This is a
thorough and well developed submission. It provides careful and
reasoned answers to the questions required of a justification
statement. A job well done! In the next submission EPA should more
fully explain what "Water Quality Management data" are and how they
relate to this clearance's requirements. Also, EPA should further
examine Connecticut's suggestion that a 5 year review period would
be more appropriate than 3 years since it would allow states to
more thoroughly examine their standards. If this is the case, the
agency should consider a proposal to amend the Act. The next
submission of this ICR should address what action the agency took
to address Connecticut's suggestion.
Inventory as of this Action
Requested
Previously Approved
09/30/1989
09/30/1989
09/30/1986
52
0
52
117,277
0
125,418
0
0
0
THE CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIRES STATES TO
REVIEW THEIR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AT LEAST ONCE EVERY THREE
YEARS AND REVISE THEM, AS APPROPRIATE. STATES SUBMIT THE RESULTS OF
REVIEWS TO EPA FOR DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE
ACT.
On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that
the collection of information encompassed by this request complies
with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR
1320.8(b)(3).
The following is a summary of the topics, regarding
the proposed collection of information, that the certification
covers:
(i) Why the information is being collected;
(ii) Use of information;
(iii) Burden estimate;
(iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a
benefit, or mandatory);
(v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and
(vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control
number;
If you are unable to certify compliance with any of
these provisions, identify the item by leaving the box unchecked
and explain the reason in the Supporting Statement.