1 of 15 

### I **NFORMATION** 

### C **OLLECTION** 

### R**EQUEST**

**FOR** 

### R**EVISED** 

### I **NTERPRETATION OF** 

### C **LEAN** 

### W**ATER** 

### A **CT** 

### T **RIBAL** 

### P **ROVISION** 

### (P **ROPOSED** 

### R**ULE** 

### )

March 2015

EPA IC R Number 2515.01 OMB Control Number 2040 -NEW

**U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology**  **1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460** 2 of 15 **CONTENTS Page**  1. **IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION** ................................ ........ 3 1.1 Title of the Information Collection ................................ ................................ ................ 3 1.2 Short Characterization/Abstract ................................ ................................ ..................... 3 2. **NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION** ................................ ................................ .. 4 2.1 Need and Authority

for the Collection ................................ ................................ ........... 4 2.2 Practical Utility

/Users of the Data ................................ ................................ ................. 4 3. **NON -**  **DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERI**  **A** ................................ ................................ ............................. 5 3.1 Non - duplication ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5 3.2 Public Notice Required P rior to I CR Submission to OMB ................................ ........... 5 3.3 Consultations ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 5 3.4 Effect s of Less Frequent Collection ................................ ................................ ............... 6 3.5 General Guidelines ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 6 3.6 Confidenti ality

and Sensitive Questions ................................ ................................ ........ 6 4. **THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATI ON REQUESTED**  ................................ ... 6 4.1 Respondents/NAI CS Codes ................................ ................................ ........................... 6 4.2 Information Requested ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6 4.3 Respondent Activities ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7 5. **THE INFORMATION COLLECTED**
**– AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION**  **METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT** ................................ .... 8 5.1 Agency

Activities ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 8 5.2 Collection Methodology and Management ................................ ................................ .... 8 5.3 Small Entity

Flexibility ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8 5.4 Collection Schedule ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 8 6. **ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION** ............................... 9 6.1 Estimating Respondent Burden ................................ ................................ ...................... 9 6. 2 Estimating Respondent Costs ................................ ................................ ........................ 9 6.3 Esti mating Agency

Burden and Cost ................................ ................................ ........... 10 6. 4 Reasons for Change in Burden ................................ ................................ .................... 10 6. 5 Burden Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 10 **Attachment :**  Derivation of Burden Estimates ................................ ................................ .............. 123 of 15

**1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION**  **1.1 T**  **ITLE OF THE I**  **NFORMATION C**  **OLLECTION** The title of this Information Collection Request (ICR) is Revised Interpretation of Clean W ater Act Tribal Provision (Proposed Rule) . **1.2 S**  **HORT C**  **HARACTERIZATION /A**  **BSTRACT** The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA , or the Agency) developed this I CR to evaluate how the proposed rule, Revised Interpretation of Clean Wa ter Act Tribal Provision , would affect the paperwork burden on tribal applicants. The proposal would streamline how tribes apply for treatment in a similar manner as a state ( TAS ) for the water quality standards (WQS) program and other Clean Water Act (C WA) regulatory

programs. EPA proposes to conclude definitively that section 518 includes an express delegation of authority by Congress to eligible Indian tribes to administer regulatory programs over their entire reservations . This reinterpretation would eliminate the need for applicant tribes to demonstrate inherent authority to regulat e under the CWA , thus allow ing tribes to implement the c ongressional delegation of authority unhindered by

requirements not specified in the statute . The proposal w ould red

uce the burden on applicant tribes and advance cooperative federalism by facilitating tribal involvement in the protection of reservation water quality as intended by Congress . Based on input from eight tribes with relevant TAS experience , EPA estimated th e burden and cost s for tribes to develop TAS applications. The results discussed in this I CR show that th e proposed rule would reduce the burden b y an estimated 583 staff hours for a typical tribe, or 27 percent, and reduce the cost for salaries and contra ctor support by an estimated $70,554 per tribe , or 39 percent . EPA’s I CR analy sis include d all administrative costs associated with a TAS application even if some of the costs are not strictl y information collection costs. EPA was unable to differentiate the information collection costs consistently and reliabl y from other administrative costs such as program development costs. The total estimated burden could overstate actual burden because (a) EPA assumed that all applications are first - time applications for CWA regulatory programs, and thus the tribes submitting them would be unable to rel y on materials from previous applications for different regulatory

programs; (b ) EPA used a liberal est imate of the number of tribal applications to ensure that the ICR does not underestimate tribal burden; and ( c ) EPA used a simplifying steady state assumption in estimating annualized costs . Because EPA has assumed that all tribal administrative costs and burden associated with the rule are information collection burden , EPA has not conducted a separate Economic Analy sis.4 of 15

**2** . **NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2.1**  **N EED AND**  **A UTHORITY FOR THE**  **C OLLECTION**  In1987, through the Water Quality Act (P. L. 100 - 4), Congress made substantial additions to the CWA. The Water Quality Act added section 518(e) which requires EPA to promulgate regulations specifying how Indian tribes would qualify to administer certain specified CWA program s . EPA published such regulations for CWA regulatory programs from 1991 through 1994 in 40 CFR sections 131.4(c), 131.8 , 123.31 - 34, 223.60 - 62, and related sections. The CWA does not require tribes to administer these programs . Howeve r, tribes seeking to be authorized must apply for and be found eligible for TAS through the procedures described in the regulations. The information a tribe submits represents a collection of information that is necessary for EPA to fulfill the Agency ’s re sponsibilities under CWA section 518(e) in a reasonable and timel y manner. The statute and r egulation s specify four criteria for an Indian tribe to qualify to administer a CWA regulatory program: (a) the tribe must be f ederall y recognized, (b) the tribe must have a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers, (c) the program must pertain to water resources within the borders of an Indian reservation, and (d) the tribe must be reasonably

expected to be capable of carrying out the functions to be exercised consistent with the terms and purposes of the CWA and all applicable regulations . The regulations cited above specify the information a tribe must submit in order for EPA to review and approve the tribe for TAS. Th e requir ed information is summarized in section 4.2. **2.2 P**  **RACTICAL U**  **TILITY /U**  **SERS OF THE D**  **ATA** EPA uses the information supplied by an interested tribe to determine whether it qualifies to administer the CWA program which it seeks. EPA must assess the tribe’s information to determine whether the tribe meets the requirements specified in section 518(e) of the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations listed in section 2.1 above. If these information collection activities were not carried out, interested and otherwise qualified tribe s would be unable to administer CWA regulatory programs, such as WQS , water quality certifications, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy stem permit program . This would not be consistent with the CWA or f ederal Indian policy .5 of 15

**3. NON**  **- DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION**  **CRITERIA 3.1**  **N ON**  **- D**  **UPLICATION** Under EPA’s regulations, a tribe must be approved for TAS for each program it wishes to administer. To avoid requiring tribes to submit duplicate information, EPA’s regulations specify that a tribe need onl y provide the required information which has not been submitted in a previous application. For example, in evaluating whether a tribe qualifies to administer WQS , EPA does not require a tribe to resubmit information from its previously- approve d TAS application under section 106. **3.2 P**  **UBLIC N**  **OTICE R** **EQUIRED P**  **RIOR TO ICR**  **S UBMISSION TO**  **OMB** In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA is soliciting comments on this draft I CR for a 30 - day period beginning concurrentl y with the 60 - day c omment period on the proposed rule, Revised Interpretation of Clean W ater Act Tribal Provision . Before finalizing the rule, EPA will submit the revised ICR to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) . **3.3 C**  **ONSULTATIONS** In developing the proposed rule, EPA made a substantial effort to involve key stakeholders. In multiple meetings, EPA consulted and coordinated with tribes, states, and organizations representing tribes and states. To help develop the burden estimate for this ICR, EPA identified eight tribes with experience in appl yi ng for TAS for WQS that were willing to provide quantitative information about the resources they

expended in the application process. The tribes and the year in which their TAS approval occurred are:

 Hoopa Valley

Tribe (CA) (1996)  Hualapai Indian Tribe (AZ) (2004)  Ute Mountain Ute (CO) (2005)  Navajo Nation (AZ, NM, UT) (2006)  Northern Cheyenne (MT) (2006)  Lac du Flambeau Band of Chippewa (WI) (2008)  Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe o f Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation (WI) (2009)  Blackfeet Tribe (MT) (2012) The tribes provide d the resource information in interviews conducted b y EPA staff members in the respective r eg ional offices.6 of 15

**3.4 E**  **FFECTS OF L**  **ESS F**  **REQUENT C**  **OLLECTION** Application by

Indian tribes to obtain TAS to administer a CWA regulatory program is a one - time collection of information per respondent, initiated voluntarily by interested tribes. **3.5 G** **ENERAL G** **UIDELINES** EPA reviewed this ICR for compliance with OMB’s information collection guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)(iv) and concluded it is in compliance. **3.6 C**  **ONFIDENTIALITY A** **ND S**  **ENSITIVE Q**  **UESTIONS** Tribal program applications under this I CR will contain no confid ential or sensitive information. **4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED**  **4.1 R** **ESPONDENTS /** **NAICS C**  **ODES** The following describes the universe of potential respondents. The number of annual respondents i s estimated in section 6. Any federall y recognized tribe with a reservation can appl y to administer a regulatory program under the CWA . T here are over 300 tribes with reservations . From 1991 through 2014 , 6 3 tribes have submitted such an application, all of which are for the WQS program. Of these, EPA has approved TAS for WQS for 49 tribes ; the remaining applications are in various stages of development. The respondents affected by this collection activity

are in NAI CS code 92411 “Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs.” **4.2 I**  **NFORMATION R** **EQUESTED** EPA’s regulations listed in section 2.1 specify the information a tribe must provide in its application to administer a CWA regulatory program. Specificall y, an interested tribe must submit: (1) a statement that the tribe is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior; (2) a descriptive statement demonstrating that the tribal governing body is currentl y carryi ng out substantial governmental duties and powers over a defin ed area; (3) a descriptive statement of the Indian tribe’s authority to regulate water quality , including a map or legal description of the area over wh ich the Indian tribe asserts7 of 15

a uthority ; a statement by

the tribe's legal counsel (or equivalent official) which describes the basis for the tribe’s assertion of authority ; a copy of documents that support the tribe's assertion of authorit y; and an identification of the surface waters for which the tribe proposes to administer the program ; (4) a narrative statement describing the capability of the Indian tribe to administer an effective program ; and (5) an y additional documentation required b y the Regional Administrator to support the application. An interested tribe ty

pically needs to appl y onl y once for a program . Where a tribe has previously

qualified for TAS under another program, the tribe need onl y provide the required information which has not been submitted in a previous application. **4.3 R** **ESPONDENT A**  **CTIVITIES** Respondent activities i nclude :
 Reading the regulatory requirements and EPA guidance, obtaining an y necessary background understanding, obtaining clarifications from EPA.  Assembling information required for the application, including federal recognition documentation; descriptions of form and functions of tribal government; documentation of the tribe’s authority to carry out functions; maps and legal description of the tribal reservation; identification of surface waters to be regulated; description of the tribe’s previous management experience; descriptions of existing tribal environmental or public health programs; identification of tribal entities that exercise the tribe’s executive, legislative, and judicial functions; and a description of the tribal agency

that will assume responsibility for the program.  Developing an y of the above materials that do not already exist, or revising existing materials for inclusion in the application.  Generating an y needed data, including conducting water qual ity monitoring, and conducting scientific analy ses of the data, to assist as necessary with the application.  Analyzing the assembled information, and anal yz ing an y issues identified by the tribe or EPA.  Developing a statement by the tribal legal counsel discussing the legal basis for the tribe’s assertion of authority .  Developing a description of the technical and administrative capabilities of the staff to administer the program.8 of 15

 Developing, if necessary , a plan that describes how the tribe will acquire n eeded expertise, and how the tribe will obtain the funds required to develop needed expertise.  Assembling and writing the application and transmittal documents.  Meeting with EPA as needed to discuss plans, progress and an y issues in developing the application.  Responding to comments from EPA or others.  Transmitting the draft and final application to EPA.  Establishing a permanent file of the TAS application that can be referenced when amending the application or applying for other EPA programs at a later d ate. These activities are generally carried out by

tribal staff members, with support in some instances from contractors and consultants hired by the tribe. **5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED** 
**– AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION**  **METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5.1**  **A GENCY**  **A CTIVITIES**  After a tribe submits an application to administer a CWA regulatory program, EPA review s the application and use s the submitted information to determine whether the tribe meets the criteria under CWA section 518(e) and EPA’s regulations to administer the program. Under the regulations, EPA also provides an opportunity for appropriate governmental entities and the public to comment on the application. EPA c onsiders an y comments received when it makes a decision concerning the tribe’s TAS eligibility . **5.2 C**  **OLLECTION M**  **ETHODOLOGY AND M**  **ANAGEMENT** An i nterested tribe submit s its application in hardcopy and/or electronic form to the EPA r egional office . EPA has delegated to Regions the responsibility to review and approve tribal TAS eligibility ; however, EPA headquarters must concur on the first application for each program submitted to each Region . Regional o ffice staff members work closely with the tribes in this process. EPA headquarters staff members provide support to the r egional offices in the review s . **5.3 S**  **MALL E**  **NTITY F**  **LEXIBILITY** T he reporting requirements discussed in this I CR do not place a burden on any small entities.9 of 15

**5.4 C**  **OLLECTION S**  **CHEDULE** There are no scheduling requirements for Indian tribes to apply for authorization to administer CWA regulatory program s . **6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION**  **6.1 E**  **STIMATING R** **ESPONDENT B**  **URDEN** In order to develop the burden estimates in this section, EPA assembled and evaluated information collected from eight tribes with experience in developing TAS applications for CWA regulatory

programs, as described in section 3.3. EPA’s methodology and results are described in detail in Appendix A, Derivation of Burden Estimates. Pre - rule tribal burden : EPA estimates that a ty pical tribe expends 2,190 staff hours and $90,000 on contractor costs to develop a TAS application. Based on the past ten years, there have been approximately 4 new tribal TAS applications for CWA regulatory programs per year. Thus the pre - rule baseline burden co mprises (4 tribes) * ( 2,190 hours /application ) = **8,7 6**  **0 staff**  **hours** , and (4 tribes) * ($90,000 /application) = **$360,000 in cont**  **ractor costs** . Post- rule tribal burden : EPA estimates that a ty pical tribe would expend 1,60 7 staff hours and $43,920 on contract costs to develop a TAS application if the proposed rule were finalized. Further, EPA estimates that an average of 6 tribes would appl y for TAS to administer CWA regulatory

programs per year , a 50% increase that is expected to continue for the first few ye ars. Thus the post - rule burden would comprise ( 6 tribes) * ( 1,60 7 hours /application ) = **9,64 2**  **staff hours**  and (6 tribes) * ($ 43,920 /application) = **$ 263,520**  **in contractor costs** . The pace of applications could increase as tribes become more familiar with the new post - rule process. **6.2 E**  **STIMATING R** **ESPONDENT C**  **OSTS** EPA estimated tribal employee costs using an average annual salary of $54,570 , which is equivalent to the salary

of a GS - 9, Step 10 f

ederal employee. 1 At 2,080 labor hours per ye ar, the hourly rate is $26.24 . Overhead cost for f ederal and s tate employees are expe cted to be 60 percent, or $15.74 per hour, yieldi ng a total hourly rat e of $41.98 . Pre - rule annual tribal costs : Cost per application = ( 2,190 hours/application) * ($41.98/hour) + $90,000 contractor costs = $181,936 . Total annual cost = ( 4 tribes) * ( $1 8 1,936 / application) = **$727,744 .** 

1 General Schedule rate, effective January 2014, assuming base pay rate with no locality adjustment.10 of 15

Post- rule annual tribal costs : Cost per application = ( 1,60 7 hours/application) * ($41.98/hour) + $ 43,920 contractor costs = $111,382 . Total annual cost = ( 6 tribes) * ( $111,382 /application) = **$668, 292**  . **6.3 E**  **STIMATING A**  **GENCY B**  **URDEN AND C**  **OST** Annual burden and costs to the f ederal government are detailed below. EPA employee costs were estimated assuming a GS - 12 Step 1 f ederal emplo ye e earning $60,877 per ye ar. At 2,080 labor hours per ye ar, the hourl y rate is $29.27 . Overhead costs for f ederal emplo ye es are expected to be 60 percent, or $17.56 per hour, yi eldi ng a total hourl y rate of $46.83 . Pre - rule A gency burden : EPA estimates that reviewing a typical application requires approximately

348 staff hours from regional and headquarters offices. The pre - rule Agency burden is ( 348 hours /application ) * ( $46.83 /hour) = $16,297 per application reviewed. Thus the total pre - rule Agency

burden is ( 4 tribes) * ( 348 hours /application) = **1,392 staff hours** or ( 4 tribes) * ( $16,297 /application) = **$65,188** . Post- rule A gency burden : If the proposed rule were to be finalized, EPA estimates that the pre - application staff burden would reduce b y 41% to 205 staff hours or ( 205 staff hours) * ( $46.83 /hour) = $9,600 per application reviewed. Thus the total post - rule Agency burden would be ( 6 tribes) * ( 205 hours /application) = **1,230 staff hours** or ( 6 tribes) * ( $9,600 /application) = **$57,600** . There are no Capital Expenses and no O&M costs associated with this I CR. **6. 4**  **R EASONS FOR**  **C HANGE IN**  **B URDEN**  The programmatic changes associated with the proposed rule would result in a reduction in total burden and cost to tribes and EPA for developing and processing TAS applications. **6. 5**  **B URDEN**  **S TATEMENT**  The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of informati on is estimated to be 1,607 hours plus $43,920 in contract support per response for a t ypical applicant tribe . Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended b y persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a f ederal agency . This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, a nd utilize technology and sy stems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing way s to comply with an y previously

applicable ins tructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.11 of 15

A federal agency cannot conduct o r 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 I CR under Dock et ID No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2014 - 0461 , which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334 , 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. 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 online for viewing at http://www.regulations.gov . Use http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the publi c docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronicall y. Once in the s ys tem, select ‘ search, ” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of In formation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID ( EPA - HQ - OW - 2014 - 0461 ) and OMB Control Number ( 2040 -NEW ) in any correspondence.12 of 15 **ATTACHMENT Derivation of**  **Burden Estimates**  Methodology In order to evaluate the burden under this proposed rule, EPA obtained quantitative resource information from the eight tribes listed in section 3.3 that have experience in appl yi ng for TAS for the WQS program. From interviews with tribal staff members, EPA obtained tribal estimates of the staff hours and contractor funds the tribes actually expended in preparing their TAS applications, and an estimate of the portion of this burden that would be eliminat ed under the proposed rule. Utility and L imitations The estimates based on tribal input reflect the best available information. EPA selected the tribes because of their knowledge of the TAS process and willingness to participate. The staff members interv iewed were either direct participants or observers at the time the applications were developed. They

were knowledgeable about how their tribes demonstrated inherent authority and were able to discern how the level of effort would have differed if such a de monstration had not been required. The information obtained from the tribes has certain limitations. First, some of the information could lack precision and accuracy because it depends largel y on personal recollections of events from 3 to 20 years ago, de pending on the tribe. Second, this analy sis included all administrative costs associated with TAS applications even if some of the costs are not strictl y information collection costs. EPA was unable to differentiate the information collection costs

– that is, “reporting and recordkeeping” as these terms are defined and used under the Paperwork Reduction Act

– consistently and reliabl y from other administrative costs, such as program development costs, program implementation costs, and management oversi ght . The estimates of burden in this document , therefore , likel y overstate the actual ICR burden b y an unknown amount , but provide a reasonable estimate of the total administrative costs . B ecause of the interview process used, EPA has confidence that the tribes’ estimates of the relative proportion of work that the proposed rule would eliminate are fairly accurate . Finally , the sample of eight tribes is small relative to the number of tribes with approved TAS for the WQS program (4 9 ) from which they were drawn, or the number of tribes with reservations (over 300) . As a result, there is inherent variability in the data. Assumptions for estimates This analy sis assumes that all post - rule applications would be first - time applications for a CWA regulatory

program, thus the tribes would be unable to rel y on materials from previous13 of 15

applications for different regulatory programs. Therefore, to the extent that some tribes that have applied previousl y for one CWA regu latory program seek a subsequent approval for a different regulatory

program , the post - rule estimates of burden in this document will likely overstate the actual burden . ICR burdens are stated as annualized burdens. In the anal ys is below, EPA has used a steady - state assumption to simplify the calculations of annual burden . Specifically , the anal ys is assumes that the rates of new tribal applications for CWA regulatory programs are steady at the same number from one year to the next. This assumption enables EPA to assume that the entire burden for a tribe occurs within the first year when calculating annual burden rates, even though in reality all applications by

the eight participating tribes have required multiple years. This is because in a steady - state s ituation, assuming all burden occurs within one year is mathematically equivalent to a two - ye ar application process with one - half of the burden occurring in each year, or a three - ye ar process with one - third burden each year. To the extent that the rate of applications rises from year to ye ar (thereb y deviating from steady state) and any tribal applications take more than one ye ar, the post - rule estimates of burden in this document will likely overstate the actual burden . Estimates of total pre - rule burde n Table 1 shows the estimates provided b y the tribes for the work done to prepare TAS applications, including providing additional information EPA requested in the course of the application process. Based on this information, EPA estimates that the pre - rule burden for a ty pical tribe would be 2,190 burden hours and $90,000 of contractor support. EPA used a median rather than an average for th ese estimate s to reflect the non - normal distribution of values . Table 1: Per - tribe burden estimates, pre - rule **Trib e**  **Staff hours Contractor support**  A 1,295 $90,000 B 1,611 $102,000 C 1,640 $10,000 D 2,190 $8,100 E 3,605 $96,300 F 9,736 $90,000 G 12,298 $2,700 H 20,800 $270,000 **Median*** **2,190 $90,000**  *Excluding Tribe H, considered an outlier because of unique processes used in developing its TAS application. EPA data for the past 10 years show that between 1 and 5 tribes have been applying for TAS for a CWA regulatory program each year, with a 75 th pe rcentile of 4.0. EPA chose to use the 75 th percentile value to ensure the ICR does not underestimate the total burden to tribes. There fore, EPA ’s estimate of the pre - rule rate of new applications submitted is 4 tribes per year,14 of 15

resulting in a total pre - rul e burden estimate of ( 4 tribes) * ( 2,190 hours/application) = 8,760 total burden hours and ( 4 tribes) * ( $90,000 ) = $360,000 contractor support costs. Estimates of total post - rule burden Table 2 shows the estimates provided by the tribes for the percentage of the work done to prepare TAS applications that would be eliminated by the proposed rule. Based on this information, EPA estimates that the effect of the proposed rule would be to reduce tribal staf f hours to prepare TAS application by an average of 26.6%, and to reduce contractor support costs by an average of 51.2%. Table 2: Percentage of burden eliminated b y the proposed rule **Tribe % of**  **Staff**

**hours % of**  **Contractor**

**support** A 5.5% 33.3% B 33.3% 29.4% C 15.9% 32.5% D 14.7% 37.1% E 11.5% 44.1% F 15.6% 33.3% G 50.0% 100.0% H 66.7% 100.0% **Average 26.6%**  **51.2%** Table 3 shows the estimated post - rule burden per tribe, developed b y appl yi ng the average percentage reductions in Table 2 to the typical tribal pre - rule burden estimates in Table 1. From this information, EPA estimates the proposed rule would eliminate 58 3 staff burden hours , or 27 percent, and $46,080 contractor support costs , or 51 percent, for the ty pical tribe applying for TAS for a CWA regulatory program. Table 3: Estimated post - rule burden per tribe **Staff hours Contractor support**  (a) Pre - rule burden estimates (from Table 1) 2,190 $90,000 (b) Percentage eliminated by the proposed rule (from Table 2) 26.6% 51.2% (c) Amount eliminated by the proposed rule , (a)*(b) 583 $46,080 (d) Post rule burden , (a)

– (c) 1,607 $43,920 Also from Table 3, EPA estimates that the post - rule burden to develop TAS applications would be 1,607 staff hours and $43,920 contractor support costs for a typical tribe. B ecause the lower per - tribe burden could encourage more tribes to apply for TAS than in the past , EPA estimates that in the first three ye ars the proposed rule could increase the rate of new applications15 of 15

from the pre - rule rate of 4 per year to a post - rule rate of approximately 6 per year. Based on these factors, EPA estimates that the tot al annual post - rule burden for the next few years would comprise (6 tribes) * ( 1,607 hours) = 9,642 staff hours and (6 tribes) * ($43,920 /application) = $263,520 in contractor costs. After that time, EPA expects the pace of applications could increase as tribes become more familiar with the post - rule process.