1 of 14 

### I NFORMATION 

### C OLLECTION 

### R EQUEST

FOR


### R EVISED 

### I NTERPRETATION OF 

### C LEAN 

### W ATER 

### A CT 

### T RIBAL 

### P ROVISION



### ( F INAL 

### I NTERPRETIVE 

### R ULE 

### )

March 2016

EPA ICR Number 2515.0 2

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. 204602 of 14 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

COLLE CTION CRITERIA

................................ ................................ ............................. 5

3.1 Non

- duplication

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5 3.2 Public Notice Required P rior to ICR 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 INFORMATION REQUESTED

................................ ... 6 4.1 Respondents/NAICS Codes

................................ ................................ ........................... 6 4.2 Information Requested

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6 4.3 Respondent Activities

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED

– AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

................................ .... 7 5.1 Agency Activities

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 7

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

............................... 8

6.1 Estimating Respondent Burden

................................ ................................ ...................... 8

6. 2 Estimating Respondent Costs

................................ ................................ ........................ 9

6.3 Esti mating Agency Burden and Cost

................................ ................................ ............. 9

6. 4 Reasons for Change in Burden

................................ ................................ ...................... 9

6. 5 Burden Statement

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 10

Attachment : Derivation of Burden Estimates

................................ ................................ .............. 113 of 14

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 Water Act Tribal Provision ( Final Interpretive Rule)

.

1.2 S HORT C HARACTERIZATION /A BSTRACT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed this ICR to evaluate how

the final interpretive rule, Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal Provision

, would affect the paperwork burden on tribal applicants.

The reinterpretation streamline s how tribes apply for treatment in a similar manner as a state ( TAS ) for the water quality standards (WQS) program a nd other Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory programs. In the reinterpretation EPA conclude s definitively that section 518 includes

an express delegation of authority by Congress to eligible Indian tribes to administer regulatory programs over their entire re servations

. This reinterpretation eliminate s 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 reinterpretation reduce s the burden on applicant tribes and facilitates tribal involvement in the protection of reservation water quality as intended by Congr ess

.

Based on input from eight tribes with relevant TAS experience , EPA developed burden and cost estimates for the tribes to develop their TAS applications. The results discussed in this

ICR show that th e reinterpretation would reduce the burden by an est imated 583 staff hours (27%) for a typical tribe, and reduce the cost to a typical tribe for salaries and contractor support by an estimated $ 70,956 (39%)

.

Th ese estimate s may overstate actual burden because (a) EPA used a liberal estimate of the number of tribal applications, (b) EPA used a simplifying steady

- state assumption in estimating annualized costs, and ( c ) EPA included all costs associated with a TAS application

e ven if some costs might not be strictly information collection costs. EPA and the eight tribes

were unable to differentiate the information collection costs consistently and reliably from other costs such as program development costs.

As described in section 6 and the Appendix, EPA has assumed that all tribal costs and

burden associated with the rule are information collection burden . Therefore , EPA has not conducted a separate Economic Analysis.4 of 14

2

. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2.1 N EED AND A UTHORITY FOR THE C OLLECTION

In 1987, through the Water Quality Act (P. L. 100

- 4), Congress made substantial additions to the CWA. The Water Quality Act added section 518 which requires EPA to promulgate regulations specifying how Indian t ribes 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

. However, t ribes 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

n ecessary for EPA to fulfill the Agency’s responsibilities under CWA section 518(e) in a reasonable and timely manner.

The statute and r egulation s specify four criteria for an Indian t ribe to qualify to

administer a CWA regulatory program: (a) t he t ribe must be f ederally recognized, (b) the t ribe must have a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers, (c) the

functions to be administered by the tribe pertain to water resources within the borders of an

Indian reservation or legal equivalent, and (d) the t ribe 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 informa tion a t ribe must submit in order for EPA

to review a nd approve the tribe for TAS. Th e required information is summarized in section 4.2

below.

2.2 P RACTICAL U TILITY /U SERS OF THE D ATA

EPA uses the information supplied by an interested t ribe to determine whether it qualifies

to administer the CWA program which it seeks. EPA must assess the t ribe’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 t ribe s would be unable to administer CWA regulatory programs, such as WQS, water quality certifications, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program

. This would not be consistent with the CWA or f ederal Indian policy.5 of 14

3. NON

- DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION

CRITERIA

3.1 N ON

- D UPLICATION

Under EPA’s regulations, a t r ibe must submit a separate TAS application for each program it wishes to administer. To avoid requiring t ribes to submit duplicate information, EPA’s regulations specify that a t ribe need only provide the required information which has not

been submitted i n a previous application. For example, in evaluating whether a t ribe qualifies to

administer WQS , EPA does not require a t ribe to resubmit information from its previously

approved 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 solicited comments on th e January 2015 draft of this ICR for a 6 0

- day period concurrently with the comment period for the proposed rule, Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal Provision

. No comments were

received. This final ICR incorporates minor technical revisions.

3.3 C ONSULTATIONS

In developing the interpretive 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 e ight t ribes that were willing to provide quantitative information about the resources they expended in obtaining approval for TAS to administer the WQS program. The tribes and the year in which their TAS approval occurred a re:

 Hoopa Valley Tribe (CA) (199 6)

 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 of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River

Re servation (WI) (2009)

 Blackfeet Tribe (MT) (2012)

The tribes provide d the resource information in interviews conducted by EPA staff members in the respective r eg ional offices.6 of 14

3.4 E FFECTS OF L ESS F REQUENT C OLLECTION

Application by Indian t ribes to obtain TAS to administer a CWA regulatory program is a

one

- time collection of information per respondent, initiated voluntarily by interested t ribes.

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 ICR will contain no confidential 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 o f annual respondents i s estimated in section 6.

Any federally recognized t ribe with a reservation may apply to administer a regulatory

program under the CWA , unless prohibited by another federal law

. Over 300 t ribes have

reservation land s

. From 1991 through March 2016, over 70 t ribes have submitted such an application, all of which are for the WQS program. Of these, EPA has approved TAS for 51

t ribes ; the remaining applications are in various stages of development.

The respondents affected by this collection activity are in NAICS 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 t ribe must provide in its application to administer a CWA regulatory program. Specifically, an interested t ribe must

submit:

(1) A statement that the t ribe is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior ;

(2) A descriptive statement demonstrating that the t ribal governing body is currently carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers over a defined area ;

(3) A descriptive statement of the Indian t ribe’s authority to regulate water quality, including a map or legal description of the area over which the Indian t ribe asserts7 of 14

a uthority ; a statement by the t ribe'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 authority; 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 t ribe to administer an effective program ; and

(5) A ny additional documentation required by the Regional Administrator to support the application.

Approvals for t ribes to administer a CWA regulatory program are valid unless rescinded. Therefore, an interested t ribe usually needs to apply only once for a program . Where a t ribe has previously qualified for TAS under another program, the t ribe need only 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 any necessary background understanding, obtaining clarifications from EPA

, assembling information required for the application, analyzing the assembled information, analyzing any issues identified by the tribe or EPA, writing the application and transmitta l documents, responding to comments from EPA or others, and transmitting the draft and final application to EPA. The activities also i nclude establishing a permanent file of the TAS application that can be referenced when applying for other CWA programs at a later date.

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 t ribe submits an application to administer a CWA regulatory program, EPA

review s the application and use s the submitted information to determine whether the t ribe 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 consider s any comments received when it makes a decision concerning the tribe’s TAS eligibility.8 of 14

5.2 C OLLECTION M ETHODOLOGY AND M ANAGEMENT

An i nterested t ribe 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 ; EPA headquarters must concur on the first application submitted to each Region

. Regional o ffice staff members work closely with the t ribes in this process. EPA headquart ers 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 ICR do not place a burden on any small

entities.

5.4 C OLLECTION S CHEDULE

There are no scheduling requirements for Indian t ribes 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 t ribal burden : EPA estimates that a typical 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 ne w tribal TAS applications for CWA regulatory programs per year. Thus the pre

- rule baseline burden co mprises (4 trib es) * ( 2,190 hours) = 8,7 6 0 staff hours , and (4 tribes) * ($90,000) = $360,000 in cont ractor costs

.

Post

- rule tribal burden : EPA estimates that a typical tribe would expend 1,60 7 staff hours and $43,920 on contract costs to develop a TAS application pursuant to the reinterpretation. Further, EPA estimates that an average of 6 t ribes would for TAS to administer CWA regulatory programs per year , a 50 % increase that is expected to continue for the first few

years. Thus the post

- rule burden would comprise ( 6 trib es) * ( 1,60 7 hours) = 9,64 2 staff hours and (6 tribes) * ($ 43,920 ) = $ 263,520 in contractor costs

. The pace of applications could increase as tribes become more familiar with the new post

- rule process.9 of 14

6.2 E STIMATING R ESPONDENT C OSTS

The above burden estimates have been converted to dollar cost estimates using the following assumption:

T ribal employee costs were estimated assuming an average hourly salary of $ 26.67

, which is equivalent to the salary of a GS

- 9, Step 10 f ederal employee. 1 Overhead cost s for tribal employees are expe cted to be 60 percent, or $ 16.00 per hour, yieldi ng a total hourly rate of $ 42.67

.

Pre

- rule annual tribal costs : Cost per application = ( 2,190 hours/application) * ($ 42.67 /hour) + $90,000 contractor costs = $ 183,447 . Total an nual cost = ( 4 t ribes) * ( $ 183,447 / application) = $ 733,788

.

Post

- rule annual tribal costs : Cost per application = ( 1,60 7 hours/application) * ($ 42.67 /hour) + $ 43,920 contractor costs = $ 112,491

. Total annual cost = ( 6 trib es) * ($ 112,491 /application) = $ 674,946

.

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 employee earning $ 29.76 per hour

. Overhead costs for f

ederal employees are expected to be 60 percent, or $ 17.86 per hour, yieldi ng a total hourly rate o f $ 47.62

.

Pre

- rule agency burden : EPA estimates that reviewing a typical application requires approximately 348 agency staff hours from regional and headquarters offices. The pre

- rule

a gency cost is 348 staff hours * $ 47.62 = $ 16,572 per application reviewed. Thus t he total pre

rule Agency burden is 4 * 348 = 1,392 staff hours or 4 * $ 16,572 = $ 66,288

.

Post

- rule agency burden : EPA estimates that the agency staff burden would reduce by 41% to 205 staff hours or 205 * $ 47.62 = $ 9,762 per application reviewed. Thus the total post

rule a gency burden would be 6 * 205 = 1,230 staff hours or 6 * $ 9,762 = $ 58,572

.

There are no Capital Expenses and no O&M costs associated with this ICR.

6. 4 R EASONS FOR C HANGE IN B URDEN

The programmatic changes associated with the interpretive rule would result in a reduction in

total burden and cost to tribes and EPA for developing and processing TAS applications.

1 General Schedule rate, effective January 2016 , assuming base pay rate with no locality adjustment.10 of 14

6. 5 B URDEN S TATEMENT

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping bu rden for this collection of informati on is estimated to average 1,607 hours plus $43,920 in contract support per response for a typical applicant tribe

.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a f ederal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, a nd 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 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.

An agency may not conduct or spon sor, 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. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2014

- 0461 , which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person 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 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 online for viewing at http://www.regulations.gov

. This site can

be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of th e contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.

When in the system, select “ search, ” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Info rmation 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.11 of 14 ATTACHMENT

Derivation of Burden Estimates

Methodology

In order to evaluate the burden under this interpretive rule, EPA obtained quantitative

resource information from the eight tribes listed in section 3.3 that have experience in applying

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 w ould be eliminated under

the rule.

Utility and Limitations

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 interviewed 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 su ch a demonstration had not been required.

The information obtained from the tribes has certain limitations. First, some of the information may lack precision and accuracy because it depends largely on personal recollections of events from 3 to 20 years ag o, depending on the tribe.

Second, in many cases it was difficult to distinguish which tribal efforts represented solely information collection activities

– that is, “reporting and recordkeeping” as these terms are defined and used under the Paperwork Re duction Act. In many cases, such efforts could not be distinguished from program development costs, program implementation costs, management oversight, or other costs that are not strictly “reporting and recordkeeping.”

Because of this inherent limitation, EPA has chosen to include all costs identified by the tribal staff members as associated with the TAS application as ICR “burden,” regardless of

whether the costs meet a strict definition of “reporting and recordkeeping .” The estimates of burden in this document therefore likely overstate the actual ICR burden by an unknown amount

, but provide a reasonable estimate of the total costs

. B ecause of the interview process used, EPA

has confidence that the tribes’ estimates of the relative proportion of work that the 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 ( 51 ) from which they were drawn, or the total number of tribes with reservations ( over 300 ). As a result, there is inherent variability in the data.12 of 14

Assumptions for estimates

This analysis assumes that all post

- rule applications would be first

- time applications for a CWA regulatory program, thus unable to rely on materials from previous applications for different regulatory programs. Therefore, to the extent that some tribes that have applied previously for one CWA regulatory 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 analysis below, EPA has used a steady

- state assumpt ion to simplify the calculations of annual burden . Specifically, the analysis 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 situation, assuming all burden occurs within one year is mathematically equivalent to, say, a two

- year application process with one

- half of the burden occurring in each

year, or a three

- year process with one

- third burden each year. To the extent that the rate of applications rises from year to year (thereby deviating from steady state) and any tribes’ application processes take more than one year, the post

- rule estimates of burden in thi s document will likely overstate the actual burden

.

Estimates of total pre

- rule burden

Table 1 shows the estimates provided by the tribes for the work done to prepare TAS applications, including providing additional information EPA requested in the c ourse of the application process. Based on this information, EPA estimates that the pre

- rule burden for a typical tribe would be 2,190 burden hours and $90,000 of contractor support.

Table 1: Per

- tribe burden estimates, pre

- rule

Tribe Staff hours Contract or 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.13 of 14

EPA data for the past 10 years shows that between one and five tribes have been applying for TAS for a CWA regulatory program each year, with a 75 th percentile 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 four tribes per year, resulting in a tot al pre

- rule burden estimate of 4 x 2,190 = 8,760 total burden hours and 4 x $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 interpretive rule. Based on this information, EPA estimates that the effect of the rule would be to reduce tribal staff hou rs 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 by the interpretive 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 by applying the average percentage reductions in Table 2 to the typical tribal pre

- rule burden estimates in

Table 1. From this information, EPA estimates the rule would eliminate 583 s taff burden hours and $46,080 contractor support costs for the typical 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)] 58 3 $46,080

(d) Post rule burden [(a)

– (c)] 1,608 $43,92014 of 14

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. This may not necessarily result in a similar reduction in the total annual burden, h owever, because the lower

per

- tribe burden could encourage more tribes to apply for TAS than in the past. Taking this into consideration, EPA estimates that in the first three years the proposed rule could increase the rate of new applications from the pre vious rate of 4 per year to a new rate of approximately 6 per

year. Based on these factors, EPA estimates that the total annual post

- rule burden for the next few years would comprise (6 trib es) * ( 1,607 hours) = 9,642 staff hours and (6 tribes) * ($43,920) = $ 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.