INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REGULATION ( RENEWAL)

July 8, 2005 EPA ICR Number 0988.09 OMB Control Number 2040 0049 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water/ Office of Science and Technology 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20460 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 SHORT CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 USE AND USERS OF INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 NON DUPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB . . . . . . . 8 3.3 CONSULTATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4 EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.5 GENERAL GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.6 CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2 INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3 RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.1 AGENCY ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2 COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.3 COLLECTION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.1 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.2 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.3 ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.4 TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.5 REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.6 BURDEN STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 1The Regulation defines the term " State" to mean the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and specific Territories including Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1.1 TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION The title of this Information Collection Request ( ICR) is Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal). This ICR revises the existing estimates of burden and costs to States and Indian Tribes presented in the ICR entitled Water Quality Standards Regulation ( EPA ICR Number 0988.08, OMB Control Number 2040 0049), which expires on August 31, 2005.

1.2 SHORT CHARACTERIZATION Water quality standards are provisions of State1, Tribal, or Federal law which consist of designated uses for waters of the United States, water quality criteria to protect those uses, and an antidegradation policy. Water quality standards are established to protect public health or welfare, protect and enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. Such standards serve the dual purposes of establishing the water quality goals for water bodies, and serving as a regulatory basis for establishing water quality based treatment controls and strategies beyond technology based treatment required by sections 301 and 306 of the Act.

The Water Quality Standards Regulation establishes the framework for states and authorized tribes to adopt standards, for EPA to review and approve or disapprove them, and for implementation of regulatory controls to take place. The Regulation consists of 40 CFR part 131, and portions of part 132 related to water quality standards, including 40 CFR 132.3, Appendixes A, B, C, D, E, and Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix F. The regulation includes requirements for information collection to enable EPA, states, and tribes to implement the regulation. This ICR is for information collection required by the Water Quality Standards Regulation.

The Regulation includes the information collection activities in the table on the next page. Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 2 Table 1.1: Overview of information collected Information Collected Sections of Water Quality Standards Regulation ( A) Standards Adoption and Revisions New and revised water quality standards, results of triennial reviews, and supporting information submitted to EPA for review and approval. 40 CFR part 131, especially sections 131.6, 131.20 131.22 ( B) Tribal Program Applications Tribal applications to be treated in the same manner as a state ( TAS) to administer water quality standards programs 40 CFR 131.8 ( C) Dispute Resolution Requests Tribal or state requests for dispute resolution 40 CFR 131.7 ( D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance:

( D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests ( D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations ( D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests Bioassay tests and other studies to support development of water quality criteria for the Great Lakes system 40 CFR part 132, especially sections 132.1, 132.2, 132.3, 132.5, and Appendixes A, B, C, and D Studies and demonstrations required by the antidegradation policy for the Great Lakes system* 40 CFR part 132, especially sections 132.1,132.2, 132.4, 132.5, and Appendix E Requests for regulatory relief ( e. g., variances) from water quality standards for the Great Lakes system* 40 CFR part 132, especially sections 132.1, 132.2, 132.4, 132.5, and Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix F * Items D1, D2 and D3 involve both water quality standards burden and NPDES burden. This ICR covers only the water quality standards burden. A separate ICR, EPA ICR Number 1639.04, OMB Control Number 2040 0180, covers the NPDES burden. Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 2 Tribes that have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality standards program under 40 CFR 131.8.

3 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2.1 NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION ( A) Standards Adoption and Revision. Since the passage of the Water Quality Act in 1965, the States have been required by Federal law to establish water quality standards. These requirements were expanded by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act ( CWA), in 1972. Section 303( c) of the CWA, 33 U. S. C. 1313( c), governs the water quality standards program. Section 303( c) requires States and authorized Tribes2 to review and revise their water quality standards at least once every three years, and to submit to EPA the results and revisions resulting from the reviews. EPA then reviews each State or Tribal submission for approval or disapproval.

These requirements are encompassed in 40 CFR part 131 of the Water Quality Standards Regulation. Section 131.20 establishes the requirement for State or Tribal review and revision of water quality standards. Section 131.6 establishes the minimum requirements for a water quality standards submission. ( See section 4.2 below.) Section 131.5 prescribes EPA's review of State and Tribal submission. The review criteria are: ( a) whether the State or Tribe has adopted uses which are consistent with the requirements of the Act, ( b) whether the State or Tribe has adopted criteria to protect the designated water uses, ( c) whether the State or Tribe has followed its legal procedures for revising or adopting standards, ( d) whether the water quality standards which do not include uses specified in Section 101( a)( 2) of the Act are based on appropriate technical and scientific data and analyses, and ( e) whether the submission meets the minimum elements from section 131.6. This information collection will ensure EPA has the needed information to review standards and make approvals or disapprovals.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. 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( e) which requires EPA to promulgate regulations specifying how Indian Tribes would qualify to administer the CWA Section 303 water quality standards program. EPA published such regulations in 1991 in section 131.8 of the Water Quality Standards Regulation. The revisions do not require Tribes to apply for administering the water quality standards programs. However, where Tribes desire to be authorized to administer the water quality standards program, some information collection is necessary in order for EPA to fulfill the Agency's responsibilities under CWA Section 518( e) in a reasonable and timely manner.

The statute and Regulation specify four criteria for an Indian Tribe to qualify to administer a water quality standards program ( 40 CFR 131.8): The Tribe must be Federally recognized, the Tribe must have a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers, the water quality standards program must be administered for water resources within the borders of Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 3The " Great Lakes system" means all the streams, rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water within the drainage basin of the Great Lakes within the United States.

4 an Indian reservation or legal equivalent, and the Tribe must be reasonably expected to be capable of carrying out the functions of an effective water quality standards program under the Act. Section 131.8( b) specifies the information a Tribe must submit in order for EPA to review and approve the application. ( See section 4.2 below.)

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. The 1987 amendments to the CWA also included specific requirements in Section 518( e)( 3) for EPA to establish a mechanism for resolution of disputes which arise between States and Tribes over water quality standards on common water bodies. EPA published such regulations in 1991 in section 131.7 of the Water Quality Standards Regulation. The revisions do not require Tribes or States to request EPA assistance in resolving State/ Tribal disputes. However, where a Tribe or State desires a formal EPA dispute resolution action, some information collection is necessary in order for EPA to fulfill the Agency's responsibilities under CWA Section 518( e) in a reasonable and timely manner.

( D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. Section 101 of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 amends Section 118 of the CWA. It directs EPA to publish water quality guidance for the Great Lakes system. 3 The Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria, implementation procedures, and antidegradation provisions for the Great Lakes system. The Great Lakes water quality standards components included in this ICR are:

( 1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. States or dischargers may choose to undertake bioassays or other studies that States may use to develop water quality criteria or values to protect waters of the Great Lakes system. For this ICR, EPA assumed that dischargers would perform the tests. If States perform the tests, the overall burden might be less. The bioassay tests are discretionary activities. If a State or discharger chooses to undertake them, they must produce data consistent with the requirements of the Great Lakes Guidance. See 40 CFR 132, Appendixes A, B, C, and D.

( 2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Dischargers may undertake activities in the course of their operations that would be subject to the antidegradation requirements of the Guidance. For example, an expansion of a manufacturing facility might produce increased loadings of bioaccumulative chemicals of concern that result in a significant lowering of water quality. In these situations, the facilities must conduct studies and demonstrations to ensure compliance with the Guidance and implementing State requirements. See 40 CFR part 132, Appendix E.

( 3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Dischargers may choose to apply for regulatory relief ( e. g., modifications to water quality criteria, or discharge variances from water quality standards) from provisions implementing the Guidance. The requests for such relief are discretionary activities. If discharger chooses to make such a request, it Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 5 must perform additional monitoring or special studies, etc., to support the request. See Procedures 1 and 2 of 40 CFR part 132, Appendix F.

2.2 USE AND USERS OF INFORMATION ( A) Standards Adoptions and Revisions. EPA uses the new and revised water quality standards and supporting information submitted by States and authorized Tribes to carry out its responsibility under the CWA to approve or disapprove the standards.

Section 131.5 of the Regulation prescribes EPA's review of State and Tribal submission. The review criteria are: ( a) whether the State or Tribe has adopted uses which are consistent with the requirements of the Act, ( b) whether the State or Tribe has adopted criteria to protect the designated water uses, ( c) whether the State or Tribe has followed its legal procedures for revising or adopting standards, ( d) whether the water quality standards which do not include uses specified in Section 101( a)( 2) of the Act are based on appropriate technical and scientific data and analyses, and ( e) whether the submission meets the minimum elements from section 131.6 ( see section 4.2 below).

Once EPA approves the standards, they become effective for all purposes under the Act. EPA makes the full text of all water quality standards available on its web site, http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience, to assist the public, States, Tribes, dischargers, and other stakeholders. EPA, States, and Tribes use the standards as the foundation for water quality protection under the CWA. Standards establish the water quality goals for specific water bodies, and provide the regulatory basis for the establishment of water quality based treatment controls and strategies beyond technology based levels of treatment.

In particular, water quality standards serve as the basis for EPA, States, and authorized Tribes to determine which waters are not in attainment under section 303( d) of the CWA, for establishing total maximum daily loads ( TMDLs) for non attainment waters under section 303( d), for water quality based effluent limitations in NPDES permits for point source dischargers ( including publicly owned treatment works and industrial facilities) under sections 301( b)( 1)( C) and 402 of the Act, and for certifications under section 401. They also help Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments develop water quality management plans and objectives, and plan for and protect water supplies.

If these information collection activities were not carried out, explicit requirements of the CWA would be violated, TMDLs could not be developed where needed, and Federal or State permit writers would be unable to establish permit limits to protect water quality where technology based controls are not adequate.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. EPA uses the information supplied by interested Tribes to determine whether they qualify to administer water quality standards programs under the CWA. EPA must assess the Tribe's applications to determine whether they meet the Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 4A Great Lakes Tribe is a Tribe which is located in whole or in part in the Great Lakes system, and which EPA has authorized to administer a water quality standards program.

6 requirements specified in section 518( e) of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.8. If these information collection activities were not carried out, interested and otherwise qualified Tribes would be unable to implement a key program under the CWA. This would not be consistent with the CWA or Federal Indian policy.

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. EPA uses the information supplied in the requests to initiate its role of attempting to resolve disputes arising from differing water quality standards on common bodies of water. If this information collection activity were not carried out, interested States and Tribes would be unable to resolve such disputes as envisioned in the CWA.

( D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. Great Lakes States and Tribes4 will use the results of bioassay tests conducted by dischargers to help develop or revise water quality criteria and values to protect aquatic life in the Great Lakes system. Such testing can result in more scientifically accurate criteria, or criteria more suited to specific water bodies.

( D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Great Lakes States and Tribes will use the information supplied by dischargers to make " antidegradation decisions" under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. These decisions determine whether the activity the discharger is about to undertake will be allowed, even though it may lower water quality.

( D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Great Lakes States and Tribes will use the information supplied by dischargers to decide whether to grant the regulatory relief requests ( e. g., water quality variances, or modifications of water quality criteria). This information may be used to ensure compliance with provisions consistent with the Guidance and to re evaluate existing permit conditions and monitoring requirements.

3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3.1 NON DUPLICATION ( A) Standards Adoption and Revision. State and Tribal water quality standards reviews and revisions are a unique component of the water quality management process, with States and authorized Tribes having the exclusive responsibility to adopt, certify, and submit standards, and EPA having the exclusive authority to review and approve/ disapprove the standards. However, in developing and analyzing the standards, the States and Tribes use existing data and information from other programs wherever possible. Some key programs which provide data and other information on sources of pollution, characteristics of pollutant discharges, ambient water quality conditions, cause and effect relationships, etc., include: Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 7 The NPDES permitting program, including information from " NPDES Permits and the Sewage Sludge Management Permits" ( OMB No. 2040 0086); " NPDES Modification and Variance Requests" ( OMB No. 2040 0068); " NPDES and Sewage Sludge Monitoring Reports" ( OMB No. 2040 0004); and, the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) which is an automated database of discharger data.

The ambient water monitoring and water quality management programs, including: National Water Quality Inventory Reports ( CWA sections 305( b), 303( d), 314( a), and 106( e)); OMB Control No. 2040 0071; and, the STORET ( short for STOrage and RETrieval) automated database of ambient water quality data ( contains much of the ambient water quality data gathered by the States, EPA, and other Federal agencies) other discharger or ambient water quality data the States voluntarily collect ( much of these data are included in STORET).

Respondents collect additional data in support of water quality standards reviews only to fill gaps where existing information is lacking. Historically, States typically design and conduct water quality studies with multiple objectives in mind ( e. g., general water quality assessment, use attainability, site specific criteria development, wasteload allocation). EPA works with the States and Tribes to minimize any duplication of data collection efforts.

EPA considered alternative data sources for the water quality standards program. The data needed for this program are found primarily in State and Tribal water quality management and planning programs and generally cannot be purchased or otherwise obtained from private sources. Further, the adoption and submission of water quality standards can only be accomplished by States and authorized Tribes.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. Under EPA's regulations, a Tribe must submit a separate TAS ( Treatment in Same Manner as a State) application for each program it wishes to administer. To avoid requiring Tribes to submit duplicate information, the Water Quality Standards Regulation specifies that a Tribe need only provide the required information which has not been submitted in a previous application. For example, in evaluating whether a Tribe qualifies to administer water quality standards, EPA does not require a Tribe to resubmit information from its previously approved section 106 TAS application.

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. Because each dispute over water quality standards will be unique, and the information required to be submitted pertains solely to the dispute, it is very unlikely that Tribes or States will be required to re submit information which was previously provided to EPA.

( D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. EPA has examined all the reporting requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 403, 501, and 503. The Agency also has consulted the following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere: EPA's Information Systems Inventory, EPA's Inventory of Information Collection Requests, Federal Information Locator System, Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 8 Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule ( 53 CFR 51698), and EPA's Toxics Release Inventory. Examination of these databases revealed no duplicate requirements.

3.2 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA solicited comments for a 60 day period prior to submission of the ICR to OMB. Comments were requested in the Federal Register on March 22, 2005 at 70 FR 14462. The comment period expired on May 23, 2005. No comments were received by EPA during the comment period. A copy of the Federal Register Notice soliciting public comments was submitted to OMB on March 22, 2005.

3.3 CONSULTATIONS When EPA revised the Water Quality Standards Regulation ( WQS) in 1983, EPA made a substantial effort to involve the public. The process began in 1978 with the publication of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( ANPRM). The ANPRM resulted in comments from 110 individuals, public agencies, organizations, and interest groups. EPA developed ideas for revisions to the existing regulation from the comments. EPA also began a dialogue with States and with the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators ( ASIWPCA). The States and ASIWPCA continued their involvement until publication of the proposed rule through discussions with EPA and review of drafts of the proposed rule. None of the State comments complained about reporting requirements in the then existing rule or in the proposal. The final rule was published in November 1983.

Additionally, EPA published an ANPRM for the WQS Regulation in 1998 to begin a structured public dialogue with States, Tribes, dischargers, and other interested parties on whether and what changes, if any, are needed in the water quality standards program to improve the effectiveness of water quality standards. EPA also held meetings to assist stakeholders in reviewing and developing their positions/ comments on the ANPRM. The information received from written comments and from the public meetings has been useful to EPA in managing the standards program, and has helped EPA develop guidance, and assistance to States and Tribal standards programs.

The final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System ( Guidance) was published in the Federal Register on March 23, 1995, ( 60 FR 15366). It is the result of a six year effort begun by the eight Great Lakes States and EPA in 1989 to develop more consistent water quality standards in the Great Lakes Basin. To stay abreast of public expectations for the final Guidance, EPA met with State, Local, and Tribal government officials, financial officials and co regulators, the regulated community and environmental interests to listen and openly discuss their concerns. During the post proposal process, EPA participated in more than 40 such meetings with over 1,000 stakeholder representatives. The comments and issues raised by the various stakeholders Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 9 were considered in EPA's option selection process and regulatory impact analysis for developing the final Guidance.

The final Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria ( including for the first time criteria to specifically protect wildlife), antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures using an ecosystem approach for waters of the Great Lakes Basin within the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, including waters within the jurisdiction of Indian Tribes. All eight of the Great Lakes States have adopted criteria, methodologies, policies, and procedures consistent with the final Guidance that were approved by EPA, and are currently implementing these requirements in their State.

In 2001 through 2003, EPA conducted an outreach to stakeholders and State coregulators to revisit the essential role of water quality standards and criteria in restoring and maintaining water quality. EPA held over 50 listening sessions with over 350 people in 2001, and received written comments in 2002 from over 65 stakeholders. The review resulted in the publication of the Strategy for Water Quality Standards and Criteria in August 2003 by EPA's Office of Science and Technology ( OST). See http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ standards/ strategy/ index. html. As stated in the Strategy, " This strategy does not include a priority strategic action to revise the national water quality standards regulation to address any implementation issues. OST believes that a revised regulation would not be the best way to address most of the issues raised during listening sessions." The listening sessions revealed no concerns about reporting burden, no expressed needs for reduced reporting burden, and no suggestions for changes to regulatory requirements regarding information collection.

The burden estimated in this ICR is also consistent with other recent studies conducted by States and EPA concerning the level of State resources devoted to water quality programs.

3.4 EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION ( A) Standards Adoption and Revision. The information collection schedule is pursuant to the mandates of Section 303( c) of the CWA for the States and Tribes to review their water quality standards once every three years and thus is not adjustable by the EPA. Additionally, if water quality standards were reviewed less frequently, they would be more likely to be based on out of date information regarding existing stream uses, attainability of designated uses, pollutants of concern, and appropriate water quality criteria values. A triennial review cycle ensures that the latest scientific and other information are reflected in the standards.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. Application by Indian Tribes to administer the water quality standards program is a one time collection of information per respondent, initiated voluntarily by interested Tribes. Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 10 ( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. Requests for dispute resolution will be a one time collection of information per respondent, initiated voluntarily by a Tribe or State interested in EPA's assistance.

( D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. Permitted facilities may initiate bioassay tests to support development of water quality criteria voluntarily at any time. Because the Guidance does not require such testing, EPA has no discretion to reduce reporting frequency. EPA operates a GLI Clearinghouse of previously collected information in order to help avoid redundant data collection efforts.

( D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Permitted facilities may undertake activities in the course of their operations that would be subject to the antidegradation requirements of the Guidance. EPA has no control over the frequency of such activities. In these situations, the facilities conduct studies and demonstrations to ensure compliance with the Guidance and implementing State requirements.

( D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Regulatory relief requests will generally be associated with the reissuance of NPDES permits. Permitted facilities must reapply for NPDES permits before their existing permits expire, generally once every five years. The CWA prohibits issuance of NPDES permits with terms longer than five years. Less frequent permit applications would not provide the permitting authority with sufficiently current data to establish effective limitations or conditions when issuing permits. Since permittees will decide whether or not to apply for regulatory relief ( e. g., modifications to water quality criteria or discharge variances from water quality standards) from provisions implementing the Guidance, and since pursuing relief is generally a one time effort for the permittee, EPA has no discretion to allow less frequent information collection.

3.5 GENERAL GUIDELINES A review of the information collection guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2) indicates the EPA's Water Quality Standards ( WQS) Regulation may be inconsistent with paragraph ( f) because it may require keeping records for more than 3 years. The Water Quality Standards Regulation requires that existing uses be maintained, and defines " existing uses" to be any uses that have existed on or after November 28, 1975, which is the date that the first regulation for water quality standards was promulgated by EPA. In order to be able to implement this provision, States and Tribes will need to maintain information that would enable them to know the " existing uses." In those situations, the records maintained may include monitoring data and data summaries to demonstrate continued compliance with EPA's requirements. EPA provides a computerized system, STORET, which States and Tribes may use that minimizes the burden to maintain records.

These regulatory requirements are based on EPA's interpretation of the statutory mandate that water quality standards "... protect the public health or welfare, enhance the water quality of Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 11 water and serve the purposes of this Act." ( 33 U. S. C. 1313( c)( 2)). The loss of existing beneficial uses would be inconsistent with this mandate.

3.6 CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS ( A) Standards Adoptions and Revisions. State and Tribal submissions under this ICR will contain no confidential or sensitive information.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. Tribal program applications under this ICR will contain no confidential or sensitive information.

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. State and Tribal dispute resolution requests under this ICR will contain no confidential or sensitive information.

( D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. Bioassay testing under this ICR will contain no confidential or sensitive information.

( D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. It is possible that such demonstrations may contain confidential business information. If this is the case, the respondent may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part III, chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. However, CWA Section 308( b) specifically states that effluent data may not be treated as confidential.

( D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. It is possible that variance requests may contain confidential business information. If this is the case, the respondent may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part III, chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. However, CWA Section 308( b) specifically states that effluent data may not be treated as confidential.

3.7 Small Entity Flexibility The 1995 PRA incorporated the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) into it. The RFA requires that the EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that has a " significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." As part of the certification requirement, the Agency must show that the collection:

" reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as: Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 12 "( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;"

The requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996 must also be considered. Special consideration of small entities is required because such individuals generally cannot devote staff resources to follow regulatory developments and often are less likely to have their interests represented by lobbyists and associations. In addition, smaller entities may be less able to bear the burden of an information collection because of their smaller staff and resources.

The Small Business Administrations' size eligibility provisions and standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. The RFA also provides some guidance for defining a small entity. Section 601 of the RFA defines a " small entity" to include " small business," " small organization," and " small governmental jurisdiction." These terms are defined as follows:

 A " Small Business" is defined as any business that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field as defined by the Small Business Administration ( SBA) regulations under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.

 A " Small Organization" is defined as any not for profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field ( e. g., private hospitals and educational institutions).

 A " Small Governmental Jurisdiction" is defined as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with a population of less than 50,000. The definition of a small governmental jurisdiction may also include Indian Tribes, in keeping with the President's Federal Indian Policy.

EPA may also develop regulation specific definitions of small entities when the above definitions are not appropriate. Appendix D of the EPA Guidelines for Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( as revised April 1992) suggests that categories of affected entities be defined based on size and type ( size is generally based on number of employees, annual revenues, assets, or population size). The quantitative cutoff point for defining small entities should be selected based on the following criteria ( as provided in the EPA Guidelines):

( a) The point at which the economic impact appears to rise or fall substantially ( e. g., higher costs);

( b) The point in the range of size segments that most closely approximates SBA's definitions; Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 13 ( c) The point at which the regulation effectively includes a large number of regulated entities without covering a large portion of the pollution problem;

( d) The presence of significantly different requirements or impacts below specific size, population, production, geographic, or other factors.

If an Economic Analysis ( EA) has been prepared in conjunction with the ICR, it should provide a definition of a " small entity" as affected under the rulemaking that can be used for the information collection. The EA might also provide an estimate of the information costs for small entities. Otherwise, the ICR should define a " small entity" as discussed above, and calculate the burden to such entities for the information collection.

The water quality standards programs will have no primary impact on small businesses as the primary impact will be on State and Tribal government. There may be a secondary impact on permitted facilities, including businesses, federal government entities, and local governments with POTWs. The Agency has instituted several efforts to minimize the impact on businesses as a whole, and on small businesses, specifically.

EPA holds regular meetings that serve as opportunities for small businesses to communicate concerns about paperwork burden issues directly with senior Agency officials. For example, EPA's Small Business Division facilitates semi annual meetings between the EPA Deputy Administrator, senior management, and industry to give small business representatives the opportunity to meet with high level EPA managers and give the Agency the opportunity to hear first hand the concerns of small businesses.

The most recent meetings are described briefly below.

( i) At a September 14, 2001, meeting, Deputy Administrator Linda J. Fisher hosted discussions on EPA's regulatory review and SBREFA processes, New Source Review reform, MACT rules, the TRI Lead rule, MP& M and Arsenic rules, TMDLs, and waste requirements for wipers and shop towels.

( ii) At a May 10, 2002, meeting, Deputy Administrator Linda J. Fisher updated small business representatives on effluent guidelines for the metal products and machinery industry and the ongoing work on revising the Small Business Strategy, and heard feedback on the TRI Lead rule and EPA's Innovation Strategy.

( iii) At a June 9, 2003, meeting, Deputy Administrator Linda J. Fisher listened to industry representatives views and answered questions on EPA's partnership efforts, compliance assistance tools and incentives, and new Solid Waste and Emergency Response initiatives.

( iv) On March 30, 2004, Deputy Administrator Stephen Johnson's message was presented on collaboration, market incentives, and innovative technologies, and Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 14 also featured a panel discussion on burden reduction ( TRI, RCRA, SBPRA) followed by updates on small business related initiatives.

In addition to these regular high level meetings with small business representatives, former Administrator Christine Todd Whitman hosted EPA's first National Summit on Small Business and the Environment on March 13, 2003. This Summit brought together key government and small business leaders to focus on the revised Small Business Strategy and demonstrate EPA's commitment to helping small businesses and the environment, promote strong support of State Small Business Assistance Programs, and stress the importance of partnerships among all stakeholders.

Also, a Small Business Forum was held on October 6, 2004 to follow up on the completion of the Small Business Strategy and the recently completed Strategy Implementation Plan developed by a cross Agency workgroup. Deputy Administrator Stephen Johnson hosted this meeting that also featured panel discussions on E Government, early involvement of small businesses rulemaking, and planning for the second EPA Small Business Summit expected to be held in Spring, 2005.

Outreach to small businesses was an important theme throughout the Small Business Strategy. A key recommendation in the Implementation Plan is to expand interactions " with small business sectors to ensure early small business involvement in development of rules, policies and programs and to improve and simplify access to and exchange of information."

EPA= s Small Business Division ( SBD) maintains a website and a telephone hotline that small businesses can access with their questions about complying with environmental requirements. Small businesses are assisted by programs in the states, so partnerships between EPA and the states are essential. The Agency, pursuant to CAA section 507, has developed an extensive network with state Compliance Advisory Panels, Small Business Ombudsmen and Small Business Assistance Providers. SBD hosts an annual conference which provides an opportunity for state small business assistance providers, Compliance Advisory Panel members, trade association representatives, EPA and other federal agencies staff to learn and share information about helping the small business community. This event is key in helping States better coordinate their small business assistance delivery mechanisms. The EPA Small Business Ombudsman also periodically reports to Congress on the activities and progress of the state and territory Small Business Assistance Programs. Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 5 For the purposes of the CWA, States include the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

6 The 30 authorized Tribes are identified on EPA's web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience.

7Mole Lake Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Sokaogon Chippewa Community ( WI); Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa ( MN); Grand Portage Band of Chippewa ( MN); and St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians ( NY).

15 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF RESPONDENTS The following describes the " universe" of potential respondents. The actual numbers estimated to submit information annually are described in section 6.

( A) Standards Adoption and Revision. The Water Quality Standards Regulation requires reporting at least once every three years from 86 jurisdictions   56 States ( and Territories) 5, and the 30 Indian Tribes that have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality standards program as of June 2005.6 The respondents affected by this collection activity are in NAICS code 92411 " Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management," formerly SIC code # 9511.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. Any Federally recognized Tribe with a reservation could potentially apply to administer a water quality standards program. EPA estimates that there are 337 such Tribes. As of June 2005, 57 Tribes have submitted TAS applications, of which the 30 Tribes mentioned above have been approved. The respondents affected by this collection activity are in NAICS code 92411 " Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management."

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. Any of the 30 Indian Tribes above, or the States that share common water bodies with these Tribes, may submit dispute resolution requests. The respondents affected by this collection activity are in NAICS code 92411 " Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management."

( D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. The respondents potentially affected by this collection activity include eight Great Lakes States, four Great Lakes Tribes, and 2,710 facilities permitted to discharge to waters of the Great Lakes system.

The Great Lakes States and Tribes are the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and four tribes currently authorized to administer water quality standards programs for waters of the Great Lakes system. 7 These respondents are in NAICS code 92411 " Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management." Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 16 NPDES permits are required any time there is a point source discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States, regardless of the type of discharger. Consequently, all point source dischargers must apply for an NPDES permit. Based on a review of lists that the Great Lakes States generated and of permits issued since March 1991 for discharges to waters of the Great Lakes system, EPA determined that 516 major and 2,194 minor point sources could potentially choose to conduct bioassay tests, be subject to antidegradation demonstrations, or choose to apply for regulatory relief, under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. The respondents affected by this collection activity are in the following NAICS codes: Mining ( except oil and gas) ( 212), Food manufacturing ( 311), Paper manufacturing ( 322), Chemical manufacturing ( 325), Petroleum refineries ( 32411), Primary metal manufacturing ( 331), Fabricated metal product manufacturing ( 332), Machinery manufacturing ( 333), Computer and electronic product manufacturing ( 334), Electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing ( 335), Transportation equipment manufacturing ( 336), Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution ( 2211), and Sewage treatment facilities ( 22132).

4.2 INFORMATION REQUESTED ( A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. Section 131.20 of the Water Quality Standards Regulation requires States and authorized Tribes to review their water quality standards at least once every three years and submit the results of the review, along with any new or revised standards, to EPA for approval. States and Tribes may choose to adopt new or revised standards more frequently. Section 131.6 of the Water Quality Standards Regulation establishes the following minimum requirements for a water quality standards submission:

( 1) use designations consistent with Section 101( a)( 2) and 303( c)( 2) of the Act,

( 2) methods used and analyses conducted to support water quality standards revisions,

( 3) water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses,

( 4) an antidegradation policy consistent with 40 CFR 131.12,

( 5) certification by the State Attorney General or other appropriate State or Tribal legal authority that the water quality standards were duly adopted pursuant to State or Tribal law, and ( 6) general information which will aid the EPA in determining the adequacy of the scientific basis of the standards which do not include the uses specified in Section 101( a)( 2) of the Act as well as information on general policies applicable to State standards which may affect their application and implementation. Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 17 States and authorized Tribes may choose to provide additional information to help clarify the submissions, and enable EPA to better understand the standards and how they are implemented.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. Section 131.8( b) of the Regulation specifies the information a Tribe must provide in its program application. Specifically, 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 currently carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers over a defined area,

( 3) a descriptive statement of the Indian Tribe's authority to regulate water quality, and an identification of the surface waters for which the Tribe proposes to establish water quality standards,

( 4) a narrative statement describing the capability of the Indian Tribe to administer an effective water quality standards program, and ( 5) any additional documentation required by the Regional Administrator to support the application.

Approvals for Tribes to administer standards programs are valid unless rescinded. Therefore, an interested Tribe normally needs to apply only once. Where a Tribe has previously qualified for " treatment in the same manner as a state" under another program, the Tribe need only provide the required information which has not been submitted in a previous application.

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. Section 131.7 of the Regulation specifies that a Tribe or State interested in having EPA initiate a formal dispute resolution action mut submit a written request to EPA. Information that a State or Tribe must submit with the request includes:

( 1) a statement of the alleged unreasonable consequences that have arisen due to the differing water quality standards;

( 2) a description of the actions which have been taken to resolve the dispute without EPA involvement; and,

( 3) an identification of the State/ Tribal water quality standards provision which has resulted in the unreasonable consequences, and a statement of the relief sought.

( D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. Section 132.3 of the Regulation specifies that Great Lakes States and Tribes must adopt certain water quality criteria published by EPA, or criteria Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 8Remedial actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA), corrective actions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), or similar actions under other Federal or State laws.

18 that they develop using methodologies published by EPA. Dischargers may choose to conduct bioassay tests or other studies to assist the States or Tribes in developing such criteria. Any bioassay tests or other studies must conform to the methodologies in Appendixes A, B, C, and D of part 132.

( D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Appendix E to part 132 of the Regulation specifies that any entity seeking to lower water quality in a high quality water of the Great Lakes system, or proposing a new or increased discharge to Outstanding International Resource Waters ( OIRWs) of the Lake Superior Basin, must submit an antidegradation demonstration to the NPDES permitting authority ( normally the State or EPA). The Regulation specifies that the demonstration include:

( 1) a pollution prevention alternatives analysis,

( 2) an alternative or enhanced treatment analysis, and ( 3) an important social or economic development analysis.

Appendix E also contains additional requirements where OIRWs or certain remedial actions8 are involved. .

( D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Appendix F to part 132 of the Regulation specifies at least two ways that the Great Lakes water quality standards adopted pursuant to part 132 may be modified to provide regulatory relief: site specific modifications to criteria and values ( Procedure 1), and variances from water quality standards ( Procedure 2).

Dischargers seeking site specific water quality criteria modifications would need to provide data to the State or Tribe in accordance the methodologies in Appendixes A, B, C, and D to part 132.

Point source dischargers seeking variances from water quality standards would need to submit an application to the State or Tribe that includes information demonstrating that attaining the standards is not feasible based on one or more of six specified factors, including natural conditions, human caused conditions that cannot be remedied, certain hydrologic modifications, or controls that would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact. Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 9Removing a designated use requires information demonstrating that the use is not existing, and that attaining the use is not feasible based on one or more of six specified factors, including natural conditions, humancaused conditions that cannot be remedied, certain hydrologic modifications, or controls that would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact. These are similar to the factors for variances for the Great Lakes system described above.

19 4.3 RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES ( A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. EPA, in coordination with selected States, identified the following activities to supply information for standards adoption and revision. Respondent burden estimates in section 6.1 were developed through a survey of a sample of States using the factors described below.

Review of instructions, guidance and regulations: Includes time reviewing documents necessary for the State/ Tribe to revise its standards. Burden hours may vary, depending on staff knowledge and turnover rates. ( Note that time spent in the field, laboratory and office performing and documenting special water quality monitoring studies or surveys in connection with the Water Quality Standards Program is considered under other categories.)

Identify issues and plan activities: Includes identifying the standards issues to be addressed, ordering the standards issues based on EPA and State or Tribal priorities and policies, and planning the activities to be performed. Also includes gathering and analyzing existing water quality data and waterbody use information as needed. Planned activities may include developing site specific criteria modifications, and conducting use attainability analyses.

Use attainability analysis studies conducted to support a possible change in use designation: The Regulation in section 131.10 requires conducting use attainability analyses ( UAAs) when a State or Tribe wants to remove a designated use that is not an existing use. UAAs are structured scientific assessments of the factors affecting attainment of a use, including physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors specified in section 131.10( g) of the Regulation. 9 EPA has published a series of technical guidance documents concerning UAAs. The actual experiences of States were the primary basis of this portion of the burden estimate. Burden estimates include a mix of " Simple" cases, involving small water segments, segments where only minor augmentation of physical, chemical and/ or biological data are needed, or where simple corrections are needed to correct earlier use classifications; and " Complex" cases generally involving multiple dischargers, larger water segments, and fewer existing physical, chemical, or biological data. Complex cases may involve performing a waterbody survey to help pinpoint the water quality problems and determine present uses, uses impaired, and the reasons the uses are impaired. For purposes of this burden calculation, it was assumed that Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 20 the States would devote some supplementary review time to significant or controversial UAAs.

Site specific criteria development studies conducted using acceptable methodologies for specific segments, basins, or States: The Regulation allows States and Tribes to adopt site specific criteria to reflect local conditions. Site specific modifications can ensure that the criteria are neither more nor less stringent than necessary to protect the designated use. EPA has published technical guidance for deriving site specific criteria and has tested the guidance at field sites. The actual experiences of States were the primary basis of this portion of the burden estimate. Burden estimates include a mix of " Simple" cases, reflective of relatively easy studies where a single or possibly two dischargers are present, discharging few pollutants, and no appreciable nonpoint source impacts exist; and " Complex" cases involving a water segment with several discharges and numerous pollutants, including nonpoint source impacts.

Prepare revised water quality standards package for submission: Includes determining changes to be made to the existing standards, preparing and reviewing the revised standards package, adopting the revised standards according to the State's/ Tribe's internal administrative procedures and EPA's public participation requirements, conducting a public hearing, and submitting the revised standards to EPA for approval. Also includes the time State or Tribal agency staff spend in consultation with the State legislature and legislative committees or Tribal Council, respectively.

Certification by the State Attorney General or other appropriate legal authority that Water Quality Standards were duly adopted according to State law: Any time a State or Tribe adopts or revises water quality standards, the State/ Tribal Attorney General or other appropriate legal authority must certify that the change was adopted according to the unique provisions of State law. This certification is in the form of a letter to the EPA Regional Administrator. This certification is necessary because State and Tribal water quality standards may result in enforceable requirements in NPDES permits or other controls. Before approving State or Tribal water quality standards, EPA must be assured of their legal validity.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. Includes the activities directly associated with assembling, writing and submitting a TAS application. This includes reading the regulatory requirements and obtaining any necessary background understanding, assembling the categories of information in section 4.2 above, writing any application materials needed, obtaining reviews and approvals of Tribal environmental officials, and obtaining approval by the Tribe's governing body. if necessary.

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. Includes the activities directly associated with assembling, writing and submitting a request. This includes reading the regulatory requirements Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 21 and obtaining any necessary background understanding, assembling the categories of information in section 4.2 above, writing the request itself, and obtaining reviews and approvals of State or Tribal environmental officials.

( D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. Respondent activities may include the following:

Preparing Basic Information: Includes reading and reviewing regulatory application requirements, gathering general information, typing or filling out forms, drafting letters, reviewing applications or other materials, and mailing completed submissions.

Generating Detailed Information: Information may include data on production levels, data on effluent characteristics, pollutant minimization programs, financial estimates, engineering data, socioeconomic data, or other information required by permitting authorities.

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

Maintaining Records: All NPDES permittees must keep records of the data used to complete their applications and to demonstrate their compliance for at least three years. First time applicants may need to develop a record keeping system, enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping entails collecting and filing raw data.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5.1 AGENCY ACTIVITIES ( A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. States and Tribes are required to review and, as appropriate, revise their water quality standards at least once every three years. The results of such review and revision must be submitted by the States and Tribes to EPA. EPA reviews the States' or Tribes' water quality standards for consistency with the CWA. If the water quality standards are inconsistent with the Act, EPA must promulgate replacement Federal standards. EPA conducts a full range of activities to manage the water quality standards program. Activities related to, but not included in, this ICR include the transmission of policy and guidance to the States and Tribes; development of recommended scientific water quality criteria; assisting States and Tribes in interpretation and implementation of regulations, policies and initiatives; and the coordination of activities related to standards with other CWA programs, with other federal Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 22 agencies, and for interstate and international waters. See EPA's website, http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience for more information.

For this ICR, EPA activities associated with water quality standards review include:

Assembling relevant information to make the EPA review of submitted standards.

Reviewing standards revisions for consistency with the CWA, with downstream State's or Tribe's water quality standards, and with any standards for international waters.

Preparing and sending a letter to the State or Tribe conveying EPA's approval or disapproval decision( s).

Making findings that Federal water quality standards are necessary.

Proposing and promulgating Federal replacement standards where n State's or Tribe's standards are disapproved or where Federal standards are otherwise necessary.

Proposing and finalizing the withdrawal of Federal standards when a State or Tribe corrects its standards.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. After a Tribe submits an application to administer a water quality standards program, EPA will review the application and use the submitted information to determine if the Tribe meets the statutory criteria under CWA Section 518( e) to administer the water quality standards program information submission requirements.

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. After a Tribe or State submits a written dispute resolution request to EPA, EPA reviews the submitted information to determine if initiation of a formal EPA dispute resolution action is justified under CWA Section 518( e).

( D1) Great Lakes bioassay tests. EPA reviews and approves or disapproves any water quality standards adoptions or revisions that result from States or Tribes incorporating the results of bioassay tests into water quality criteria.

( D2) Great Lakes antidegradation demonstrations. EPA reviews and approves State and Tribal antidegradation policies. However, EPA does not have a direct role in reviewing and approving activities that could lower water quality as these policies are implemented. In some cases, depending on the facility involved, EPA may issue an NPDES permit or review a State or Tribe issued permit. This ICR covers the water quality standards portion of any such EPA reviews. A separate ICR, EPA ICR Number 1639.04, OMB Control Number 2040 0180, covers the NPDES burden. Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 23 ( D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. To the extent that a regulatory relief request results in a change in standards, such as a site specific criteria modification, or a water quality standards variance, EPA must review and approve the standards change for it to become effective. This ICR covers the water quality standards portion of any such EPA reviews. A separate ICR, EPA ICR Number 1639.04, OMB Control Number 2040 0180, covers the NPDES burden.

5.2 COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT ( A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. States and Tribes submit their revised water quality standards to their EPA Regional office, who have been delegated the responsibility to review the submissions for consistency with the Water Quality Standards Regulation, and approve or disapprove the standards. The Water Quality Standards staff in the Regional offices work closely with their respective States and Tribes on water quality standards issues, including the review of both draft and final submissions of water quality standards. EPA's national water quality program provides support to the Regional offices in the review of these submissions. EPA approved State/ Tribal standards can be accessed at http:// www. epa. gov/ wqsdatabase/. EPA promulgated standards for States/ Tribes are located at http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ standards/.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. Interested Tribes submit their TAS applications to their EPA Regional office, who have been delegated the responsibility to review the applications for consistency with the Water Quality Standards Regulation, and approve or disapprove the applications. Regional Office staff work closely with the Tribes in this process. EPA's national water quality program provides support to the Regional offices in the review of these submissions/ requests.

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. Interested States or Tribes submit their dispute resolution requests to their EPA Regional office, who have been delegated the responsibility to review the applications for consistency with the Water Quality Standards Regulation, and approve or disapprove the requests.

( D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. For Great Lakes information, EPA maintains some application data in the Agency's PCS and STORET databases. This technology reduces the burden to EPA Headquarters for gathering and analyzing national permit and water quality data. Because each information collection activity associated with implementation of the Guidance will contain unique information, and because permittees submit applications only once every five years at the most, improved information technology may not be effective in further reducing respondent burden.

5.3 COLLECTION SCHEDULE Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 24 ( A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. The CWA requires States and authorized Tribes to review their water quality standards at least once every three years and provide the results to EPA. In practice, some States and Tribes choose to submit revised standards for portions of their waters more frequently.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. There are no scheduling requirements for Indian Tribes to apply for authorization to administer the water quality standards program.

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. There are no scheduling requirements for States or Indian Tribes to request EPA dispute resolution.

( D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. There are no scheduling requirements for States, Tribes, or dischargers to initiate bioassay tests.

( D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Such demonstrations are necessary under the Regulation when an entity proposes an activity that would lower water quality in a high quality water.

( D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Regulatory relief requests are generally associated with the NPDES permit renewal cycle. The CWA requires permittees to reapply for permits at least every five years. Information collection associated with regulatory relief requests will occur only when a permittee decides to seek such relief. EPA presumes that the few relief requests expected will continue to take place at time of permit reissuance.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6.1 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN ( A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. State or Tribal burden: The CWA and EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulation requires a water quality standards review and associated information collection at least once every three years from 50 States, the District of Columbia, 5 commonwealths and territories, and the 30 Indian Tribes that currently have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality standards program. Because of the different start dates and operational practices of these 86 jurisdictions since the CWA was enacted in 1972, EPA believes the annual national burden will be approximately the same for each of the next three years covered by this request.

For the purposes of reviewing the reporting requirements placed on States and Tribes by the Water Quality Standards Regulation, EPA Headquarters discussed the requirements and estimated reporting burdens with the voluntary assistance of eleven States. The States were selected to represent various geographical areas, differing levels of water quality management activities, and differing approaches to controlling priority toxic pollutants. Because of differing practices regarding the three year requirement in the CWA, the States were asked to quantify the reporting and recordkeeping burden on an annualized basis. Because of the limited time available Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 25 to develop them, these estimates are considered " rough." For this reason, the lowest and highest estimates for each burden item were not considered in the calculation for the average burden per State per year ( that is, a modified mean was used).

The average burden per State/ Tribe review per year was estimated to be 2,500 hours ( see Attachment A). The total annual burden hours = ( 86 jurisdictions) * ( 2,500 hours) = 215,000 hours.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. Tribal burden: EPA assumes that five Tribes will apply to administer the water quality standards program per year. This assumption is based upon an upper estimate of the actual pace of Tribal submission of applications for the water quality standards program. EPA further assumed that these Tribes would supply only standards program specific information that was not provided in previous applications. For example, EPA assumes that at least 75% of all Tribes applying for treatment as a State for purposes of water quality standards will have already applied for authorization to administer one of the other SDWA or CWA programs. Based on these assumptions, EPA estimates that each Tribal application will require an average of 40 hours to complete. The total annual burden hours = ( 5 Tribes) * ( 40 hours/ application) = 200 hours.

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. State or Tribal burden: When a Tribe or State desires EPA to initiate a formal dispute resolution action, the Tribe or State is required to submit a written request to EPA. EPA estimates that at most three Tribes/ States will request a formal dispute resolution action over a three year period ( one request per year). To date, there have been no such formal requests since the regulation went into effect in 1991. The estimated hour burden to a Tribe or State to develop a dispute resolution request is 80 hours. The total annual burden hours = ( 1 application) * ( 80 hours/ application) = 80 hours.

( D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. Discharger burden: EPA assume that dischargers will conduct bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria for 3 human health and 11 aquatic life criteria each year. This results in 14 discharge responses per year. EPA has determined that these bioassays would take dischargers 34,204 hours to conduct and 760 hours to oversee. The total annual burden hours for dischargers = 34,204 + 760 = 34,964 hours.

State or Tribal burden: EPA assumed that the 14 studies to support the development of water quality criteria would be submitted to the States or Tribes for review, resulting in 14 State or Tribal responses. EPA estimated the State/ Tribal application burden associated with review and data collection to support the development of water quality criteria to be 2,714 hours.

( D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Discharger burden: An antidegradation demonstration must show that the permittee has evaluated options to reduce the extent of the need to lower water quality. In general, an antidegradation demonstration consists of first performing a pollution prevention alternatives analysis to identify prudent and feasible alternatives. If no pollution prevention alternatives are deemed prudent and feasible, then the permittee must identify alternative or enhanced treatment techniques. Finally, a permittee must Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 10This ICR covers only the water quality standards burden. A separate ICR, EPA ICR Number 1639.04, OMB Control Number 2040 0180, covers the NPDES permitting burden.

11General Schedule rate, effective January 2005, assuming locality rates for Washington DC area.

26 demonstrate that the lowering of water quality is necessary to ensure social and economic development. EPA estimates that each antidegradation demonstration would take 50 hours to complete. EPA anticipates that 54 demonstration submissions will occur per year. Therefore the permittee burden associated with antidegradation demonstrations = ( 54 demonstrations) * ( 50 hours) = 2,700 hours. This burden estimate is split equally between standards and permits. 10 The burden estimate for this ICR is therefore 2,700 / 2 = 1,350 hours.

State or Tribal burden: EPA determined that it would take a State about two work days ( 16 hours) to review an antidegradation demonstration. Assuming 54 antidegradation policy demonstrations will be submitted annually, the State/ Tribal review burden = ( 54 demonstrations) * ( 16 hours) = 864 hours. This burden estimate is split equally between standards and permits. 10 The burden estimate for this ICR is therefore 864 / 2 = 432 hours.

( D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Discharger burden: To be granted relief from provisions adopted consistent with the Great Lakes Guidance, a permittee will need to perform additional monitoring or special studies, etc., to support its request. EPA estimates that 18 permittees per year will prepare requests for regulatory relief which will take a total of 10,364 hours to complete. This burden estimate is split equally between standards and permits. 10 The burden estimate for this ICR is therefore 10,364 / 2 = 5,182 hours.

State or Tribal burden: EPA estimated the State or Tribal burden associated with the 18 requests for regulatory regulation relief to be approximately 1,584 hours. This burden estimate is split equally between standards and permits. 10 The burden estimate for this ICR is therefore 1,584 / 2 = 792 hours.

The overall burden hours for State, Tribal, and discharger respondents are summarized in Table 6.4.

6.2 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS The above burden estimates have been converted to dollar cost estimates using the following assumptions:

State or Tribal employee costs were estimated an average annual salary of $ 56,371; this is equivalent to the salary of a GS 9, Step 10 Federal employee. 11 At 2,080 labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 27.10. Overhead cost for Federal and State employees are expected to be 60 percent, or $ 16.26 per hour, yielding a total hourly rate of $ 43.36. Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 12BLS, Table 9, Employer costs per hour, private industry workers, December 2004.

27

Contractor labor rates ( hired by dischargers) were estimated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate for a " professional and related" speciality of $ 41.52 per hour. 12 Assuming a 67 percent overhead and profit rate, the total private sector hourly rate is $ 75.02.

Discharger labor rates ( for oversight of contractor work) were estimated assuming POTW employees working at the equivalent of a GS 7, Step 1 Federal employee. 11 The annual salary of this worker is $ 35,452; the hourly rate is $ 17.04. Assumed overhead costs add an additional 50 percent to these costs. Thus, the average cost of a POTW worker is $ 53,178 per year, or $ 25.57 per hour.

( A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. State or Tribal costs: Total annual cost per jurisdiction = ( 2,500 hours/ year) / ($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 108,400. Total annual cost = ( 86 jurisdictions) * ($ 108,400/ jurisdiction) = $ 9,322,400 ( B) Tribal Program Applications. Tribal costs: Cost per application = ( 40 hours/ application) * ($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 1,734. Total annual cost = ( 5 Tribes) * ($ 1,734/ application) = $ 8,670.

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. State or Tribal costs: Cost per dispute resolution request = ( 80 hours/ request) * ($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 3,469. Total annual cost = ( 1 request) * ($ 3,468/ request) = $ 3,469.

( D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. Discharger costs: Contractor costs = ( 34,204 hours) * ($ 69.34/ hour) = $ 2,371,705. Discharger oversight employee costs = ( 760 hours) * ($ 25.57/ hour) = $ 19,433. Total discharger bioassay costs = $ 2,371,705 + $ 19,433 = $ 2,391,138. State or tribal costs: Review of water quality criteria = ( 2,714 hours) * ($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 117,679. Total costs: $ 2,391,138 + $ 117,679 = $ 2,508,817.

( D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Discharger costs: Antidegradation demonstrations = ( 1,350 hours) * ($ 25.57/ hour) = $ 34,520. State or Tribal costs: Review of antidegradation demonstrations = ( 432 hours) * ($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 18,732. Total costs: $ 34,520 + $ 18,732 = $ 53,252.

( D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Discharger costs: ( 5,182 hours) * ($ 25.57/ hour) = $ 132,504. State or Tribal costs: Review of regulatory relief requests = ( 792 hours) * ($ 43.36/ hour) = $ 34,341. Total costs: $ 132,504 + $ 34,341 = $ 166,845.

The overall labor costs for State, Tribal, and discharger respondents are summarized in Table 6.4. Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 28 6.3 ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST Annual burden and costs to the Federal government are detailed below. EPA employee costs were estimated assuming a GS 12 Step 1 Federal employee earning $ 62,886 per year. At 2,080 labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 30.23. Overhead costs for Federal employees are expected to be 60 percent, or $ 18.14 per hour, yielding a total hourly rate of $ 48.37.

( A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. EPA estimates that each review of a State or Tribal water quality standards submission will require 168 hours. Total burden = ( 86 submissions) * ( 168 hours/ submission) = 14,440 hours. Labor cost = ( 14,440 hours) * ($ 48.37/ hour) = $ 698,463.

( B) Tribal Program Applications. EPA estimates that each review of a Tribal program application will require 160 hours. Total burden = ( 5 applications) * ( 160 hours/ application) = 800 hours. Labor cost = ( 800 hours) * ($ 48.37/ hour) = $ 38,696.

( C) Dispute Resolution Requests. EPA estimates that each review of a State or Tribal request will require 20 hours. Total burden = ( 1 request) * ( 20 hours/ request) = 20 hours. Labor cost = ( 20 hours) * ($ 48.37/ hour) = $ 967.

( D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. EPA estimates it will require approximately 400 hours and at $ 48.37/ hour cost $ 19,348 to set up and maintain the water quality database to serve as the Information Clearinghouse. EPA estimated little additional Federal government burden or cost because all the Great Lakes States are delegated NPDES permitting authorities.

The overall burden hours for the Federal government are ( 14,440) + ( 800) + ( 20) + ( 400) = 15,660. The overall labor costs for the Federal government are ($ 698,463) + ( 38,696) + ($ 967) + ($ 19,348) = $ 757,474.

There are in this ICR no Capital Expense and no O& M costs. Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 29 6.4 TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS States and Tribes Dischargers Total No. of Responses Burden Hours Labor Costs No. of Responses Burden Hours Labor Costs No. of Responses Burden Hours Labor Costs ( A) Standards Adoption and Revisions 86 215,000 $ 9,322,400    86 215,000 $ 9,322,400 ( B) Tribal Program Applications 5 200 $ 8,670    5 200 $ 8,670 ( C) Dispute Resolution Requests 1 80 $ 3,469    1 80 $ 3,469 ( D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests 14 2,714 $ 117,679 14 34,964a $ 2,391,138 28 37,678 $ 2,508,817 ( D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations 54 432 $ 18,732 54 1,350 $ 34,520 108 1,782 $ 53,252 ( D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests 18 792 $ 34,341 18 5,182 $ 132,504 36 5,974 $ 166,845 Total 178 219,218 $ 9,505,291 86 41,496 $ 2,558,162 264 260,714 $ 12,063,453 a Combination of 34,204 contractors at $ 69.34 per hour and 760 POTW supervisors at $ 25.57 per hour. Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 30 6.5 REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN This ICR supersedes the ICR developed in 2002 for the Water Quality Standards Regulation. The respondent burden has increased 21,938 hours due to an additional 10 Tribes receiving approval to administer water quality standards programs since 2002 ( an additional 25,000 hours), offset in part by a reduction of 3,062 hours for reduced numbers of expected Great Lakes antidegradation demonstrations and regulatory relief requests.

6.6 BURDEN STATEMENT The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 988 hours per response. 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 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 the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed 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 2003 0018, which is available for public viewing at 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 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 Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID ( OW 2003 0018) and OMB Control Number ( 2040 0049) in any correspondence. Water Quality Standards Regulation ( Renewal) ICR 31 ATTACHMENT A Average Cost for State/ Tribal Review Process State Burden Hours Arizona 2,987 Arkansas 4,100 Connecticut 283 Florida 3,990 Missouri 81 Nebraska 860 New York 7,375 North Dakota 310 Ohio 6,800 Oklahoma 287 Pennsylvania 2,900 Average ( eliminating the lowest and highest burden hour estimates) 2,501.9 Rounded to 2,500 NOTE: Because of differing practices regarding the triennial review requirement in the CWA, the States were asked to quantify the reporting and recordkeeping burden on an annualized basis. These estimates are considered " rough." For this reason, the lowest and highest estimates for each burden item were not considered in the calculation for the average burden per State per year ( that is, a modified mean was used).


84 Calculations based on 2001 TRI data as reported in the 2001 Public Data Release. Proposed Reforms to the Toxics Release Inventory Program 71 e. g. 20, 50, or even 100 employees. By raising the reporting threshold with regard to employment, EPA can specifically exclude small businesses that release zero or insignificant amounts of TRI listed chemicals. This is especially important in these two industries where the number of forms filed per facility is significantly higher than the average, more than double in the case of SIC 5171. As Advocacy commented during the 1997 expansion of the TRI, EPA's own economic analysis showed that the cost of reporting for SIC 5169 could eclipse many small firm's net revenues. 85 This industryspecific small business exemption provides the opportunity to relieve a significant burden of the TRI with no consequent reduction in data quality or availability to the public.

85 Letter, U. S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy to Fred Hansen, Deputy Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, " Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) Report Requirements  Industry Expansion; Chemical Wholesalers; Docket No. OPPTS 400104," December 24, 1996.. Proposed Reforms to the Toxics Release Inventory Program 72 5 Conclusion The Toxics Release Inventory program places a significant burden on the small businesses in the covered industries. While the 1994 addition of Form A created a feasible option for some filers, it did not extend relief far enough. The 500 pound threshold for total production related wastes excluded many filers with extremely small releases from using the simplified form. EPA has since extended the reach of TRI with an expansion of covered industries and chemicals in 1997 and the redesignation of lead and lead compounds as persistent bioaccumulative chemicals in 2001. Both actions dramatically increasing the number of reports filed and the number of facilities required to report. Most of the filers under these program expansions reported significantly lower than average chemical releases, and most of the costs associated with this increased reporting have fallen on small businesses. Simple reforms to the TRI program would result in substantial cost savings to many filers with negligible effects on data quality.

The options for burden reduction discussed in this report offer simple yet practical means to minimize the burden of TRI reporting on small businesses while maintaining the quality and utility of data that the program provides to the public. An examination of the TRI filing data shows that currently there are a significant number of reports that show zero or minimal releases. The proposed options seek not only to maintain to the largest extent possible the percentage of aggregate data reported on Form R, they also ensure that local interests are preserved by seeking burden relief only for the class of filers that individually release minimal amounts of chemicals wastes. To balance cost reductions Proposed Reforms to the Toxics Release Inventory Program 73 with maintaining data quality, this report looks closely at specific thresholds under various reporting change scenarios that simultaneously reduce costs and maintain the quality, utility, and integrity of TRI data to public users.

Four simple reforms to the Toxics Release Inventory program would result in substantial cost savings to filers with minimal effects on data quality.

° Eligibility for Form A ought to be expanded by increasing the existing annual reportable amount ( sum of elements 8.1 through 8.7 on Form R) to 1,000, 2,000, or 5,000 pounds. As an alternative, the ARA could be redefined as a facility's routine releases ( element 8.1 only) or its releases and transfers ( the sum of elements 8.1, 8.6, and 8.7),

and the redefined ARA set at 500, 1,000, 2,000, or 5,000 pounds. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours of reporting burden could be saved as facilities switch from Form R to Form A.

° Form A could be modified to provide range estimates of selected release and waste data now reported on Form R. This Enhanced Form A would mitigate the loss of data from the potential substitution of thousands of the longer Form R's with the simpler Form A's. Therefore, communities would continue to receive regular information about routine chemical releases and waste management practices at these facilities. Since range estimates are currently allowed on Form R, TRI filers and data users are accustomed to the practice. With the enhanced Form A, EPA should reinstate Form A for PBT Proposed Reforms to the Toxics Release Inventory Program 74 reporters. In addition, EPA should reconsider allowing the de minimis concentration provision to apply to PBT reporters.

° A new Form NS should be created to allow facilities a cost effective means to report no significant change in year to year activities that pertain to the TRI. A de minimis threshold would permit facilities with small on site releases to file Form NS and avoid detailed annual reporting for sites that are of little public interest. All facilities affected by the TRI program, including those handling persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals, would benefit from Form NS. Facilities would be limited to four consecutive Form NS's for a particular chemical; they would need to file a Form R at least once every five years. Range reporting would be allowed in section 8, as well as sections 5 and 6 on Form R.

° Petroleum wholesalers ( SIC 5171) and chemical wholesalers ( SIC 5169) should be subject to a special small business reporting threshold based on the number of employees. This would eliminate a large number of TRI reports with insignificant chemical releases.

These reforms, if adopted, would merely alter the forms filed by facilities. They would not eliminate facilities from the TRI database. These proposals would allow the TRI program to operate more efficiently as it continues to provide a high quality public service to the public, regulators, and industry.