposed by the facility and other available methods, and specify how compliance with the requirements would be determined including the averaging period for determining the percent reduction required by the performance standards and restoration requirements.

EPA assumes that the Directors would spend a significant amount of time reviewing the impingement mortality and entrainment characterization studies and the Design and Construction Technology Plans and Technology Installation and Operation Plans. A significant amount of review time is also expected for those facilities that choose to request site specific determinations of best technology available to review the required supporting studies. The additional effort devoted to reviewing the impingement mortality and entrainment characterization studies is due to the fact that the studies cover multiple years worth of data collected at the site. The additional effort devoted to reviewing the information to support site specific determination of best technology available is due to the complexity of the required Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study or valuation of monetized benefits for reducing impingement and entrainment.

In addition, EPA assumes that Directors would spend a significant amount of time reviewing restoration measures for roughly 10 percent of the facilities.

Monitoring Conditions In determining the applicable monitoring requirements, the Director would consider the facility's Verification Monitoring Plan, as applicable and modify the monitoring program based on changes to the physical or biological conditions in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure. The requirement for modifying the monitoring program may be made during the term of the permit or when the permit is reissued. EPA assumes that junior technical staff would review the facility's Verification Monitoring Plan and make recommendations for modifying the monitoring program. Senior technical staff would review and implement the recommendations. 72 November 24, 2004 Record Keeping and Reporting EPA assumes that clerical and junior technical staff would review the monitoring data and status report from the facilities regarding record keeping. Senior technical personnel would oversee their work.

Design and Construction Technology Approval For facilities choosing to demonstrate that they have installed and properly operate and maintain a design and construction technology approved in accordance with § 125.108, the Director would review the information submitted in the Design and Construction Technology Plan and/ or the Technology Installation and Operation Plan and determine if they meet the criteria in § 125.108. EPA assumes that junior technical staff would review the documentation submitted by the facility for compliance as required in § 125.104( b)( 6). Senior technical staff would provide technical oversight for this work. Moreover, if a person requests approval of a technology under § 125.108( b), the Director would review the information submitted and determine its suitability for widespread use at facilities with similar site conditions in its jurisdiction with minimal study. The Director would evaluate the adequacy of the technology when installed in accordance with the required design criteria and site conditions to consistently meet the performance requirements in § 125.103. The Director would only approve a technology following public notice and consideration of comment regarding such approval. EPA assumes that senior technical staff would review the information submitted and evaluate the adequacy of the proposed technology. Junior technical staff would work under the technical direction of senior personnel in this regard and provide assistance in reviewing and compiling the public comments received.

Annual Director Activities Facilities required to perform annual biological monitoring for impingement and entrainment are required to submit an annual report, which details inspection and maintenance records for impingement and technology controls and a detailed analysis of monitoring results. EPA assumes that directors would use these reports to track facility compliance and to determine if a reduction in monitoring frequency is appropriate.

6b. Estimating Respondent Costs This section describes cost estimates for facilities and Directors, as well as the methods used to derive them. The cost estimates include both initial permitting costs and annual cost for facilities and Directors. Because of the five year permit cycle facilities and Directors would not incur repermitting costs during the ICR approval period. Therefore, repermitting costs are not covered in this section. For detailed estimates of re permitting costs see Exhibits A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 12 and A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 13 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturers 73 November 24, 2004 and Exhibits B. 12 and B. 13 in Appendix B for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities.

6b( i). Estimating Labor Costs The costs to the respondent facilities associated with the ICR activities can be estimated by multiplying the time spent in each labor category by an appropriately loaded hourly wage rate. All base wage rates used for facility labor categories were derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistic's ( BLS) Occupational Outlook Handbook 2004 2005 ( BLS, 2004a). These reported labor rates were based upon data from the year 2002, and required adjustment for inflation. Inflation factor were derived from the BLS Employment Cost Index ( BLS, 2004b), was used to adjust the Occupational Outlook Handbook labor rates to reflect labor rates for June of 2003.

Compensatory loading factors ranging from 35% to 52%, depending on the labor category, were used to account for any paid leave, supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings, and required and nonrequired benefits received by employees ( BLS, 2004b). EPA assumed an additional loading factor of 15% to account for general overhead costs directly attributable to facility employees performing work in support of the permit process. Expenses for contracted employees typically include higher overhead costs, as well as fee to ensure profit for the contracting company. EPA assumes that the overhead for the contracted employees would be 50% and the fee would be 8%.

To represent the base labor rate for facility management, EPA used the average national salary for an engineering manager of $ 89,565 per year. This figure was divided by 2,080 hours to derive the hourly managerial wage rate of approximately $ 43 per hour. After adjusting this rate for inflation, compensation and overhead, the rate is approximately $ 73 per hour. The median annual salary of $ 41,288 for an engineering technician was used to represent the base labor rate for junior technical staff. After determining the hourly wage rate and adjusting for inflation and other factors, this labor rate was approximately $ 34 per hour. The median annual salary for a drafter performing CAD work was reported to be $ 18 per hour, and after adjusting and loading the rate it is approximately $ 30. The reported average annual salary for clerical workers was $ 22,277, and the fully adjusted and loaded hourly rate is approximately $ 19 per hour.

To represent the base labor rate for a contracted manager of monitoring work done onsite EPA used the average national salary for a natural sciences manager of $ 82,243 per year, with a fully loaded rate of $ 91 per hour. The median annual salary for a statistician was $ 57,075 per year, with an adjusted hourly rate of approximately $ 61 per hour. Biologists and biological technicians had an average hourly pay of $ 24 and $ 17, and a fully loaded rate of $ 53 and $ 38, respectively. 74 November 24, 2004 Director Labor Costs For Director costs, all of the base labor rates and compensation factors were derived from published employment cost trends for State and local government workers for the second quarter of 2003 ( BLS, 2004c). EPA chose the BLS labor category of white collar professional specialist to represent the senior administrative and technical staff that would oversee and manage the NPDES permit program. The base hourly rate for this category was approximately $ 32 per hour, and after adjusting for compensation and inflation it is approximately $ 50 per hour.

Similarly, EPA chose the BLS labor category of white collar professional technical to represent the junior technical staff that EPA expects to perform the majority of the actual NPDES permitting work. The reported base pay for this category was approximately $ 19 per hour, which becomes approximately $ 32 per hour after being adjusted for compensation, overhead, and inflation. The hourly wage for State government clerical workers was $ 14 per hour before adjustment, and approximately $ 24 afterward.

6b( ii). Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs A facility incurs capital/ start up costs when it purchases equipment or builds structures that are needed for compliance with the rule's reporting and record keeping requirements and that the facility would not use otherwise. A facility incurs operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs when it uses services, materials, or supplies that are needed to comply with the rule's reporting and record keeping requirements and that the facility would not use otherwise. Any costs for the operation and upkeep of capital equipment are considered O& M costs. Another type of O& M cost is for the purchase of contracted services, such as laboratory analyses. The purchase of supplies such as filing cabinets and services such as photocopying or boat rental are also considered O& M costs, and are referred to as other direct costs ( ODCs).

As part of the evaluation of potential cooling water intake structure effects performed under the Design and Construction Technology Plan, EPA anticipates that facilities would perform pilot studies to estimate efficacy for the proposed and/ or implemented technologies used to minimize impingement mortality and entrainment. EPA assumes that these facilities would be willing to spend approximately 10% of the anticipated costs of installing and operating the proposed technologies. As part of the economic analysis for the proposed rule, EPA has developed technology cost estimates for those facilities that EPA anticipates would install new technologies. If the efficacy of a proposed technology is well documented for cooling water intake structures located in the same waterbody type with similar biological characteristics, the facility may choose to rely on existing information. EPA considers the effectiveness and reliability of wedgewire screen technology in freshwater environments to be sufficiently well documented. Therefore, those freshwater facilities installing or operating wedgewire screen technology are assumed to rely upon existing information and forego the pilot study. 75 November 24, 2004 Average pilot study capital costs are expected to range from $ 150,000 to $ 900,000, including the cost of monitoring, depending on the technology installed and the waterbody location. However, for a facility to conduct a pilot study, EPA assumed that the minimum pilot study cost, including monitoring, would be $ 150,000. EPA assumes the pilot study impingement samples would be analyzed on site by the biologists, due to the difficulty of preserving impingement samples for shipment to an outside laboratory. Analysis of the pilot study entrainment samples would be performed by an outside laboratory, at a cost of $ 6,000 for freshwater facilities and $ 7,800 for facilities with cooling water intake structure( s) located in estuaries/ tidal rivers or oceans. Pilot study ODC costs are assumed to be approximately $ 1,000 for materials and supplies used by facilities conducting pilot studies.

EPA assumes that samples taken for the Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study would be analyzed by a contracted laboratory. The outside laboratories would perform taxonomic classification, data tabulation, and then deliver the data back to the facility. For the monitoring required by the Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study, this service is estimated to cost $ 78,000 for facilities with cooling water intake structure( s) located in freshwater rivers/ streams or lakes/ reservoirs, and $ 152,100 for facilities with cooling water intake structure( s) located in the Great Lakes, estuaries/ tidal rivers or oceans. For facilities with cooling water intake structure( s) located in freshwater rivers/ streams or lakes/ reservoirs, ODCs are estimated to range from approximately $ 4,300 and $ 13,000 for facilities with cooling water intake structure( s) located in the Great Lakes, estuaries/ tidal rivers or oceans.

For annual O& M costs, EPA again assumes that the analysis of impingement monitoring samples would be done on site, while entrainment monitoring samples would be performed by an outside laboratory. Laboratory analysis for entrainment samples is estimated to cost $ 7,800 per year for facilities with cooling water intake structure( s) located in freshwater rivers/ streams or lakes/ reservoirs, and an estimated $ 10,140 per year for facilities with cooling water intake structure( s) located in estuaries/ tidal rivers, the Great Lakes, or oceans. The ODCs associated with biological monitoring in freshwater rivers/ streams or lakes/ reservoirs are estimated to be approximately $ 500 annually and $ 650 for facilities with cooling water intake structure( s) located in the Great Lakes, estuaries/ tidal rivers or oceans.

In general, the labor costs and O& M costs reported in this analysis are assumed to represent typical average national cost estimates that are likely to be incurred by existing facilities and by permitting authorities. EPA attempted to take into account various factors such as decreases in labor efficiency that occur during extreme climate conditions, equipment down time, and the occasional sample that might need to be replaced because it was lost or spoiled during transport. Exhibits 14, 15 and 16 provide a summary of facility level average labor costs, capital and O& M costs for permit application activities for the three options considered for existing manufacturers over the three year ICR period. Exhibit 17 provides a summary of facility level average labor costs, capital and O& M costs for permit application activities for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities, 76 November 24, 2004 over the three year ICR period. For a more detailed presentation of all compliance costs for facilities, see Exhibits A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 1 and A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 2 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturers and Exhibits B. 1 and B. 2 in Appendix B for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities.

Exhibit 14. Average per Facility Burden and Costs for each NPDES Permit Application Activity for Existing Manufacturers for the 50 MGD All Waterbodies Option Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) Capital ( 2003$) O& M ( 2003$)

Start up Activities 43 $ 2,121 $ 0 $ 50 Permit Application Activities 247 $ 9,951 $ 0 $ 510 Proposal for Collection of Information for Comprehensive Demonstration Study 272 $ 12,344 $ 0 $ 770 Source Waterbody Flow Information 101 $ 3,447 $ 0 $ 200 Design and Construction Technology Plan  Impingement and Entrainment 80 $ 3,118 $ 0 $ 380 Freshwater Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study 9,089 $ 428,557 $ 0 $ 84,428 Marine Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study 16,783 $ 782,249 $ 0 $ 163,834 Freshwater Pilot Study for Impingement Only Technology* na na na na Freshwater Pilot Study for Impingement & Entrainment Technology 1,556 $ 79,887 $ 165,321 $ 7,020 Marine Pilot Study for Impingement Only Technology 1,185 $ 59,059 $ 242,872 $ 1,020 Marine Pilot Study for Impingement & Entrainment Technology 1,859 $ 93,541 $ 469,073 $ 8,820 Technology Installation and Operation Plan 52 $ 2,372 $ 0 $ 80 Verification Monitoring Plan 128 $ 5,918 $ 0 $ 410 Total** 31,395 $ 1,482,564 $ 877,266 $ 267,522 * During the initial ICR approval period, no facilities were identified which required pilot study costs for Freshwater Impingement only and these activities were not costed.

** The totals do not reflect the average costs for every facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed. 77 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 15. Average per Facility Burden and Costs for each NPDES Permit Application Activity for Existing Manufacturers for the 200 MGD All Waterbodies Option Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) Capital ( 2003$) O& M ( 2003$)

Start up Activities 43 $ 2,121 $ 0 $ 50 Permit Application Activities 247 $ 9,951 $ 0 $ 510 Proposal for Collection of Information for Comprehensive Demonstration Study 272 $ 12,344 $ 0 $ 770 Source Waterbody Flow Information 100 $ 3,381 $ 0 $ 200 Design and Construction Technology Plan 86 $ 3,384 $ 0 $ 380 Freshwater Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study 9,089 $ 428,557 $ 0 $ 84,428 Marine Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study 16,783 $ 782,249 $ 0 $ 163,834 Freshwater Pilot Study for Impingement Only Technology* na na na na Freshwater Pilot Study for Impingement & Entrainment Technology 1,556 $ 79,887 $ 804,252 $ 7,020 Marine Pilot Study for Impingement Only Technology na na na na Marine Pilot Study for Impingement & Entrainment Technology 1,859 $ 93,541 $ 183,241 $ 8,820 Technology Installation and Operation Plan 52 $ 2,372 $ 0 $ 80 Verification Monitoring Plan 128 $ 5,918 $ 0 $ 410 Total** 30,215 $ 1,423,705 $ 987,493 $ 266,502 * During the initial ICR approval period, no facilities were identified which required pilot study costs for Freshwater Impingement only and these activities were not costed.

** The totals do not reflect the average costs for every facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed. 78 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 16. Average per Facility Burden and Costs for each NPDES Permit Application Activity for Existing Manufacturers for the 100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) Capital ( 2003$) O& M ( 2003$)

Start up Activities 43 $ 2,121 $ 0 $ 50 Permit Application Activities 247 $ 9,951 $ 0 $ 510 Proposal for Collection of Information for Comprehensive Demonstration Study 272 $ 12,344 $ 0 $ 770 Source Waterbody Flow Information na na na na Design and Construction Technology Plan 92 $ 3,657 $ 0 $ 380 Freshwater Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study 9,089 $ 428,557 $ 0 $ 84,428 Marine Impingement Mortality and/ or Entrainment Characterization Study 16,783 $ 782,249 $ 0 $ 163,834 Freshwater Pilot Study for Impingement Only Technology* na na na na Freshwater Pilot Study for Impingement & Entrainment Technology* na na na na Marine Pilot Study for Impingement Only Technology* na na na na Marine Pilot Study for Impingement & Entrainment Technology 1,859 $ 93,541 $ 221,548 $ 8,820 Technology Installation and Operation Plan 52 $ 2,372 $ 0 $ 80 Verification Monitoring Plan 128 $ 5,918 $ 0 $ 410 Total** 28,565 $ 1,340,710 $ 221,548 $ 259,282 * During the initial ICR approval period, no facilities were identified which required pilot study costs for Freshwater Impingement only and these activities were not costed.

** The totals do not reflect the average costs for every facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed. 79 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 17. Average per Facility Burden and Costs* for each NPDES Permit Application Activity for New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) Capital ( 2003$) O& M ( 2003$)

Start up Activities 43 $ 2,121 $ 0 $ 50 Permit Application Activities 25 $ 795 $ 0 $ 130 Source Waterbody Flow Information 38 $ 1,341 $ 0 $ 75 Design and Construction Technology Plan 36 $ 1,051 $ 0 $ 120 Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data for Gulf of Mexico Facilities 751 $ 40,445 $ 6,000 $ 44,397 Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data for Alaska Facilities 2,422 $ 132,041 $ 0 $ 176,870 Total** 3,315 $ 177,794 $ 6,000 $ 221,642 * EPA assumed that all new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities would pursue Track I application of today's proposed rule because it is unknown how many facilities would select Track I versus Track II application. Hence the actual burden and cost estimates may be different than presented here.

** The totals do not reflect the average costs for every facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed.

Exhibits 18, 19 and 20 provide a summary of facility level burden, average labor costs and O& M costs for annual monitoring and reporting activities for the three options proposed for existing manufacturers over the three year ICR period. Exhibit 21 provides a summary of facility level burden, average labor costs and O& M costs for annual monitoring and reporting activities for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities over the three year ICR period. For a more detailed presentation of all compliance costs for facilities, see Exhibits A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 1 and A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 2 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturers and Exhibits B. 1 and B. 2 in Appendix B for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. 80 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 18. Average Burden and Costs* per Facility for Annual Monitoring and Reporting Activities for Existing Manufacturers for the 50 MGD All Waterbodies Option Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) O& M ( 2003$)

Biological Monitoring ( Impingement, Freshwater) 379 $ 18,504 $ 510 Biological Monitoring ( Impingement, Marine) 482 $ 23,564 $ 660 Biological Monitoring ( Entrainment, Freshwater) 614 $ 30,376 $ 8,310 Biological Monitoring ( Entrainment, Marine) 776 $ 38,069 $ 10,800 Biannual Status Report Activities 324 $ 16,618 $ 770 Verification Study 122 $ 6,846 $ 510 Total** 2,697 $ 133,977 $ 21,560 * There are no capital costs associated with the annual monitoring and reporting activities.

** The totals do not reflect the average burden and costs for every facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed.

Exhibit 19. Average Burden and Costs* per Facility for Annual Monitoring and Reporting Activities for Existing Manufacturers for the 200 MGD All Waterbodies Option Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) O& M ( 2003$)

Biological Monitoring ( Impingement, Freshwater) 379 $ 18,504 $ 510 Biological Monitoring ( Impingement, Marine) 482 $ 23,564 $ 660 Biological Monitoring ( Entrainment, Freshwater) 614 $ 30,376 $ 8,310 Biological Monitoring ( Entrainment, Marine) 776 $ 38,069 $ 10,800 Biannual Status Report Activities 324 $ 16,618 $ 770 Verification Study 122 $ 6,846 $ 510 Total** 2,697 $ 133,977 $ 21,560 * There are no capital costs associated with the annual monitoring and reporting activities.

** The totals do not reflect the average burden and costs for every facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed. 81 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 20. Average Burden and Costs* per Facility for Annual Monitoring and Reporting Activities for Existing Manufacturers for the 100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) O& M ( 2003$)

Biological Monitoring ( Impingement, Freshwater) 379 $ 18,504 $ 510 Biological Monitoring ( Impingement, Marine) 482 $ 23,564 $ 660 Biological Monitoring ( Entrainment, Freshwater) 614 $ 30,376 $ 8,310 Biological Monitoring ( Entrainment, Marine) 776 $ 38,069 $ 10,800 Biannual Status Report Activities 324 $ 16,618 $ 770 Verification Study 122 $ 6,846 $ 510 Total** 2,697 $ 133,977 $ 21,560 * There are no capital costs associated with the annual monitoring and reporting activities.

** The totals do not reflect the average burden and costs for every facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed.

Exhibit 21. Average Burden and Costs* per Facility for Annual Monitoring and Reporting Activities for New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) O& M ( 2003$)

Biological Monitoring ( Impingement)** 159 $ 7,747 $ 498 Biological Monitoring ( Entrainment)** 52 $ 1,353 $ 2,230 Velocity Monitoring 163 $ 5,692 $ 500 Yearly Status Report Activities 223 $ 11,304 $ 770 Total*** 597 $ 26,096 $ 3,998 * There are no capital costs associated with the annual monitoring and reporting activities.

** The cost of collecting biological monitoring data for impingement and entrainment varies between different operating regions. Therefore the costs reported here is a weighted average for facilities in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

*** The totals do not reflect the average burden and costs for every facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed, e. g., MODUs are not required to conduct monitoring except as determined by the Director.

Director O& M Costs Under today's proposed rule, EPA does not anticipate any operation and maintenance costs other than ODCs for Directors. Exhibits 22, 23 and 24 provide estimates of average Director labor costs and ODCs for existing manufacturers and new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. Exhibit 25 provides estimates of average Director labor costs and 82 November 24, 2004 ODCs for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. For a more detailed explanation of Director costs, see Exhibit A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 3 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturers and Exhibit B. 3 in Appendix B for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities.

Exhibit 22. Average Director Burden and Costs* for Activities for Existing Manufacturers for the 50 MGD All Waterbodies Option Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) O& M ( 2003$)

Director Start up Activities ( per State/ Territory) 100 $ 3,894 $ 50 Director Permit Issuance Activities ( per Facility) 810 $ 36,282 $ 310 Verification Study Review ( per Facility)** 21 $ 768 $ 10 Annual Director Activities ( per Facility) 50 $ 1,851 $ 30 Total*** 981 $ 42,795 $ 400 * There are no capital costs associated with the director activities.

** Since facilities must monitor for at least two years before submitting their verification study for review, EPA does not anticipate that Directors would incur burden and costs for this activity during the initial ICR approval period.

*** The totals do not reflect the average director burden and costs for each facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed. 83 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 23. Average Director Burden and Costs* for Activities for Existing Manufacturers for the 200 MGD All Waterbodies Option Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) O& M ( 2003$)

Director Start up Activities ( per State/ Territory) 100 $ 3,894 $ 50 Director Permit Issuance Activities ( per Facility) 716 $ 31,817 $ 310 Verification Study Review ( per Facility)** 21 $ 768 $ 10 Annual Director Activities ( per Facility) 50 $ 1,851 $ 30 Total*** 887 $ 38,330 $ 400 * There are no capital costs associated with the director activities.

** Since facilities must monitor for at least two years before submitting their verification study for review, EPA does not anticipate that Directors would incur burden and costs for this activity during the initial ICR approval period.

*** The totals do not reflect the average director burden and costs for each facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed.

Exhibit 24. Average Director Burden and Costs* for Activities for Existing Manufacturers for the 100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) O& M ( 2003$)

Director Start up Activities ( per State/ Territory) 100 $ 3,894 $ 50 Director Permit Issuance Activities ( per Facility) 1,330 $ 60,163 $ 310 Verification Study Review ( per Facility)** 21 $ 768 $ 10 Annual Director Activities ( per Facility) 50 $ 1,851 $ 30 Total*** 1,501 $ 66,676 $ 400 * There are no capital costs associated with the director activities.

** Since facilities must monitor for at least two years before submitting their verification study for review, EPA does not anticipate that Directors would incur burden and costs for this activity during the initial ICR approval period.

*** The totals do not reflect the average director burden and costs for each facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed. 84 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 25. Average Director Burden and Costs* for Activities for New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) O& M ( 2003$)

Director Start up Activities ( per EPA Region) 100 $ 3,894 $ 50 Director Permit Issuance Activities ( per Facility) 281 $ 11,668 $ 310 Annual Director Activities ( per Facility) 50 $ 1,851 $ 30 Total** 431 $ 17,413 $ 390 * There are no capital costs associated with the director activities.

** The totals do not reflect the average director burden and costs for each facility since not all facilities would need to perform every activity listed.

6c. Estimating Agency Burden and Costs As mentioned previously, there are 46 States and Territories authorized to administer the NPDES permitting program. For in scope facilities applying for reissued permits in the 10 unauthorized States and Territories, EPA would incur costs and burdens similar to those incurred by States with permitting authority. This analysis, however, assumes that facilities complying with the rule during the ICR approval period would be in NPDESauthorized States.

EPA typically reviews NPDES permits in the early stages of implementation of new regulations. This review ensures that the key provisions of the rule are implemented properly by the States. Based on historical reports submitted for 316( b) demonstrations, EPA assumes that it would take about 39 hours on average to perform a detailed review, make comments, and follow up on comments for the 316( b) portions of a State issued NPDES permit. Exhibit 26 summarizes Federal burden and cost estimates for the three options considered for existing manufacturers. The new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities will submit their permit application to the EPA region within which they reside. Therefore, there are no additional costs incurred by the Federal government for these facilities. Further detail is provided in Exhibit A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 4 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturers. 85 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 26. Estimating Federal Burden and Costs for Activities for Existing Manufacturers Activities Burden ( hrs) Labor Cost ( 2003$) O& M( 2003$)

50 MGD All Waterbodies Option Federal Permit Program Oversight Activities ( per Permitted Facility) 39 $ 1,422 $ 50 200 MGD All Waterbodies Option Federal Permit Program Oversight Activities ( per Permitted Facility) 36 $ 1,321 $ 50 100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option Federal Permit Program Oversight Activities ( per Permitted Facility) 48 $ 1,782 $ 50 6d. Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Under the proposed 50 MGD for all waterbodies option, during the first three years after promulgation, there are an estimated 87 facilities along with 46 States and Territories that the section 316( b) Phase III rule would affect. Under the proposed 200 MGD for all waterbodies option, the proposed Phase III rule would affect 44 facilities with 46 States. The number of facilities and States affected by the proposed Phase III rule would be 42 and 46, respectively under the 100 MGD for certain waterbodies option. The rule would require each respondent to comply with one or more provisions. In turn, each provision has numerous activities associated with it. Exhibits A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 5 and A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 6 in Appendix A ( for the three options considered for existing manufacturing facilities) and Exhibits B. 5 and B. 6 in Appendix B ( for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities) provide an estimate of the number of respondents and responses expected for each provision of the rule during each year of the ICR approval period. The annual estimates are based on the compliance schedule used to estimate the cost of the rule. In addition, Exhibits A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 7 A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 10 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturers and Exhibits B. 7 B. 10 in Appendix B for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities provide a summary of the respondent burdens and costs for each year of the ICR approval period. These estimates were calculated by multiplying facility and Director level burden and cost estimates in Exhibits A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 1 A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 3 by the number of respondents performing each activity in Exhibit A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 5 for the three options considered for existing manufacturers and by multiplying facility and Director level burden and cost estimates in Exhibits B. 1 B. 3 by the number of respondents performing each activity in Exhibits B. 5 for new offshore oil and 86 November 24, 2004 gas extraction facilities ( see Appendix A for existing manufacturers and Appendix B for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities).

6e. Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables This section provides a description of bottom line data collection and record keeping burden and cost estimates for implementation of the proposed rule.

6e( i). Respondent Tally The bottom line burden hours and costs for facilities and Directors are the total annual hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities during the ICR approval period. Exhibit 27 provides a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden hours, and costs for the three options considered for existing manufacturers and State Directors. Similarly, Exhibit 28 shows a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden hours, and costs for new offshore oil and gas facilities. The burden and cost for the three EPA regions handling the offshore oil and gas NPDES general permits is also included in Exhibit 28. These EPA regional offices are considered part of the Federal government, and the burden to the Federal government is typically considered separately from the burden to States and Facilities. However, it has been included here because of their role as the NPDES permitting authority. A more detailed summary can be found in Exhibit A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 11 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturers and Exhibit B. 11 in Appendix B for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. 87 November 24, 2004 Exhibit 27. Summary of Average Annual Respondents, Burden, and Costs for Facilities and State Directors for the ICR Approval Period for Existing Manufacturers Average Annual Respondent s Average Annual Burden ( hours) Average Annual Labor Costs ( 2003$) Average Annual Capital and O& M Costs ( 2003$) Total Annual Costs ( 2003$)

50 MGD All Waterbodies Option Facilities 38 185,514 $ 8,713,868 $ 2,224,340 $ 10,938,208 State Directors 43 16,972 $ 747,981 $ 6,823 $ 754,804 Totals 81 202,486 $ 9,461,849 $ 2,231,163 $ 11,693,012 200 MGD All Waterbodies Option Facilities 8 44,203 $ 2,076,359 $ 878,723 $ 2,955,082 State Directors 21 4,677 $ 198,932 $ 2,160 $ 201,092 Totals 29 48,880 $ 2,275,291 $ 880,883 $ 3,156,174 100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option Facilities 10 65,695 $ 3,083,569 $ 1,046,490 $ 4,130,059 State Directors 23 6,528 $ 284,624 $ 1,973 $ 286,597 Totals 33 72,223 $ 3,368,193 $ 1,048,463 $ 4,416,656 Exhibit 28. Summary of Average Annual Respondents, Burden, and Costs for Facilities and EPA Regional Directors for the ICR Approval Period for New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Average Annual Respondents Average Annual Burden ( hours) Average Annual Labor Costs ( 2003$) Average Annual Capital and O& M Costs ( 2003$) Total Annual Costs ( 2003$)

Facilities 22 11,238 $ 569,343 $ 573,968 $ 1,143,311 Directors ( EPA Region) 3 2,161 $ 88,169 $ 2,213 $ 90,382 Totals 25 13,399 $ 657,512 $ 576,181 $ 1,233,693 6e( ii). Agency Tally The bottom line burden hours and costs for the Federal agency are the total annual hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities during the ICR approval period. Exhibits 29 and 30 provide a summary of the average annual agency burden hours, and costs. A more detailed summary can be found in Exhibit A.( 50MGD, 200MGD, or 100MGD). 11 in Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturing facilities and 88 November 24, 2004 Exhibit B. 11 for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities.

Exhibit 29. Summary of Average Annual Agency Burden and Costs for the ICR Approval Period for Existing Manufacturers Average Annual Burden ( hours) Average Annual Labor Costs ( 2003$) Average Annual O& M Costs ( 2003$) Total Average Annual Costs ( 2003$)

50 MGD All Waterbodies Option Agency Totals 721 $ 26,548 $ 933 $ 27,481 200 MGD All Waterbodies Option Agency Totals 152 $ 5,577 $ 217 $ 5,794 100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option Agency Totals 187 $ 6,902 $ 183 $ 7,085 Exhibit 30. Summary of Average Annual Agency Burden and Costs for the ICR Approval Period for New Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities Average Annual Burden ( hours) Average Annual Labor Costs ( 2003$) Average Annual O& M Costs ( 2003$) Total Average Annual Costs ( 2003$)

Agency Totals 2,161 $ 88,169 $ 2,213 $ 90,382 6f. Reasons For Change In Burden The change in burden results from proposed regulatory changes that require information collection and record keeping activities. These proposed regulatory changes partially fulfill EPA's obligation to comply with the consent agreement entered in Cronin v. Browner, 93 Civ. 0314 ( AGS) S. D. N. Y., filed Oct. 10, 1995, and amended in Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Leavitt, filed November 21, 2000. These agreements require that EPA propose and finalize regulations that implement section 316( b) of the CWA by specified dates. Today's proposed rule is a direct result of the consent agreement requirements. 89 November 24, 2004 6g. Burden Statement 50 MGD For All Waterbodies Option The annual average burden for existing manufacturing facilities is 185,514 hours for an average of 38 facilities ( Exhibit A. 50MGD. 11, Appendix A for existing manufacturers). For new offshore oil and gas existing facilities, the annual average burden is 11,238 hours for an average of 22 facilities ( Exhibit B. 11, Appendix B). This results in a total of 196,752 hours of burden for an average of 60 facilities. Hence, the annual average reporting and record keeping burden for the collection of information by facilities responding to the section 316( b) Phase III proposed rule is estimated to be 3,279 hours per respondent ( i. e., an annual average of 196,752 hours of burden divided among an anticipated annual average of 60 facilities).

Similarly, the annual average burden for Director for the review, oversight, and administration of the rule for existing manufacturing facilities is 16,972 hours for an average of 43 States ( Exhibit A. 50MGD. 11, Appendix A for existing manufacturers). For new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities, the permitting process is handled directly by EPA Regions 4, 6, and 10. Since this burden is incurred by the Federal Government rather than the States, it is not included as part of the burden statement for State Directors. Hence, the Director reporting and record keeping burden for the review, oversight, and administration of the rule is estimated to average 395 hours per respondent ( i. e., an annual average of 16,972 hours of burden divided among an anticipated 43 States on average per year).

200 MGD For All Waterbodies Option The annual average burden for existing manufacturing facilities is 44,203 hours for an average of 8 facilities ( Exhibit A. 200MGD. 11, Appendix A for existing manufacturers). For new offshore oil and gas existing facilities, the annual average burden is 11,238 hours for an average of 22 facilities ( Exhibit B. 11, Appendix B). This results in a total of 55,442 hours of burden for an average of 30 facilities. Hence, the annual average reporting and record keeping burden for the collection of information by facilities responding to the section 316( b) Phase III proposed rule is estimated to be 1,848 hours per respondent ( i. e., an annual average of 55,441 hours of burden divided among an anticipated annual average of 30 facilities).

Similarly, the annual average burden for Director for the review, oversight, and administration of the rule for existing manufacturing facilities is 4,677 hours for an average of 21 States ( Exhibit A. 200MGD. 11, Appendix A for existing manufacturers). For new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities, the permitting process is handled directly by EPA Regions 4, 6, and 10. Since this burden is incurred by the Federal Government rather than the States, it is not included as part of the burden statement for State Directors. Hence, the Director reporting and record keeping burden for the review, oversight, and administration 90 November 24, 2004 of the rule is estimated to average 223 hours per respondent ( i. e., an annual average of 4,677 hours of burden divided among an anticipated 21 States on average per year).

100 MGD For Certain Waterbodies Option The annual average burden for existing manufacturing facilities is 65,695 hours for an average of 10 facilities ( Exhibit A. 100MGD. 11, Appendix A for existing manufacturers). For new offshore oil and gas existing facilities, the annual average burden is 11,238 hours for an average of 22 facilities ( Exhibit B. 11, Appendix B). This results in a total of 76,933 hours of burden for an average of 32 facilities. Hence, the annual average reporting and record keeping burden for the collection of information by facilities responding to the section 316( b) Phase III proposed rule is estimated to be 2,404 hours per respondent ( i. e., an annual average of 76,933 hours of burden divided among an anticipated annual average of 32 facilities).

Similarly, the annual average burden for Director for the review, oversight, and administration of the rule for existing manufacturing facilities is 6,528 hours for an average of 23 States ( Exhibit A. 100MGD. 11, Appendix A for the three options considered for existing manufacturers). For new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities, the permitting process is handled directly by EPA Regions 4, 6, and 10. Since this burden is incurred by the Federal Government rather than the States, it is not included as part of the burden statement for State Directors. Hence, the Director reporting and record keeping burden for the review, oversight, and administration of the rule is estimated to average 284 hours per respondent ( i. e., an annual average of 6,528 hours of burden divided among an anticipated 23 States on average per year).

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and 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 information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

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 No. OW 2004 0002, which is available for public viewing the 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 91 November 24, 2004 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 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. Once 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 Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OW 2004 0002), OMB control number ( 2040 NEW) and the EPA ICR number ( 2169.01) in any correspondence.