EO12866_OW WQS RIN 2040-AF16 NPRM ICR_20130731

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST

FOR

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REGULATORY

CLARIFICATIONS (PROPOSED RULE)

Last revised July 2013

EPA ICR Number 2449.01

OMB Control Number 2040-NEW

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460
CONTENTS

Page

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION....................................... 3

1.1 Title of the Information Collection......................................................................... 3

1.2 Short Characterization/Abstract.............................................................................. 3

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION.............................................................. 4

2.1 Need and Authority for the Collection.................................................................... 4

2.2 Practical Utility/Users of the Data .......................................................................... 5

3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

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

3.1 Non-Duplication ..................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB .................................... 6

3.3 Consultations........................................................................................................... 6

3.4 Effects of Less Frequent Collection........................................................................ 6

3.5 General Guidelines.................................................................................................. 7

3.6 Confidentiality And Sensitive Questions................................................................ 7

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED................................ 7

4.1 Respondents/NAICS Codes.................................................................................... 7

4.2 Information Requested............................................................................................ 7

4.2.1 Rulemaking Activities ............................................................................................ 7

4.2.2 Designated Uses...................................................................................................... 7

4.2.3 Antidegradation....................................................................................................... 8

4.2.4 Variances................................................................................................................. 8

4.3 Respondent Activities............................................................................................. 9

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED–AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT...................................... 10

5.1 Agency Activities.................................................................................................. 10

5.2 Collection Methodology and Management........................................................... 11

5.3 Small Entity Flexibility......................................................................................... 11

5.4 Collection Schedule .............................................................................................. 13

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION.......................... 13

6.1 Estimating potential incremental burdens and costs............................................. 13

6.1.1 Summary of National Incremental Burdens and Costs......................................... 18

6.1.2 Incremental Agency Burden ................................................................................. 21

6.2 Potential Incremental Benefits Associated with the Proposed Rule..................... 22

6.3 Reasons for Change in Burden ............................................................................. 22

6.4 Burden Statement.................................................................................................. 23
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

3

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1.1 TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

The title of this draft Information Collection Request (ICR) is Water Quality Standards 

Regulatory Clarifications (Proposed Rule). 

1.2 SHORT CHARACTERIZATION/ABSTRACT

Water quality standards (WQSs) 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. WQS 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 core WQS Regulation, last updated in 1983, establishes the framework for states and 

authorized tribes to adopt standards, for the EPA to review and approve or disapprove them, and 

for implementation of regulatory controls to take place. See 40 CFR part 131. 

This draft ICR provides estimates of burden and costs to states and authorized Indian 

tribes to implement new requirements in the proposed WQS Regulatory Clarifications Rule. 

These estimates represent the incremental burden and costs over and above the estimates 

presented in the ICR entitled Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) (EPA ICR Number 

0988.11, OMB Control Number 2040-0049).

Due to the nature of this rule, EPA has assumed that all Administrative cost and burdens 

associated with this rule are the same burdens associated with information that would/could be 

collected as a result of this rule. Therefore, the costs and burdens in this ICR are identical to the 

Administrative costs and burdens summarized in the Economic Analysis.

The EPA’s proposed WQS Regulatory Clarifications Rule will add the following 

information collection activities, as summarized in Table 1.1 below:

 

1

The 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. 
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

4

TABLE 1.1: OVERVIEW OF INFORMATION COLLECTED

Information Collected by 

Proposed WQS Regulatory 

Clarifications Rule

Sections of 40 CFR Part 

131 Amended or Added 

Rulemaking activities Submission of revised state 

or tribal regulatory provisions 

to the EPA.

Various, but especially, 

131.12(b) (Added), 131.14

(Added), 131.15 (Added),

Designated uses: highest 

attainable uses

Expanded use revision 

process to include 

identification of the highest 

attainable use.

131.10(g) (Amended)

Antidegradation Additional and/or more 

complex reviews of requests 

to lower water quality on 

high quality waters.1

131.12(b) (Added)

Variances Specific documentation to 

accompany variance 

submissions to the EPA; and 

additional variance requests 

requiring state and tribal 

review, documentation, and 

submittal to the EPA for 

review and approval.

131.14 (Added)

1. States and tribes establish their antidegradation policies in three tiers. Tier 2 protects high 

quality waters with water quality higher than necessary to attain all Clean Water Act 101(a)(2) 

goals.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2.1 NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION

The EPA is proposing the WQS Regulatory Clarifications Rule to improve the 

regulation’s effectiveness in helping restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the nation’s waters. The core of the current regulation has been in place since 1983; 

since then, a number of issues have been raised by stakeholders or identified by the EPA in the 

implementation process that will benefit from clarification and greater specificity. The proposed 

rule addresses the following key program areas: (1) Administrator’s determinations that new or 

revised WQS are necessary, (2) designated uses, (3) triennial reviews, (4) antidegradation, (5) 

variances to WQS, and (6) compliance schedule authorizing provisions.
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

5

This information collection will ensure the EPA has the needed information to review 

standards and make approvals or disapprovals in accordance with provisions in the proposed 

WQS Regulatory Clarifications Rule.

2.2 PRACTICAL UTILITY/USERS OF THE DATA

Under the CWA, the EPA is responsible for reviewing and approving or disapproving 

new and revised WQS submitted by states and tribes. The EPA will use the information required 

by this proposed rule – for example, the new and revised WQS themselves, and supporting 

documentation for the standards – to carry out its responsibility under the CWA. In reviewing 

state and tribal standards submissions, the EPA considers whether submissions are consistent 

with the WQS regulation at part 131. The WQS Regulatory Clarifications Rule will add new 

requirements to part 131. 

Once the EPA approves a state’s or tribe’s WQS, they become effective for all purposes 

under the Act. The EPA makes the full text of all WQS available on its web site, 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/, to assist the public, states, tribes, 

dischargers, and other stakeholders. The EPA, states, and tribes use 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, WQS serve as the basis for the EPA, states, and 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 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for 

point source dischargers (including publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) 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 the information collection activities in the WQS Regulatory Clarifications Rule are not 

carried out, specific improvements in the implementation of the WQS program will not take 

place. In some cases implementation and control steps such as TMDLs and NPDES permits may

not be as protective as necessary under the CWA.

3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION 

CRITERIA

3.1 NON-DUPLICATION

The information collection requirements outlined in this draft ICR do not duplicate the 

information collection requirements outlined in other ICRs provided by the EPA. The burden and 

costs estimated in this draft ICR are in addition to those burdens and costs provided in the ICR 

entitled Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) (EPA ICR Number 0988.11, OMB 

Control Number 2040-0049).
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

6

3.2 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB

In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, the EPA is soliciting comments 

on this draft ICR for a 60-day period concurrently with the comment period for the proposed 

WQS Regulatory Clarifications Rule. Before finalizing the rule, the EPA will submit the revised 

ICR to OMB. 

3.3 CONSULTATIONS

In developing the WQS Regulatory Clarifications Rule, the EPA made a substantial effort 

to involve the public. The EPA had numerous ongoing discussions with state and tribal partners 

and other stakeholders between 2008 and 2010. Between March 2009 and September 2010, the 

EPA participated in more than ten discussions with states on antidegradation issues through 

Water Environment Federation’s (WEF’s) Water Quality Standards Communication Forum 

(with representation by ten states and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 

(ORSANCO)). The EPA also participated in two face-to-face meetings that focused heavily on 

antidegradation. Early feedback received during these meetings helped to inform the EPA’s 

initial thinking on the potential regulatory clarifications.

Additionally, the EPA held a series of listening sessions in August 2010 for states, tribes, 

and the general public. The goal of these listening sessions was to provide an overview of the 

EPA’s preliminary thinking on the potential regulatory clarifications, receive feedback, and 

respond to questions. Approximately 40 states, 81 tribes, and 665 members of the general public 

participated in these sessions. The EPA also hosted a face-to-face meeting in September 2010 

under E.O. 13132 (Federalism consultation) with 13 intergovernmental participants representing 

state and local governments, to discuss the potential regulatory clarifications and respond to 

questions.

The EPA has continued to provide multiple updates for states through the Water Quality

Standards Managers Association (on which 9 states are represented), as well as through the 

Association of Clean Water Administrator’s (ACWA’s) Monitoring, Standards, and Assessment 

Committee conference calls2. In addition, the EPA has honored all requests for face-to-face 

discussions from stakeholder groups.

3.4 EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION

The information collection schedule is pursuant to the mandates of Section 303(c) of the 

CWA for states and tribes to review their WQS once every three years and thus is not adjustable 

by the EPA. Additionally, if WQS 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.

 

2

Formerly known as the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 

Administrators’(ASIWPCA) Monitoring, Standards, and Assessment Task Force.
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

7

3.5 GENERAL GUIDELINES

The EPA reviewed this ICR for compliance with OMB’s information collection 

guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2) and concluded it is in compliance.

3.6 CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS

State and tribal submissions under this ICR will contain no confidential or sensitive 

information.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4.1 RESPONDENTS/NAICS CODES

The following describes the “universe” of potential respondents. The actual numbers 

estimated to submit information annually are described in section 6.

The WQS regulation at 40 CFR Part 131 requires reporting at least once every three years 

from 95 jurisdictions – 56 States (and Territories)3, and the 39 Indian Tribes that have received 

the EPA’s authorization to administer the WQS program and have adopted EPA-approved 

WQS.

4

The EPA may authorize additional tribes that apply for this authority. The respondents 

affected by this collection activity are in NAICS code 92411 “Administration of Air and Water 

Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs,” formerly SIC code #9511.

4.2 INFORMATION REQUESTED

4.2.1 RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES

The proposed revisions to the federal WQS regulation may result in the need for states

and tribes to adopt new or revised provisions to state or tribal WQS, and submit such provisions 

to the EPA for review and approval or disapproval. 

4.2.2 DESIGNATED USES

 

3

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. 

4

48 Tribes have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality standards program under 40 

CFR 131.8. The EPA maintains a current list of such Tribes at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/approvtable.cfm. However, for this ICR, the EPA 

assumes that only 39 tribes will be adopting or revising standards every three years, since only 39 of the 48 

authorized Tribes have adopted EPA-approved initial standards to date.
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

8

The EPA is proposing to revise the WQS regulation to require that where a state or tribe 

demonstrates through the use attainability analysis (UAA) process that a use specified in section 

101(a)(2), or a sub-category of such a use, is not attainable, then the state or tribe shall adopt the 

highest attainable use (HAU).

The current WQS regulation requires states to conduct a UAA when designating uses that 

do not include the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act, when removing designated uses

specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act, or when adopting sub-categories of such uses that 

require less stringent criteria; however, the current regulation does not require states or tribes to 

designate the HAU. Consequently, the proposed WQS regulation revision may require some 

states to modify their use revision process to include identification and adoption of the HAU, 

thus increasing the information to be submitted to the EPA.

4.2.3 ANTIDEGRADATION

The proposed WQS regulation will require states and tribes to develop or modify their 

antidegradation implementation methods to conform with the requirements to (1) evaluate a 

range of non-degrading and minimally degrading alternatives and (2) identify high quality waters 

on either a parameter-by-parameter basis or water body-by-water body basis, provided waters are 

not excluded from Tier 2 protection solely because not all of the uses specified in CWA section 

101(a)(2) are attained if using the waterbody-by-waterbody approach.. This will result in 

increased incremental burden and costs to states and tribes when:

 Reviewing antidegradation requests that evaluate a range of non-degrading and 

minimally degrading alternatives that have the potential to prevent or minimize the 

degradation associated with the proposed activity; and 

 Reviewing more Tier 2 antidegradation requests.

4.2.4 VARIANCES

The EPA is proposing to revise the WQS regulation to provide more specificity and 

clearer submission requirements on the development and use of variances. Most of the proposed 

revisions specify or clarify when and how variances should be used, and thus are unlikely to 

result in significant incremental administrative burden and costs to states. However, the proposed 

revisions also include new submission requirements that specify that information and 

documentation be submitted to the EPA for review and approval and a new maximum variance 

duration that results in an increase in the number of variances submissions, which may result in 

incremental burden and costs.
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

9

4.3 RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES

The EPA has identified the following activities to supply information for standards adoption and 

revision. Respondent burden estimates in section 6.1 were developed 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 WQS 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 UAAs.

 UAA studies conducted to support a possible change in use designation: The WQS 

regulation in section 131.10 requires a UAAs when a State or Tribe designates uses 

that do not include the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA, removes a 

designated use specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act, or adopts sub-categories of 

such uses that require less stringent criteria. Designated uses may only be removed if 

they are not existing uses. 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.5The 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 the states would devote some 

supplementary review time to significant or controversial UAAs.

 

5

Removing 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.
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

10

 Prepare revised WQS 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 the EPA’s public participation requirements, 

conducting a public hearing, and submitting the revised standards to the EPA for 

approval. Also includes the time State or Tribal agency staff spends 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 

WQS were duly adopted according to state law: Any time a state or tribe adopts new 

or revised WQS, 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 WQS may result in enforceable 

requirements in NPDES permits or other controls. Before approving state or tribal 

WQS, the EPA must be assured of their legal validity.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED–AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5.1 AGENCY ACTIVITIES

States and tribes are required to review and, as appropriate, revise their WQS at least 

once every three years. The results of such review and revision must be submitted by states and 

tribes to the EPA. The EPA reviews the states’ or tribes’ WQS for consistency with the CWA

and the WQS regulation at 40 CFR Part 131. If the WQS are inconsistent with the Act and the 

state or tribe does not revise their WQS accordingly, the EPA must promulgate replacement 

federal standards.

The EPA conducts a full range of activities to manage the WQS 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 

agencies, and for interstate and international waters. See the EPA’s website, 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/ for more information.

For this ICR, EPA activities associated with WQS review include: 

 Assembling relevant information to conduct the EPA review of submitted 

standards.
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

11

 Reviewing standards revisions for consistency with the CWA, with the WQS 

regulation, with downstream State’s or Tribe’s WQS, and with any standards for 

international waters. 

 Preparing and sending a letter to the state or tribe conveying the EPA’s approval 

or disapproval decision(s).

 Making findings that federal WQS are necessary.

 Proposing and promulgating federal replacement standards where 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.

5.2 COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

States and tribes submit their revised WQS to their EPA regional office. Regional offices 

have been delegated the responsibility to review the submissions for consistency with the WQS

regulation, and approve or disapprove the standards. The WQS staff in the regional offices work 

closely with their respective states and tribes on WQS issues, including the review of both draft 

and final submissions of WQS. The 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://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/index.cfm. EPApromulgated standards for States/Tribes are located at

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqsregs.cfm. 

5.3 SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY

The 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (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 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:

“(1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables

“(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:”
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

12

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 small staff and resources.

The Small Business Administration’s 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.

The 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;

(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.
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

13

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 WQS program will have no direct 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 government with POTWs. The 

Agency has instituted several efforts to minimize the impact on businesses as a whole, and on 

small businesses, specifically.

The 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, the 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.

5.4 COLLECTION SCHEDULE

The CWA requires States and authorized Tribes to review their WQS at least once every

three years and provide the results to the EPA. In practice, some States and Tribes choose to 

submit revised standards for portions of their waters more frequently.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6.1 ESTIMATING POTENTIAL INCREMENTAL BURDENS AND COSTS

The proposed rule addresses the following key program areas: (1) Administrator’s 

determinations that new or revised WQS are necessary, (2) designated uses, (3) triennial reviews, 

(4) antidegradation, (5) variances to WQS, and (6) compliance schedule authorizing provisions. 

The EPA expects that two of these program areas, Administrator’s Determinations and triennial 

reviews, will not generate incremental burdens and costs. 

The EPA estimates the cost of labor from data on state government hourly wage rates 

(data are not available for tribes). The labor categories chosen as applicable to WQS regulatory

revision efforts are Environmental Scientist, Department Manager, Environmental Engineer, and 

Economist. Table 6-1 shows the 2012 labor rates for these categories, inflated to March 2013
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

14

dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index for professional and 

related state and local government workers (116.0/115.0 = 1.01), and accounting for benefits 

using the BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compensation for state and local professional 

government workers (32.7% of total compensation is attributable to benefits). An average wage 

rate is used because the EPA does not have information on the division of labor hours by 

professional category that states and tribes use to administer their WQS programs. 

Table 6-1: Summary of State Government Average Hourly Wage Rates (2013 $)

Labor Category (OES Category) Hourly Labor Rate Hourly Benefits 

Hourly Wage 

Rate

Environmental Scientist (19-2041) $28 $14 $42 

Environmental Engineer (17-2081) $33 $16 $50 

Economist (19-3011) $30 $15 $45 

Manager (11-9121) $36 $18 $54 

Average -- -- $48 

OES = Occupational employment statistics

Source: BLS (2012; 2013a; 2013b)

The EPA estimates the incremental number of labor hours using historical information 

and data, and the historical knowledge and best professional judgment of EPA personnel with 

experience administering the WQS program. These estimates of labor burden, and the resulting 

costs, include:

Rulemaking Activities

 Incremental per entity effort ranging from 100 to 500 hours to come into 

compliance with the proposed rule.

 Incremental per entity costs ranging from $4,800 ($48  100 hours) to $24,000

($48  500 hours), given the estimated average hourly wage rate of $48 (see 

Table 6-1).

 Total one-time (nonrecurring) incremental burden ranging from 9,500 hours (100

hours  95) to 47,500 hours (500 hours  95), based on a total of 95 

governmental entities potentially affected by the proposed rule (50 states, 6 

territories, and 39 tribes that have authority to administer WQS programs and 

have adopted EPA-approved WQS).

 Total one-time (nonrecurring) incremental costs ranging from $456,000 ($4,800

 95 states and tribes) to $2,280,000 ($24,000  95 states and tribes). 

 Assuming that the total one-time burden and costs are incurred over an initial 3-

year period, annual burden in each of the first three years would range from 

approximately 3,170 hours (9,500 hours ÷ 3 years) to 15,830 hours (47,500 hours 

÷ 3 years), and annual costs in each of the first three years would range from 
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

15

approximately $152,000 ($456,000 ÷ 3 years) to $760,000 ($2,280,000 ÷ 3

years).

Designated Uses

 Incremental effort ranging from 30 hours (100 hours  30%) to 150 hours (500 

hours  30%) per UAA may be required to determine the HAU for states to come 

into compliance with the proposed rule, based on the EPA’s estimates that a 

single UAA conducted where the state does not identify the HAU requires 

approximately 100 to 500 labor hours to develop and that up to 30 percent 

additional effort may be needed to determine the HAU.

 Incremental costs associated with identifying the HAU can range from 

approximately $1,400 to $7,200 per UAA.

 Total annual incremental burden ranging from 240 hours (30 hours  8 UAAs) to 

1,200 hours (150 hours  8 UAAs), based on a total of 8 states may not 

consistently identify the HAU when conducting UAAs and the EPA’s estimate 

that states and tribes conduct an average of one UAA per year,

 Total annual incremental costs ranging from $11,000 ($1,400  8 UAAs) to 

$58,000 ($7,200  8 UAAs).

Antidegradation

The proposed antidegradation provisions may result in recurring burden and costs 

associated with reviewing antidegradation requests that evaluate a range of non-degrading and 

minimally degrading alternatives and reviewing additional antidegradation requests:

Review of Alternative Analyses in Antidegradation Requests

 Incremental effort ranging from approximately 30 hours (100 hours  30%) to 45 

hours (150 hours  30%) for the review of each antidegradation request, based on 

EPA’s estimates that the review of a single request to lower water quality in a 

Tier 2 water that does not include an alternatives analysis requires on average 

approximately 100 hours to 150 labor hours and that including an alternatives 

analysis may increase the effort to review the request by approximately 30 

percent.

 Incremental per review costs ranging from $1,400 (30 hours  $48/hour) to 

$2,200 (45 hours  $48/hour).

 Potentially affected entities including 17 states, 4 territories, and 34 tribes that do 

not currently evaluate a range of non-degrading and minimally degrading 

alternatives for all Tier 2 antidegradation reviews. Because requests to lower 

water quality in Tier 2 waters are usually associated with NPDES permit 

applications, EPA uses information on the number of antidegradation reviews as a 

percent of the total number of NPDES permits for states and tribes where such 

information is available (i.e., Iowa and Missouri) to estimate the number of 
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

16

antidegradation reviews in all potentially affected states and tribes: 744 reviews 

per year.

 Total annual incremental burden to perform this activity could range between 

22,320 hours and 33,480 hours and costs ranging from approximately $1,041,600

to $1,636,800, based on EPA’s estimate that 744 antidegradation reviews per year 

may require additional effort due to the need to begin reviewing alternative 

analyses and chosen pollution prevention alternatives.

 Note that these are average estimates, and do not reflect potential differences in 

water quality and the geographical distribution of dischargers relative to Tier 2 

waters.

Review of Additional Antidegradation Requests

 Incremental effort to conduct a single Tier 2 review ranging from 130 hours (100 

hours + (100 hours × 30%)) to 195 hours (150 hours + (150 hours × 30%)), given

the calculation of labor hours for alternative analyses above.

 Incremental per request costs ranging from $6,200 (130 hours × $48/hour) to 

$9,400 (195 hours × $48/hour).

 Potentially affected entities including seven states and tribes that are currently

using a water body-by-water body approach to identifying high quality waters and 

are excluding waters from Tier 2 protection solely because not all of the uses 

specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) are attained. The EPA assumes that, in order to 

comply with the proposed rule, these seven states and tribes will choose to 

continue using the water body-by-water body approach, but will revise their

antidegradation implementation methods so that they are no longer excluding 

waters from Tier 2 protection solely because not all of the uses specified in CWA 

section 101(a)(2) are attained.

 A total of 575 additional antidegradation requests in the seven affected states and 

tribes. Using the previously estimated range of Tier 2 reviews as a percent of the 

total number of NPDES-permitted dischargers from Missouri and Iowa (a 

midpoint of 6 percent across the two states), the EPA estimates the number of 

potential additional Tier 2 requests requiring review by states and tribes that 

currently exclude waters from Tier 2 protection based on the impairment of one 

parameter. Using the EPA’s ICIS-NPDES databases, the EPA determines the 

number of dischargers in each of the 12 states using the waterbody-by-waterbody

approach for determining high quality waters. For the four states known to 

exclude Tier 2 protection based on impairment of one parameter, the EPA 

estimates the number of additional reviews by multiplying the number of 

dischargers in each state by 6 percent. For each of the three other states and tribes 

excluding Tier 2 protection based on impairment of one parameter, the EPA 
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

17

multiplies the average number of dischargers in the 12 states using the waterbodyby-waterbody approach (1,422) by 6 percent.

 Total annual incremental costs to perform this activity could range between

$3,565,000 to $5,405,000 and total incremental burden ranges from 74,750 hours 

per year to 112,125 hours per year, based on the EPA’s estimate that 575

additional antidegradation requests may need to be reviewed because states and 

tribes provide Tier 2 protection for waters with impairment of one parameter.

Variances

The proposed revisions to the WQS regulation may result in the following incremental 

burden and costs associated with an increase in submission requirements for variances and an 

increase in the number of renewal requests for states and tribes that currently issue variances 

lasting more than 10 years:

Submission Requirements

 Incremental effort to develop and document a single variance request ranging 

from 40 hours (125 hours × 30%) to 45 hours (150 hours × 30%), based on the

EPA’s estimates that the development and documentation of a single variance 

request currently requires an average of approximately 125 to 150 labor hours and 

that including the information and documentation described in the proposed rule 

would increase the labor hours required to fully develop and document variance 

requests by approximately 30%.

 Incremental per variance costs ranging from $1,900 (40 hours per variance  $48

per hour) to $2,200 (45 hours per variance  $48 per hour).

 Total incremental burden ranging from approximately 2,640 hours per year (40 

hours per variance × 3 variances per year × 22 states and tribes) to 2,970 hours 

per year (45 hours per variance × 3 variances per year × 22 states and tribes), 

based on the EPA’s estimate that states and tribes review on average 

approximately 3 variance requests from dischargers per year prior to submitting 

them to the EPA for approval or disapproval as a WQS and that approximately 22 

states and tribes do not currently fulfill all of the submission requirements

specified in the proposed rule.

 Total annual incremental costs ranging between $125,400 per year ($1,900 per 

variance × 3 variances per year × 22 states and tribes) to $145,200 per year 

($2,200 per variance × 3 variances per year × 22 states and tribes).

Renewals

 Incremental effort to review a renewal application ranging from 165 hours (125 

hours + (125 hours × 30%)) to 195 hours (150 hours + (150 hours × 30%)), 

assuming that the labor hours needed to review a renewal application are the same 
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

18

as the labor hours required to review a new variance application that satisfies the 

new submission requirements.

 Incremental per renewal costs ranging from approximately $7,900 (165  $48 per 

hour) to $9,400 (195  $48 per hour).

 Potentially affected entities including 4 states and tribes that at least occasionally

issue variances with a duration longer than 10 years. Assuming that these 4 states 

and tribes will begin granting variances with a duration of 10 years and estimating

that these states and tribes will review on average approximately 3 variance 

renewal requests per year, the EPA estimates that the affected states and tribes 

will potentially need to review a total of 12 additional variance renewal 

applications per year (3 variance renewal requests per state per year × 4 states).

 Total annual incremental burden ranging from approximately 1,980 hours per 

year (165 hours per variance × 12 variance renewals) to 2,340 hours per year (195 

hours per variance × 12 variance renewals).

 Total annual incremental costs ranging between approximately $95,200 (165 

hours per variance × 12 variance renewals × $48/hour) per year to $112,400 (195 

hours per variance × 12 variance renewals × $48/hour) per year.

6.1.1 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL INCREMENTAL BURDENS AND COSTS

Thus, summing the total incremental burden across all provisions, the total one-time 

(nonrecurring) burden associated with the proposed rule ranges from 9,500 hours to 47,500 hours 

and the total annual (recurring) burden ranges from 101,930 hours to 152,115 hours. Similarly, 

the total one-time incremental costs for all provisions are between $0.46 million and $2.28

million, while the total annual incremental costs range from $4.84 million to $7.36 million. Table 

6-2 provides a summary of the estimated national costs to all states and tribes. Note that the 

proposed revisions regarding antidegradation policies result in a large proportion of the total 

costs of the proposed rule because the incremental burden and costs are based on the number of 

dischargers in each affected state and tribe. Table 6-4 provides a summary of the uncertainties 

associated with the estimates.

The incremental burden and costs are associated with a total of 32 one-time 

(nonrecurring) responses per year (95 affected entities ÷ 3 years) during the initial 3-year period

for rulemaking activities. In addition, the number of annual responses is equal to 1,405 responses 

(8 UAAs + 744 reviews of alternative analyses in antidegradation requests + 575 additional 

antidegradation requests + 66 variance submissions + 12 variance renewals).
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

19

Table 6-2: Summary of National Incremental Administrative Burdens and Costs

Associated with this Proposed Rule

Provision

One-time Activities1 Annual Activities

Burden (hours)

Cost 

(2013$ 

million/year)

Burden 

(hours/year)

Cost (2013$

million/year)

Rulemaking Activities 9,500 – 47,500 $0.46 - $0.2.28 -- --

Designated Uses -- -- 240 - 1,200 $0.01 - $0.06

Antidegradation -- -- 97,070 - 145,605 $4.61 - $7.04

Variances -- -- 4,620 - 5,310 $0.22 - $0.26

National Total 9,500 – 47,500 $0.46 - $2.28 101,930 - 152,115 $4.84 - $7.36

‘--‘ = not applicable

1. One-time incremental burden and costs for rulemaking activities are spread over an initial three-year 

period.

The EPA’s proposal specifies that it is also considering and requesting comment on 

whether to require adoption of antidegradation implementation methods as WQS. If the EPA 

includes this requirement in the final rule, total one-time burden and costs to states and tribes 

could be 43,100 hours to 114,700 hours and $2.07 million to $5.51 million, respectively, and 

total annual burden and costs would remain the same at 101,930 hours to 152,115 hours and 

$4.84 million to $7.36 million, respectively, as shown in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3: Summary of National Incremental Administrative Burdens and Costs

Associated with this Proposed Rule, including Requirement to Adopt Antidegradation 

Implementation Methods as WQS

Provision

One-time Activities1 Annual Activities

Burden (hours)

Cost 

(2013$ 

million/year)

Burden 

(hours/year)

Cost (2013$

million/year)

Rulemaking Activities 9,500 – 47,500 $0.46 - $2.28 -- --

Designated Uses -- -- 240 - 1,200 $0.01 - $0.06

Antidegradation 33,600 – 67,200 $1.61 - $3.23 97,070 - 145,605 $4.61 - $7.04

Variances -- -- 4,620 - 5,310 $0.22 - $0.26

National Total 43,100 – 114,700 $2.07 - $5.51 101,930 - 152,115 $4.84 - $7.36

‘--‘ = not applicable

1. One-time incremental burden and costs for rulemaking activities are spread over an initial three-year 

period.
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

20

Table 6-4: Uncertainties in the Analysis

Key Assumptions/Uncertainties

Potential Impact on 

Estimated Burdens 

and Costs

Comment

Labor hours required to implement 

various provisions is based on best 

professional judgment.

?

Labor hours needed depends on a number 

of factors including state and tribe sizes, 

level of economic activity involving 

dischargers to water, existing regulatory 

framework, and may be higher or lower 

than the EPA’s estimates. The estimates 

do not account for potential reductions in 

burden resulting from the increased clarity 

provided by the proposed rule.

Number of states and tribes affected by 

each provision is uncertain. ?

Actual number of states and tribes that 

will incur costs could be higher or lower 

than the EPA’s estimates.

Labor costs based are state government 

wage rates.

?

The mix of labor categories (e.g., 

environmental scientist, engineer, etc.) 

may be different for individual states from 

the mix the EPA used to calculate a wage 

rate. Also, labor costs for authorized tribes 

and territories may differ from states.

No states or tribes set time limits for 

variances and none review variances 

during triennial review periods.

+

Costs would be overestimated for states 

and tribes that already set expiration or 

renewal dates or adopt variances as part of 

their WQS.

All states and tribes would undertake a 

rulemaking effort in response to the 

proposed rule.

+

States and tribes that already have policies 

and procedures consistent with the EPA’s 

proposed rule would not incur costs.

The number of Tier 2 antidegradation 

requests per year is based on 

information from two states (Iowa and 

Missouri).

?

The actual number of Tier 2 

antidegradation requests per state or tribe 

may be higher or lower than the EPA’s 

estimates.

The number of states and tribes that 

would review additional antidegradation 

requests for high quality waters is based 

on the EPA’s assumption of the 

number of states and tribes that 

currently exclude waters from Tier 2 

protection based on the impairment of 

one parameter.

+

Additional states and tribes exclude waters 

from Tier 2 protection based on the 

impairment of a group of parameters.

Since the proposed rule prohibits states 

and tribes from excluding Tier 2 

protection based solely on the impairment 

of a single or group of parameters, this 

assumption is likely to result in an 

underestimation of costs.

States and tribes would renew three 

variances per year. ?

States and tribes may end up reviewing 

fewer variance requests because current 

variances may not qualify for renewal 

under the new requirements, or discharger 

progress toward interim goals may allow 

them to meet the standard.
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

21

Table 6-4: Uncertainties in the Analysis

Key Assumptions/Uncertainties

Potential Impact on 

Estimated Burdens 

and Costs

Comment

States and tribes may be required to 

undertake activities related to the 

proposed rule that the EPA has not 

identified in this analysis.

-

To the extent that affected states and 

tribes may be required to undertake 

additional activities that the EPA has not

identified in this analysis, the analysis may 

underestimate actual burdens and costs. 

Activities may be included in the cost 

and burden estimates in this ICR which 

are not information collection activities 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act.

+

To the extent that activities which are not 

information collection activities subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act are included 

in the analysis, the analysis may 

overestimate actual burdens and costs.

Key:

“+” = Burdens and costs potentially overestimated

“-“ = Burdens and costs potentially underestimated

“?” = Impact on burdens and costs uncertain

6.1.2 INCREMENTAL AGENCY BURDEN

In addition to the potential burden and costs to states and tribes, the proposed WQS regulation revisions 

may potentially be associated with incremental burden and costs to the EPA. These incremental burden 

and costs to the EPA are associated with the potential increase in workload to review the additional WQS 

program materials submitted by states and tribes as a result of the proposed WQS regulation revisions. On 

the basis of best professional judgment, the EPA conservatively estimates the incremental burden and 

costs to the EPA based on costs being up to 20% of the costs to states and tribes. Thus, the EPA estimates 

that one-time incremental costs to the Agency would range from $91,000 ($456,000 × 20%) to $456,000 

($2,280,000 × 20%), and estimated annual incremental costs to the EPA range from $968,000 

($4,838,200 × 20%) to $1,471,000 ($7,357,400 × 20%).

The EPA assumes that the EPA staff who conduct reviews of WQS program materials are General 

Schedule (GS) 13, Step 5 federal employees (including EPA regional staff). In 2013, the average hourly 

wage rate for all federal employees at this grade and step was $47.22 per hour (U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management 2013)6. Assuming that benefits and overhead are equal to 60% of the hourly wage, the 

average loaded hourly wage rate for federal employees is equal to $75.55 ($47.22 per hour + (60% × 

($47.22 per hour)). Full-time equivalent (FTE) employees work 2,080 hours per year (40 hours per week 

× 52 weeks).

Using the average loaded wage rate and the number of hours worked per FTE, the EPA estimated the 

number of burden hours and the EPA FTEs associated with the increased workload under the proposed 

WQS regulation revisions. Estimated one-time incremental burden to the EPA ranges from 1,200 hours 

($91,000 ÷ $75.55 per hour) to 6,040 hours ($456,000 ÷ $75.55 per hour). These one-time incremental 

burden estimates correspond to 0.58 FTEs (1,200 burden hours ÷ 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year) 

 

6The employees reviewing and approving WQS materials submitted by states and tribes include EPA staff 

in the Washington, DC area and EPA regional staff. Hence, we calculate the average of all locality wage rates for 

federal employees at GS 13, Step 5 in 2013.
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

22

to 2.90 FTEs (6,040 burden hours ÷ 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year). Estimated annual incremental 

burden to the EPA ranges from 12,810 hours per year ($968,000 ÷ $75.55 per hour) to 19,470 hours per 

year ($1,471,000 ÷ $75.55 per hour). These annual incremental burden estimates correspond to 6.16 FTEs 

per year (12,810 burden hours ÷ 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year) to 9.36 FTEs per year (19,470 

burden hours ÷ 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year).

Table 6-5 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and costs to the Agency associated with 

the proposed WQS regulation revisions.

Table 6-5: Potential Incremental Burden and Costs to the Agency Associated with the Proposed 

Rule

One-time Activities Annual Activities

Costs to 

States and 

Tribes

(2013$ 

million)

Costs to 

the 

Agency1

(2013$ 

million)

Annualized 

Costs to the 

Agency 

(2013$ 

million per 

year)2

Burden Costs to 

States and 

Tribes

(2013$ 

million per 

year)

Costs to the 

Agency1

(2013$ 

million per 

year)

Burden

Hours3 FTEs4

Hours 

per 

year3

FTEs 

per 

year4

$0.46 -

$2.28

$0.09 -

$0.46 $0.01 - $0.03 1,200 -6,040

0.58 -

2.9

$4.84 -

$7.36

$0.97 -

$1.47

12,810 -

19,470

6.16 -

9.36

1. Assuming that the incremental costs to the EPA are equal to 20% of the costs to states and tribes. 

2. Although the EPA expects these one-time costs to be incurred over an initial three year period, the costs 

are annualized at 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes.

3. Total costs to the Agency divided by hourly wage rate ($75.55 per hour).

4. Burden hours to the Agency divided by hours worked by full-time equivalent (FTE) employees per year 

(2,080 hours per year).

6.2 POTENTIAL INCREMENTAL BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED RULE

The proposed rule is expected to improve the CWA’s effectiveness of restoring and 

maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The EPA 

believes that states and tribes, other stakeholders, and the public will benefit from the 

clarification in these key areas to better understand and make proper use of available CWA tools 

and flexibilities, while maintaining open and transparent public participation. Clear regulatory

requirements and improved implementation will provide a more transparent and well-defined 

pathway for maintaining and restoring the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the 

nation’s waters. In addition to the benefits of each proposed revision, there are potential benefits 

of improving and maintaining and nation’s waters as a result of today’s rule. One market benefit 

is water supply and use, including drinking water treatment and household water use, agricultural 

water use, reservoir dredging, and industrial water use. Other market benefits consist of 

commercial fishing and public and private property ownership. Nonmarket benefits include 

human health improvements, recreational benefits, and nonuse benefits.

6.3 REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications ICR - DRAFT

23

The EPA is proposing to amend the WQS regulation at 40 CFR Part 131. The proposed 

amendments will add new burden as outlined in this ICR.

6.4 BURDEN STATEMENT

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 186 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 Number EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0606, which is available for online viewing at 

www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 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 at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used 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. When 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 at oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA–

HQ–OW–2010–0606 and OMB Control Number 2040-NEW in any correspondence.