U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



### Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12866

Title of Action:

W a

t e r Q u a l i t y S t a n d a rd s R e gu l a t o r y R e

v i s io n s ; F i n a l R u l e

Docket# : E P

A

- H Q

- O

W

- 2010

- 060 6 FRL# : 9921

- 21

- O

W RIN : 2040

- A F 16

This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order (E.O.)
12866 , titled Regulato ry Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Whenever EPA makes publicly available

a regulatory action that was reviewed under E.O. 12866, section 6(a)(3)(E) of the E.O. directs the Agency to also: (1) Make available to the public a copy of the information that was provided to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review under the E.O., i.e. , the text of the draft regulatory action and, if applicable,

an assessment of the potential costs and benefits, as well as additional information for those actions that are
determined to be economically significant under the E.O. (Information requirements are described in sections 6(a)(3)(B) and (C)). (2) Identify for the public any substantive changes between the draft submitted to OIRA and the action that was subsequently issued, using a method that is complete, clear, and simple. (3) Identify for the public those substantive changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA.

For this regulatory action, were substantive changes made to information reviewed under E.O. 12866? [Please check the appropriate answer.]

No. [In the docket, include the information identified in item (1) below.]

Yes. [In the docket, include the information identified in items (1)

– (3) below.]

Accordingly, the Agency has included this form and the following information in the public docket for this regulatory action: [Please check the appropriate information.]
(1) A copy of the information that was provided to OIRA for review under the E.O.
(2) Documentation of any substantive changes made to the draft regulatory text that was submitted to OIRA when compared with what was subsequently made publicly available. The documentation is provided on the pages following this form. Changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA, if any, are clearly identified through attribution to OIRA. EPA has used one or more of the following methods to note changes: [Select the appropriate option(s).] (a) Redline

- Strikeout

– A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using redline

strikeout to show the substantive changes that were made.
(b) Hand Markup

– A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using handwritten notes
to show the substantive changes that were made.
(c) Note to the file

- A document that identifies the substantive changes that were made,
with page and paragraph references to the draft regulatory action that was submitted.

If you have any questions about this regulatory action or this documentation, please call the
contact:

Name: J AN I T

A A G U I RR E Em ail: AGUIRRE.JANITA@EPA.GOV Phone: 202

- 566

- 1149

Revised 05/05/2010*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***



## EO 1 2866_OW WQS 2040

- AF 16 FINAL_ EA _201412 1 6

Economic Analysis for the Water Quality Standards Regulat ory Revisions ( Final Rule)

December 2014

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington, DC 20460*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 i 

### Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... v

1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 1

- 1

1.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 1

- 1

1.2 Scope of the Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 1

- 2

1.3 Organization of this Report

................................ ................................ ................................ 1

- 2

2. Baseline and Rule Requirements

................................ ................................ .................... 2

- 1

2.1 Administrator’s Determinations

................................ ................................ ......................... 2

- 1

2.1.1 1983 Regulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2

- 1

2.1.2 Revision

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2

- 1

2.2 Designated Uses

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 2

- 1

2.2.1 1983 Regulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2

- 1

2.2.2 Revision

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2

- 1

2.3 Triennial Reviews

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 2

- 2

2.3.1 1983 Regulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2

- 2

2.3.2 Revision

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2

- 2

2.4 Antidegradation

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 2

- 2

2.4.1 1983 Regulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2

- 2

2.4.2 Revision

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2

- 3

2.5 WQS Variances

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 2

- 3

2.5.1 1983 Regulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2

- 3

2.5.2 Revision

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2

- 3

2.6 Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions

................................ ................................ ... 2

- 4

2.6.1 1983 Regulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2

- 4

2.6.2 Revision

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2

- 4

2.7 Other Changes

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2

- 4

3. Potential Incremental Burden and Cost of the Revisions

................................ ............. 3

- 1

3.1 Data and Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3

- 1

3.2 Estimated Burden and Cost to States and Authorized Tribes

................................ ............ 3

- 2

3.2.1 Rulemaking Activities

................................ ................................ .............................. 3

- 2

3.2.2 Administrator’s Determinations

................................ ................................ ............... 3

- 3

3.2.3 Designated Uses

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3

- 3

3.2.4 Triennial Reviews

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

- 5

3.2.5 Antidegradation

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3

- 7

3.2.6 WQS Variances

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 16*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 ii 3.2.7 Compliance Schedules Authorizing Provisions

................................ ...................... 3

- 19

3.2.8 Summary of Estimated Burden and Cost to States and Authorized Tribes

............ 3

- 19

3.3 Estimated Burden and Cost to the Agency

................................ ................................ ....... 3

- 20

3.4 Summary of Potential Burden and Cost

................................ ................................ ........... 3

- 22

3.5 Limitations and Uncertainties

................................ ................................ .......................... 3

- 22

3.5.1 Key Assumptions

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3

- 23

3.5.2 QA/QC Activities

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3

- 25

4. Small Entity Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4

- 1

5. Potential Incremental Benefits of the Revisions

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

- 1

5.1 Benefits by Program Area

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

- 1

5.1.1 Administrator’s Determinations

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

- 1

5.1.2 Designated Uses

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

- 2

5.1.3 Triennial Reviews

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

- 2

5.1.4 Antidegradation

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

- 3

5.1.5 WQS Variances

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

- 4

5.1.6 Co mpliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions

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

- 5

5.2 Benefits of Improved Water Quality

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

- 6

5.2.1 Market Benefits

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

- 6

5.2.2 Nonmarket Benefits

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

- 8

6. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 6

- 1

7. Appendix: EPA’s CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendations

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

- 1*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 iii 

### List of Exhibits

Exhibit 3

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

.................. 3

- 2

Exhibit 3

- 2: Potential One

- time Burden and Cost Associated with Rulemaking Activities

....... 3

- 3

Exhibit 3

- 3: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Revisions to Designated Use
Provisions

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 3

- 5

Exhibit 3

- 4: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Doc umenting and Submitting Explanations for Not Adopting New or Revised Criteria for Parameters for Which EPA Has Published New or Updated CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendations

.................... 3

- 7

Exhibit 3

- 5: Potential Incremental Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Performing/Evaluating Additional Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews.

................................ 3

- 10

Exhibit 3

- 6: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated With More Extensive Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3

- 12

Exhibit 3

- 7: Potential Annual Burden and Cost A ssociated with Public Involvement When Deciding Which Waters Will Receive Tier 2 Antidegradation Protection

........................ 3

- 14

Exhibit 3

- 8: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Public Involvement for Developing or Revising Antidegradation Implementation Methods

................................ .. 3

- 16

Exhibit 3

- 9: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Additional Documentation Requirements for WQS Variance Submissions

................................ ................................ .. 3

- 17

Exhibit 3

- 10: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Reevaluating WQS Varia nces

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3

- 19

Exhibit 3

- 11: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burden and Cost

................. 3

- 20

Exhibit 3

- 12: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burden and Cost to the Agency

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3

- 21

Exhibit 3

- 13: Summary of Potential Incremen tal Administrative Burden and Cost to States, Authorized Tribes, and the Agency

................................ ................................ .................... 3

- 22

Exhibit 3

- 14: Uncertainties in the Analysis

................................ ................................ ............... 3

- 23

Exhibit 7

- 1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation Publication Years

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

- 1*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 iv 

### Acronyms and Abbreviations

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CWA Clean Water Act

EA Economic Analysis

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FTE Full

- Time E quivalent

GS General Schedule

HAU Highest Attainable U se

ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System

IDNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources

MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources

NPDES National Pollut a nt Discharge Elimination System

ONRW Outstanding National Resources Water

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

States and

authorized tribes The 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
N orthern Mariana Islands, and Indian Tribes that EPA determines to be eligible for purposes of the water quality standards program.

TAS Treatment in M anner S imilar to a S tate

TMDL Total Maximum Daily L oad

UAA Use Attainability A nalysis

WQBEL W ater Q uality

- Based E ffluent L imit

WQS Water Q uality S tandards*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 v 

### Executive Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updates six areas of the federal water quality standards (WQS) regulation at 40 CFR Part 131 that implements the Clean Water Act (CWA). This update provides a better

- defined pathway for states and authorized tribes to address complex water quality challenges and protect high quality waters and it promotes more transparent and engaged public participation.

This report describes EPA’ s analysis of the potential cost and benefits to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, five territories, the 40 authorized tribes wit h EPA

- approved WQS, and to EPA that may be associated with these revisions to the federal regulation. EPA estimates the total annual
cost for the final rule to range from $ 6.5 1 million per year t o $ 24.1 1 million per year

. Although
EPA could not quantitatively estimate monetary benefits , EPA identifies and qualitatively describes many of the expected benefits of the rule.

E PA estimates the potential incremental burden and cost of today’s final rule by identifying
elements of the rule that could potentially result in incremental administrative burden

, estimating the incremental number of labor hours states and authorized tribes may need to allocate in order to comply with those elements of the rule , and estimating the cost associated of those additional
labor hours.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 1. Introduction 1

- 1 

### 1. Introduction

EPA updates the f ederal w ater q uality s tandards (WQS) regulation at 40 CFR Part 131 that implements the Clean Water Act (CWA) . Th is update provides a better

- defined pathway for states and authorized tribes to address complex water quality challenges and pr otect high quality waters. It also promotes more transparent and engaged public participation. The final rule revises six program areas: (1) Administrator’s determination that new or revised WQS are necessary, (2) designated uses, (3) triennial reviews, (4 ) antidegradation, (5) WQS variances, and (6) permit compliance schedule authorizing provisions. This report describes EPA’s analysis of the potential cost and benefits that may be associated with these revisions to the federal regulation.

1.1 Background

T he Federal Water Pollution Control Act (a s a mended t hrough P.L. 107

– 303, November 27, 2002), also known as the Clean Water Act ( CWA ), sets the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States. In the CWA, Congress establishe d the national objective to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and to achieve “wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for r ecreation in and on the water” ( CWA sect ions 101(a) and 101(a)(2))

. CWA section 303 establishes the basis for the WQS regulation. WQS reflect t he CWA national objectives for each water body

. T he main components of WQ S are designated uses, water quality criteria, and antidegradation requirements . Designated uses establish the environmental objectives for a water body

, and water quality criteria define the minimum conditions necessary to achieve those environmental obje ctives. A ntidegradation requirements complement designated
uses and criteria by providing a framework for maintaining and protecting water quality.

After states, authorized tribes, territories , and the Distric t of Columbia (hereafter, states and
authorized tribes ) establish designate d uses of waters under their jurisdiction

, they must establish water quality criteria that protect those uses. EPA’s regulation at § 1 31.11(a)(1) provide s that water quality criteria “must be based on sound scientific rationale

, and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use.” States and authorized tribes must also adopt antidegradation policies to protect and maintain high quality waters

, outstanding national
resource waters, and existing us es of all waters, and identify specific methods to implement those policies ( § 1 31.12).

The WQS regulation provide s specific requirements to adopt, revise, and remove designated use s (§ 131.1 0 )

. A state or authorized tribe may choose to adopt a WQS varianc e if the use cannot be attained immediately but the use may be attainable in the future

. A WQS variance is a time

limited designated use and associated water quality criteri on targeted to a specific pollutant(s), permittee (s), and water body or waterbody segment. A WQS v ariance is different from a change to the designated use and associated criterion in that it is intended as a mechanism to provide time for states, authorized tribes and stakeholders to implement adaptive management approaches that will im prove water quality where the designated use and criterion currently in place are not being met, but still retain the designated use as a long

- term goal.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 1. Introduction 1

- 2 The regulation requires states and authorized tribes to hold a public hearing to review applicable WQS and solicit input from the public at least once every three years (i.e., a “triennial review”)

. Such hearings on WQS provide an essential opportunity for stakeholders to become involved in setting WQS and to make concerns known to state and authorized tri bal officials. In addition, the regulation requires states and authorized tribes to consider new available data and information and revise standards accordingly. The results of triennial reviews

, regardless of whether the
review results in revisions to sta te or authorized tribal regulation

, along with any information supporting a WQS revision must be submitted to EPA for review and approval.

EPA established the core of the WQS regulation in a final rule issued in 1983. In 1998, EPA
issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to discuss and invite comment on over 130 aspects of the federal WQS regulation and program, with the goal of identifying specific changes that might strengthen water quality protection and restoration, facilitate
watershed m anagement initiatives, and incorporate evolving water quality criteria and assessment science into state and authorized tribal WQS programs. Although EPA chose not to move forward with a rulemaking after the ANRPM, as a result of the input recei ved, EPA
id entified a number of high priority issue areas for which the Agency developed guidance, provided technical assistance, and continued further discussion and dialogue to assure more effective program implementation. While this rule is not a direct continuati on of the 1998 ANPRM, it is a part of EPA’s ongoing effort to clarify and strengthen the WQS program.

1.2 Scope of the Analysis

EPA estimate d potential incremental administrative cost s that may result from the regulatory
revisions (i.e., costs that are beyond those associated with implementation of the 1983 WQS regulation ) . Because today’s rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities , EPA focuses on the potential impact to states and authorized tribes

. Although
some of the provisions in today’s rule may lead to increased administrative cost s to regulated
entities , improved understanding of the WQS regulation and clarification of the requireme nts of certain provisions may offset some of th ose cost s

. Although t his analysis does not estimate potential offsetting reductions in administrative cost s , it does qualitatively describe some of the benefits of today’s rule.

1.3 Organization of this Report

The remainder of th is report contains the following :

• Section 2 summarizes the regulatory framewo rk as adopted in 1983 and the regulatory revisions in today’s rule

.

• Section 3 describes the data and method s EPA uses to estimate the cost of today’s rule, and the results of the analysis

.

• Section 4 discuss es potential impacts to small entities.

• Section 5 qualitatively describes the benefits that may be associated with today’s rule

.

• Section 6 provides references.

• Section 7 provides a listing of EPA’s CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations and publication years EPA uses to estimate the cost of today’s rule.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements 2

- 1 

### 2. Baseline and Rule Re quirements

Today’s rule updates the 1983 WQS regulation in the following program areas: (1)
Administrator’s determination that new or revised WQS are necessary, (2) designated uses, (3) triennial reviews, (4) antidegradation, (5) WQS variances, and (6) com pliance schedule authorizing p rovisions

. This section describes the regulatory framework prior to the effective
date of today’s rule and summarizes the regulatory changes in today’s rule. For more details on the revisions and why EPA made them, please refe r to the preamble of today’s rule

.

2.1 Administrator’s Determinations

2.1.1 1983 Regulation Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA provides the EPA Administrator with authority to determine that new or revised WQS are necessary to meet the CWA requirements, typically in those
situations where a state or tribe fails or is unable to act in a manner consistent with the CWA.
The Administrator has the discretion to make s uch a determination after evaluating all relevant
fact ors. An Administrator’s determination triggers the requirement for the EPA to promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations setting forth new or revised WQS for the waters of the United States involved, and for the EPA to promulgate such WQS unless the state or authorized tribe adopts and the EPA approves such WQS before the EPA promulgation is finalized.

2.1.2 Revision Today’s rule clarifies that an Adm inistrator’s determination must be signed by the Administrator or his or her duly authorized delegate and m ust include a statement that the document is a
determ ination for purposes of section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA. EPA estimates the burden and
cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.2

.

2.2 Designated Uses

2.2.1 1983 Regulation Designated uses are defined at § 1 31.3(f) as the “uses specified in WQS for each water body or segment whether or not they are being attained.” A use is a particular function of, or activity in, a

water body that requires a specific level of water quality.

States and authorized tribes have the flexibility in managing their designated uses as long as they meet the requirements of the CWA and the WQS regulation

. Specifically, the WQS regulation at §131.10(a ) requires states and authorized tribes to take into consideration the use and value of water for public water supplies, protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on the water, agricultural, industrial and other purposes including navigation when establishing designated uses. In addition, the regulation at § 131.10(j) requires states and
authorized tribes to conduct a UAA when designating uses that do not include the uses specified
in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA, when re moving a designated use specified in section 101(a)(2)
of the CWA , or when adopting sub

- categories of such uses which require less stringent criteria.

2.2.2 Revision Today’s rule revises several regulatory provisions that pertain to when a UAA is or is not required. Today’s rule also clarifies that state s and authorized tribes must adopt the highest*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements 2

- 2 attainable use as newly defined at §131.10(m) when adopting or revising a designated use based on a required UAA

. Finally, today’s rule clarifies in 131.10(k)(3) that when removing or revising

a non

- 101(a)(2) use as newly defined at § 131.10(q), states and authorized tribes are not required
to conduct a UAA but must submit documentation justifying how consideration of the use and
value of water for those uses list ed in § 131.10(a) appropriately supports the s tate or authorized
tribal action

. EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.3

2.3 Triennial Rev iews

2.3.1 1983 Regulation CWA section 303(c)(1) and the regulation at § 131.20 requires states and authorized tribes to hold a public hearing to review applicable WQS at least once every three years (i.e., a “triennial review”) and, as appropriate, modify and a dopt standards. States and authorized tribes must
submit the results of each triennial review to EPA whether or not it resulted in a modification to WQS. One area that states and authorized tribes must review triennially is their applicable water quality c riteria. States and authorized tribes must adopt criteria that are scientifically defensible and protective of the designated use

. EPA has the role of publishing CWA section 304(a)
national criteria recommendations to assist states and authorized tribes in establishing water quality criteria in their WQS to “protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of” the Act (CWA section 303(c)(2)(A)).

2.3.2 Revision Today’s rule contains two revisions to the triennial review requirements at § 131.20(a). First, today’s rule requires that if states and authorized tribes choose not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a )
criteria recomm endations, they must explain their decision when submitting the results of their triennial review to EPA per CWA section 303(c)(1) and § 131.20(c). Second, today’s rule
clarifies what are the “applicable water quality standards” that state s and authorized tribes mu st review triennially

. EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.4

.

2.4 Antidegradation

2.4.1 1983 Regulation

Section 131.12 of the regulation requires s tates and authorized tribes to adopt antidegradation policies to protect water quality and identify methods for implementing such pol icies . Generally,
states and authorized tribes establish three tiers of antidegradation protection :

• Tier 1 protects existing use s

.

• Tier 2 protects water quality that is better than necessary to support CWA section 101(a)(2) goals. The regulation at § 1 31.12(a)(2) allows s tates and authorized tribes to lower water quality in T ier 2 waters only if the lowering is “ necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.”

• Tier 3 protects water quality in Outstanding National Resources Waters (ONRWs), which
states and authorize d tribes establish

. The regulation at § 131.12(a)(2) requires that water quality in ONRWs “shall be maintained and protected.”*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements 2

- 3 States and authorized tribes adopt antidegradation policies into WQS and submit those policies

to EPA for review and approval

. States and authorized tribes must also identify the methods they
will use to implement the antidegradation policy. States and authorized tribes can , but are not required to, adopt antidegradation implementation methods as a WQS

. States and authorized tribe s typically use either a paramete r

- by

- parameter approach or a water body

- by

- water body approach to identify high quality waters for Tier 2 protection

2.4.2 Revision Today’s rule could potentially result in incremental administrative burden and cost associated

w ith implementation of state or tribal antidegradation policy. Today’s rule prohibits a state or
authorized tribe from deny ing Tier 2 antidegradation protection to a water body solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA
section 101(a)(2)

. Today’s rule also provides that b efore allowing a lowering of high water quality, states and authorized tribes must evaluate a range of non

- degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives and select one such alternative for implementation . Furthermore, today’s
rule specifies that, where states and authorized tribes identify waters to receive Tier 2 protection on a water body

- by

- water body basis, states and authorized tribes must involve th e public on any decisions pertaining to when they will provide Tier 2 protection, and the factors considered in
such decisions. Finally, today’s rule requires states’ and authorized tribes’ antidegradation policies to be consistent with these requirements

. States’ and authorized tribes’ antidegradation implementation methods must be consistent with the policy, the requirements above , and states and authorized tribes provide an opportunity for public involvement during the development and any subsequent revi sions of antidegr adation implementation methods.

EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.5

.

2.5 WQS Variances

2.5.1 1983 Regulation

T he nationally applicable WQS regulation only briefly mention ed WQS variances at § 1 31.13

. Section 131.13 indicates that states and authorized tribes may adopt general policies affecting the application and implementation of WQS

, and may include WQS variance s policies in their state

or authorized tribal standards at their discretion. Although EPA has addressed WQS variance s through guidance, memoranda, and approval actions for many years, EPA has not provided specific regulatory language pertaining to WQS variance s prio r to this rule

.

2.5.2 Revision Today’s rule adds a new regulatory section at § 131.14 that explicitly authorizes the use of WQS variances when designated uses are not attainable in the near

- term but may be attainable in the
future

. Today’s rule : (1) d efin es a WQS variance ; (2) describes the circumstances under which a WQS variance is applicable ; (3) describes the minimum information a state or authorized tribe

must include in the WQS variance ; (4) describes the documentation that a state or authorized
tribe mus t provide to EPA to support a WQS variance when requesting EPA review and approval ; (5) establishes the link between WQS variances and NPDES permits, (6) requires periodic reevaluation of a WQS variance longer than five years ; ( 7 ) provides a mechanism to

e nsure that any reevaluation indicating a more stringent interim WQS is attainable will be*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements 2

- 4 reflected in the implementing NPDES permit, and ( 8 ) ensures an opportunity for public participation throughout the variance term

. EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.6

.

2.6 Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions

2.6.1 1983 Regulation

EPA ’s 1983 WQS regulation (40 CFR Part 131) is silent regarding compliance schedule authorizing provisions.

2.6.2 Revision
In 1990, the EPA Administrator concluded that before a permitting authority can include a compliance schedule in an NPDES permit, the state or authorized tribe must affirmatively
authorize the use of compliance schedules in its WQS or implementing regulations. 1

Today’ s rule requires a state or authorized tribe to adopt a permit compliance schedule authorizing provision and for EPA to approve it under CWA section 303(c) before authorizing the use of compliance schedules in NPDES permits. EPA estimates the burden and cos t of these
revisions in Section 3.2.7.

2.7 Other Changes
Today’s rule also includes several non

- substantive editorial changes that are not associated with
incremental burden or cost and thus not discussed further.

1 In the Matter of Star

- Kist Caribe, Inc. 3 EAD 172 (April 16, 1990).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 1 

### 3. Potential Incremental Burden and Cost of the Revisions

Today’s rule does not establish new requirements directly applicable to regulated entities . T h us , this analysis focuses on the potential impact of today’s rule on the incremental administrative
burden and cost to states and authorized tribes to implemen t their WQS program . This section presents the data and methods EPA uses to analyze th e potential administrative burden and cost s (Section 3.1 ) , the analysis and resu lts for states and authorized tribes (Section 3.2 ) , the analysis
and results for the Agency (Section 3.3 )

, a summar y of the total burden and cost s (Section 3.4 )

, and a discus sion of uncertainties associa ted with the estimates (Section 3.5 )

.

3.1 Data and Method s

EPA assesse s the potential incremental burden and cost associated with today’s rule by first estimating the incremental number of labor hours potentially required by each single state or authorized tribe to comply with each provision of the rule

. EPA then calculate s the total number
of labor hours associated with each provision by multiplying the estimate of lab or hours for each

state or authorized tribe by the number of potentially affected states and authorized tribes. EPA
then estimates the cost of each provision by multiplying the total number of labor hours associated with each provision of today’s rule by t he average hourly wage rate of the employee s perform ing the activity

. Because activities related to antidegradation are associated with issuance

or re

- issuance of NPDES permit s , EPA estimates the number of antidegradation activities
associated with the ant idegradation provisions of today’s rule using a percentage of the number of permitted dischargers in potentially affected states and authorized tribes . For these estimates,
EPA uses its Integrated Compliance Information System for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS

- NPDES) database to calculate the number of permitted dischargers

.
EPA estimate d the incremental number of labor hours required to comply with the proposed rule published on September 4, 2013 1 us ing historical EPA information and data, the historical knowledge and best professional judgment of EPA ’s personnel with experience administering the WQS program

. EPA estimated the number of labor hours associated with the administrative activities require d by the proposed rule by soliciting estimates from EPA ’s personnel at EPA
H eadquarters and all 10 EPA R egional offices

. EPA compiled and summarize d t he estimates of
labor hours for each required activity and develop ed by consensus final estimate range s for each activity

. EPA developed the economic analy sis of the rule proposed on the basis of these
estimates and solicited public comment s on the analysis. After reviewing the comments receive d

, EPA revise d the estimates of incremental labor hours and is us ing those updated estimates in th is economic analysis of today’s final rule

.
EPA estimate s the cost of labor for states and authorized tribes using data on state g overnment hourly wage rates obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

. These data a re not available for t ribes. EPA cho o se s Environmental S cientist, D epartment M anager, E nvironmental
E ngineer, and E conomist as the applicable labor categories

. Exhibit 3

- 1 shows the 201 3 labor rates for these categories and the calculat ion of benefits using the BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compensation for state and local professional government workers ( 33 % of total compensation is attributable to benefits). EPA uses the average wage rate of these four labor categories because information on the allocation of labor hours by professional category states and authorized tribes use to administer their WQS program s are not available

.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 2 Exhibit 3

- 1 : Summary of State Government Average Hourly Wage Rates ( 201 3 $)

Category Hourly Labor
Rate Hourly Benefits Hourly Wage
Rate

Environmental Scientist (19

- 2041) $ 29 $14 $4 3

Environmental Engineer (17

- 2081) $ 35 $ 17 $5 3

Economist (19

- 3011) $ 31 $15 $4 6

Manager (11

- 9121) $ 37 $18 $5 5

Average

-- -- $4 9

S ource: BLS ( 2013 )

3.2 Estimated B urden and Cost to States and Authorized Tribes

The sections below describe s EPA ’s incremental labor hour estimates associated with today’s
rule and the resulting estimated cost

. The estimates include those potential burden s and cost s likely to occur only once (one

- time burden and cost) and those likely to re cur on a regular basis (an nual burden and cost)

.

3.2.1 Rulemaking Activities Today’s rule could potentially require states and authorized tribes to perform a WQS rulemaking for the purpose of modifying antidegradation policy, revising policies related to the issuance of WQS variance s (if the state or tribe has adopted such policies in state or tribal statute, rule, or is
otherwise legally binding )

, or adopting provisions authorizing the use of permit compliance
schedules

. Thus, states and authorized tribes may need to initiate new rul emaking efforts or increase the scope of other planned regulatory changes to comply with th e updated federal regulation

. The incremental labor hours required for rulemaking efforts are likely specific to each state and
authorized tribe and will depend on its exi sting WQS, the level of public interest, and administrative procedures

. In the proposed rule, EPA estimated the incremental labor hours needed to perform a state or authorized tribal rulemaking to range from 100 hours for relatively small rule chang es (or those that may be performed in conjunction with the triennial review process) to 50 0 hours for new or more complex rulemakings involving more than one provision. In response to stakeholder input

, EPA revise s those estimates to range from 5 00 hours f or relatively small rule changes ( or those that may be performed in conjunction with the triennial review pro cess) to 1

, 0 00 hours for new or more complex rulemakings involving more than one provision

. There are 50 state s, 5 territories

, the District of Columbia, and 40 authorized tribes with EPA

approved WQS. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that all 96 states and authorized tribes may need to take a single WQS rulemaking. Thus

, EPA estimates a total of 9 6 (50 + 5 + 1

+ 40 ) p otentially affected states and authorized tribes

. If all 9 6 states and authorized tribes
undertake a rulemaking activit y , the total one

- time incremental labor hours required to comply
with today’s rule range from 4 8

, 0 00 hours ( 500 hours per rulemaking per state or authorized
tribe  9 6 states and authorized tribes ) to 9 6 ,000 hours ( 1

, 000 hours per rulemaking per state or*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 3 authorized tribe  9 6 states and authorized tribes )

. U sing the estimated average hourly wage rate
shown in Exhibit 3

- 1 ( $ 4 9 )

, EPA estimates the cost associated with state or authorized tribal rulemaking activities to range from approximately $ 2, 352,000 ($ 4 9 per hour  48,000 hours ) to $ 4, 704 ,000 ($ 4 9 per hour  9 6 ,000 hours )

. Note that EPA estimates that today’s rule will require state s and authorized tribe s to undertake a WQS rulemaking only once

. Thus, the estimated burden and cost associated with these act ivities

are one

- time cost s

. Furthermore, these cost s may be an overestimate because the WQS of some states and authorized tribes may already be in full compliance with today’s rule

. Exhibit 3

- 2 summarizes the potential incremental one

- time burden and cost associated with rulemaking activities.

Exhibit 3

- 2 : Potential One

- time Burden an d Cost Associated with Rulemaking Activities

Bu rden per Rulemaking ( h ours) 1 Cost per Rulemaking 2 Number of Potentially
Affected States
and A uthorized
T ribes 3 Total Burden (h ours) 4 Total Cost ( 2013$;

one

- time) 5 Annual ized
Cost ( 2013 $/year) 6

500

– 1,0 0 0 $ 24,500

- $ 49,000 9 6 48,000

– 96,000 $ 2,352,000

- $ 4,704 ,000 $ 158,100

- $ 316,200

1. Reflects potential new or increased rulemaking activities to adopt provisions consistent with today’s rule into WQS

.
2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $ 4 9

.
3 . Includes 50 states, five territories

, the District of Columbia, and 40 authorized tribes with EPA

approved WQS

.
4

. Burden per state or authorized tribe multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and
authorized tribes

.
5

. Total burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49

.
6. Although EPA expects states and authorized tribes to incur rulemaking cost over an initial three

year period, it annualized t otal one

- time cost at a 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative

purposes

.

3.2.2 Administrator’s Determination s Today’s rule clarifies the process EPA uses to make an Administrator ’s determination

. EPA
estimates that such a clarification will result in no incremental burden or cost to states and
authorized tribes and may even result in burden reduction and cost savings by clarifying what constitutes an Administrator’s determination and thus reducing litigation resulting from regulatory unc ertainty

.

3.2.3 Designated Uses Today’s rule makes clear that once a state or authorized tribe has rebutted the presumption of attainability by demonstrating through a required UAA that a use specified in section 101(a)(2)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 4 of the Act is not attainable, it must adopt the highest attainable use (HAU). EPA estimates that removing a designated use require s approximately the same administrative effort as replacing an unattainable use with an attainable use. Thus

, EPA assum es for the purpose of this analysis that
states and authorized tribes incur no incremental burden and cost associated with the requirement

to adopt the HAU

. However

, today’s rule may require some states and authorized tribes to conduct additional analysis to identify the HAU

. For states and autho rized tribes that do not already identify the HAU in their UAA process , the requirement to identify the HAU may require additional labor hours resulting in incremental cost

. EPA estimates that 30% additional effort is required to identify the HAU. For the proposed rule

, EPA estimated that a single UAA that does not identify the HAU require s approximately 100 to 500 labor hours to develop. After receiving stakeholder input, EPA revises thi s estimate to approximately 500 to 1

, 000 labor hours. Thus

, EPA e st imates that revising a designated use may require an additional 150 hours ( 500 hours  30 % ) to 300 hours ( 1

, 000 hours  30 % ) for each
UAA if a state or authorized tribe does not already identify the HAU.

In the economic analysis of the proposed rule

, EPA identified 8 states that do not consistently identify the HAU when adopting a new or revised designated use based on a required UAA

. However, this estimate did not account for the 40 authorized tribes, 5 territories, or the District of
Columbia for whi ch EPA has no information. In this analysis, EPA estimates an additional 7 governmental entities may not currently identify the HAU by calculating the percentage of states that do not identify the HAU ( 8 states ÷ 50 total states = 16%) and applying that pe rcentage to the total number of authorized tribes, territories and District of Columbia (16% × (40 authorized
tribes + 5 territories + 1 District of Columbia) = 7 additional governmental entities). Thus

, EPA
estimates 15 states and authorized tribes (8 sta tes + 7 additional governmental entities ) do not consistently identify the HAU when adopting new or revised WQS based on a required UAA

. The EPA retains the estimate used for the proposed rule that states and authorized tribes conduct

on average one designated use removal or revision each year

. Thus, EPA estimates the total
administrative burden associated with requiring states and authorized tribes to identify the HAU

range s from 2,250 hours (150 hour s per UAA  1 UAA per year  15 states and authori zed
tribes ) to 4,500 hours (300 hour s per UAA  1 UAA per year  15 states and authorized tribes )

per year. Using the hourly wage rate shown in Exhibit 3

- 1 ($49), EPA estimates the total
incremental cost associated with identifying the HAU could range from $ 111 ,000 (2,250 hours

 $49 per hour) to $ 221 ,0 00 (4,500 hours  $49 per hour) per year.

Exhibit 3

- 3 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost of today’s rule associated with designated uses

.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 5

Exhibit 3

- 3 : Potential Annual Bur den and Cost Associated with Revisions to Designated
Use Provisions

B u rden per State

or A uthorized
T ribe (hours /year ) 1 C ost per State or
A uthorized T ribe

( 2013 $/year) 2 Number of Potentially
Affected States
and A uthorized
T ribes Annual
Burden (hours /year ) 3 Annual Cost ( 2013 $/year) 4

150

- 300 $ 7

, 4 00

- $14,700 15 2,250

– 4,500 $ 111 ,0 00

- $ 221

, 0 00

1. Reflects potential incremental effort to identify the HAU when revising or removing a designated use a ssuming one use removal or revision per year per state or authorized tribe

. 2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $ 4 9

. 3. Burden per state or authorized tribe multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and
authorized tribes

.
4. Total annual burden for all po tentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49

.

3.2.4 Triennial Reviews Today’s rule includes a requirement that if states and authorized tribes choose not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recomm endations, states and authorized tribes must explain their decision when reporting the results of their triennial review to EPA under CWA section 303(c)(1) and § 131.20(c)

. This requirement may result in incremental burden and cost

. In the proposed rule, EPA included an explicit reference to CW A section 304(a) recommended
criteria at § 131.20(a) to clarify that a state or authorized tribe shall re

- examine its water quality criteria during a triennial review to determine if any criteria should be revised in light of any new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations to assure that designated uses continue to be protected. Because the proposed revision clarifie d an existing requirement to review applicable standards , the EPA estimate d that this revision was un likely to result in increme ntal
burden and costs to state s and tribes. After receiving stakeholder input, EPA revise d the triennial review requirement and estimate s a range of 10 to 50 labor hours per pollutant or parameter to document why the state or authorized tribe chose not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria
recommendations

. This effort includes writing and reviewing a memorandum of 1

- 2 pages for each pollutant or parameter, and adding the me morandum to the results of the triennial review
the state or authorized tribe submits to EPA.

EPA estimate s the number of new or updat e d CWA section 304(a) criteria a state or authorized
tribe may need to consider at each triennial review by assessing the number of CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations that EPA has historically provided (see Appendix)

. EPA has provided 371 new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations since the enactment of the CWA in 1972. O ver the 42

- ye ar period of the CWA (2014

– 1972 = 42) , EPA has provided on average approximately 9 new or updated recommendations per year, or 27 per 3

-*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 6 year triennial review period (371 CWA section 304(a) recommendations ÷ 42 years × 3 years per triennial review)

. EPA d oes not have sufficient information to predict the proportion of new or updated
CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations that will or will not lead states and authorized
tribes to adopt new or revised criteria in a given triennial review

. Some s tates and authorized
tribes could potentially adopt new or revised criteria for all parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recomm endations , whereas other states and authorized tribes could potentially adopt no criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recomm endations

. F or the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that all states and authorized tribes will chose to not adopt new or revised criteria for any parameter s for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a)
criteria recomm endations for 50% of EPA’s new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria
recommendation s and would need to submit documentation to EPA

.
EPA estimates the labor hours required to s ubmit documentation on why a state or authorized
tribe cho ose s not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recomm endations ranges from 45 hours ( 1 0 hours per CWA section 304(a) criteri on recommendation × 9 recommendations per year × 50% no new or revised criteria adopted ) to 225 hours ( 5 0 hours per one CWA section 304(a)
criteri on recommendation × 9 recommendations per year × 50% no new or revised criteria adopted ) per yea r for each state and authorized tribe

. Assuming all 9 6 states and authorized tribes
do not adopt new or revised criteria for parameters for 50% of EPA’s newly published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recomm endations

, EPA estimates the total ann ual labor
hours range s from 4,320 ( 45 hours per year per state or authorized tribe × 9 6 states and
authorized tribes ) to 21,600 ( 225 hours per year per state or authorized tribe × 9 6 states and
authorized tribes ) total hours per year. Using the average hourly wage rate of $49 ( Exhibit 3

- 1 ),
EPA estimates the total cost to range from approximately $ 211,000 ($49 per hour × 4,320 hours)

to $ 1,056,000 ($ 49 per hour × 21,600 hours)

. Exhibit 3

- 4 summarize s the incremental burden
and cost associated with the requirement to submit an e xplanation for why the state or authorized tribe is not adopting new or revised criteria for parameters for which EPA published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 7 Exhibit 3

- 4 : Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Documenting and Submitting Explanations for N ot Adopting New or Revised Cr iteria for Parameters for
Which EPA Has Published New or Updated CWA Section 304(a) Criteria
Recommendations

B u rden per State

or A uthorized
T ribe (hours /year ) 1 Cost per State or
A uthorized T ribe

( 2013 $/year) 2 Number of Potentially
Affected States
and A uthorized
T ribes Annual
Burden (hours /year ) 3 Annual Cost ( 2013 $/year) 4

45

- 225 $ 2,200

- $ 11,000 96 4,320

– 21,600 $ 211,000

– $ 1,056,000

1. Reflects potential i ncremental effort to document explanation for not adopting new or revised
criteria for 50% of approximately 9 new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations

per year

. 2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.
3. Burden per state or authorized tribe multiplied by total number of potentially a ffected states and
authorized tribes

.
4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3.2.5 Antidegradation Today’s rule could potentially result in incremental administrative burden and cost associated
with the following activities related to antidegradation :

• Performing/evaluating more Tier 2 antidegradation reviews because more water bodies may be receiving Tier 2 protection.

• Performing/evaluating more extensive Tier 2 antidegradation reviews because they now must evaluate a range of non

- degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives and select one such alternative for implementation

.

• Involving the public when a state or authorized tribe uses the water bod y

- by

- water body approach to identify waters receiving Tier 2 antidegradation protection

.

• Involving the public when developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods.

For the purposes of this analysis, EPA classified the potential i ncremental bu rden and cost associated with the antidegradation provisions of today’s rule into the following categories:

• Recurring burden and cost associated with an increase in the number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews because states and authorized tribes that use the water body

- by

water body approach can no longer deny Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2)

.

• Re curring burden and cost associated with more extensive Tier 2 antidegradation reviews
that now must evaluat e a range of non

- degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives

.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 8 • One

- time burden and cost associated with providing the opportunity for public involvement when deciding which waters will receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection when using a water body

- by

- water body approach

.

• Recurring burden and cost associated with involving the public when developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods.

3.2.5.1 More Antidegradation Re view s Because More Waters are Receiving Tier 2 Protection EPA does not have data on the number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews each state or authorized tribe performs or evaluates. F or the purpose of this analysis , EPA estimates the number of antidegradation reviews for potentially affected states and authorized tribes by using the ratio of antidegradation review s to total dischargers in two states for which EPA has information ( Iowa
and Missouri )

. For the proposal, EPA used data from 2008 suggesting that t he Missouri Department of Natural Resources ( MDNR ) receives approximately 68 antidegradation review s each year ( MDNR , 2008) , and t he Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) receives approximately 104 to 164 antidegr adation review s each year (IDNR, 2008)

. More recently,
MDNR estimates it receives approximately 47 antidegradation review s each year ( MDNR

, 2014), and IDNR estimates that it receives approximately 50 antidegradation review s each year (IDNR, 2014).

EPA ’s IC IS

- NPDES database indicates that there are 3,305 individual NPDES

- permitted dischargers for which MDNR is responsible for conducting potential Tier 2 antidegradation reviews ( i.e. exclud ing dischargers on tribal land) . Thus, the number of antidegradation r eview s performed/evaluated by the state of Missouri is approximately 1% of the total number of

NPDES

- permitted dischargers each year (47 antidegradation review s each year ÷ 3,305
individual NPDES

- permitted dischargers × 100). EPA ’s ICIS

- NPDES database indi cates that
there are 1,626 individual NPDES

- permitted dischargers for which IDNR is responsible for conducting potential Tier 2 antidegradation review s. Thus, the number of antidegradation
review s performed/evaluated by the state of Iowa is approximately 3% ( 50 antidegradation
review s each year ÷ 1,626 individual NPDES

- permitted dischargers × 100) of the total number
of NPDES

- permitted dischargers. On the basis of the information available from these two states, EPA estimates the number of antidegradation reviews each state or authorized tribe performs/evaluates is 2% of the total NPDES permitted dischargers there

. Of the 96 states and authorized tribes, EPA obtained sufficient information from 40 of them to identify whether or not they use a parameter

- by

- p arameter approach or a water body

- by

- water body approach

. Of those 40 states and authorized tribes

, EPA identifies 1 8 of them as currently

u sing a water body

- by

- water body approach that may exclud e some water s from Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2)

. 2 To estimate the number of additional Tier 2 antidegradation reviews these 18 states and authorized may need to process, EPA obtain ed the number of NPDES permits issued i n those states and authorized tribes

. EPA ’s ICIS

- NPDES
database indicates that there are a total of 38,232 individual NPDES

- permitted dischargers in the

2 Additional states and authorized tribes exclude waters from Tier 2 protection based on the impairment of a group of parameters

. Since EPA’s assumption applies only to states and authorized tribes that exclude waters based on a single parameter, this assumption may underestimate burden and cost.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 9 40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information to i dentify whether or not the state or authorized tribe uses a parameter

- by

- parameter approach or a water body

- by

- water body approach

, and 19,594 NPDES permits in the 18 states and authorized tribes that currently u se a water body

- by

- water body approach that may exclud e some water s from Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in
CWA section 101(a)(2)

. Of the 96 states and authorized tribes, EPA does not have sufficient information to identify whether or not the state or authorized tribe uses a parameter

- by

- parameter approach or a water body

- by

- water body a pproach for 56 of them (96

– 40 ). E PA e stimates the number of additional Tier 2 antidegradation reviews for these 56 states and authorized tribes by applying the ratio of NPDES permits in states that EPA has sufficient information to make such a conclusion

. F or the 40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information, EPA estimates that 19,594 out o f 38,232 NPDES permits (or 51.3% of NPDES permits) are in states and authorized tribes that use a water body

- by

- water body approach and may exclud e some water s from Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the use s specified
in CWA section 101(a)(2)

. EPA ’s ICIS

- NPDES database indicates that there are 12

, 070
individual NPDES

- permitted dischargers within the 56 states and authorized tribes without
sufficient information

. Assuming the same ratio of NPDES permits in th ese 56 states and authorized tribes, EPA estimates that 6,186 (12,070 × 51.3%) NPDES permits are located in
states and authorized tribes without sufficient information that currently use a water body

- by

water body approach and exclud e some water s from Tier 2 protection

. Thus, EPA estimates that
there are a total of 2 5,780 individual NPD ES

- permitted dischargers (19,594 + 6,186 ) in states and authorized tribes that currently use a water body

- by

- water body approach and exclud e some
water s from Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2)

.

Some states and authorized tribes that currently use a water body

- by

- water body approach and
exclud e some water s from Tier 2 protection may begin processing additional Tier 2 antidegradation reviews. Other states and authorized tribes that use the water body

- by

- water body approach may choose to continue denying Tier 2 protection to waters that do not exceed water quality levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) by evaluating other factors and involving the public on such decisions

. For the purposes of this analysis, EPA assumes that approximately 50% of the time, states and authorized tribes will continue excluding Tier 2 protection to certain waters after evaluating other factors and obtaining public input on such decisions.

As discussed above, EPA estimates the annual number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews a state
or authorized tri be typically processes to be 2% of all NPDES permits there . Furthermore, EPA estimates that there are a total of 25,780 individual NPDES

- permitted dischargers in states and authorized tribes that currently use a water body

- by

- water body approach and deny T ier 2 antidegradation protection to a water body solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2)

. Finally, EPA assumes
that approximately 50% of the time, states and authorized tri bes will continue to deny Tier 2 protection to waters solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) after evaluating other factors and obtaining public input on such decisions

. T hus, EPA estimates that the potentially affected states and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 10 authorized tribes may need to process 258 ( 25,780 NPDES permits × 2% of NPDES permits × 50% r equiring Tier 2 reviews ) additional Tier 2 antidegradation review s

.
For the proposed rule, EPA estimated that a single Tier 2 antidegradation review that does not perform/evaluate an alternatives analysis requires an average of approximately 100 to 150 labor hours. On the basis of stakeholder input, EPA revises its estimate o f the labor hours needed to perform/evaluate a single Tier 2 antidegradation review that does not include an alternatives analysis to a range of 100 hours to 300 hours. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA continues to
assume that a Tier 2 antidegradation review that includes analysis of pollution prevention
alternative s requires approximately 30% more time than a Tier 2 review that does not include an analysis of pollution prevention alternative s. Thus, the incremental labor hours for each Tier 2 antidegr adation review is approximately 30 hours (100 hours  30% ) to 90 hours (300 hours  30% ), resulting in the incremental labor hours to process each complete additional Tier 2 antidegradation review (incl uding an alternatives analysis) range from approximate ly 130 hours (1 00 hours + 3 0 hours) to 390 hours ( 300 hours + 90 hours )

. Hence

, EPA estimates that the total
incremental labor hours for all affected states and authorized tribes could range from 33, 540
hour s (130 hours × 258 reviews ) to 1 00

, 620 hours ( 390 hours × 258 reviews ) per year . Assuming an estimated average hourly wage rate of $49

, EPA estimates a per review cost of $6,400 ($49 per hour × 130 hours per review) to $19,100 ($49 per hour × 390 hours per review). Thus, total
incremental cost could range from approximately $1, 651 ,000 ($6,400 per review × 258 reviews) to $4, 928 ,000 ($19,100 per review × 258 reviews).

Exhibit 3

- 5 summarizes the potential increment al annual burden and cost associated with performing/evaluating additional Tier 2 antidegradation reviews

. Exhibit 3

- 5 : Potential Incremental Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Performing/Evaluating Addi tional Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews.

Number of Dischargers 1 Potential Number of
Tier 2 Antidegradation
R eview s 2 Annual Burden (hours/year) 3 Annual Cost ( 2013 $/year) 4

25,780 258 33, 5 40

- 100, 620 $1, 651 ,000

- $4, 928 ,000

1. Based on data from EPA ’s ICIS

- NPDES

.
2 . Represents 2 % of total number of dischargers multiplied by 50%.

3. N umber of Tier 2 antidegradation review s in each affected state and authorized tribe multiplied by potential per review burden of 130 to 390 hours, and summing across all affected states and
authorized tribes

.
4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49

.

3.2.5.2 More Extensive Tier 2 Antidegradation R eview s For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that all states and authorized tribes already perform/evaluate Tier 2 antidegradation reviews in those waters the state or authorized tribe deems requiring Tier 2 protection . However, today’s rule may increment ally increase the level of*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 11 effort needed to process each Tier 2 antidegradation review because the Tier 2 antidegradation
review must now evaluate a range of non

- degrading and less degr ading practicable alternatives

. Estimating the total burden and cost as sociated with performing/evaluating more extensive Tier 2 antidegradation review s requires an estimate of the total number of Tier 2 antidegradation
reviews in potentially affected states and authorized tribes

. EPA estimates the number of more extensive antidegradation reviews using the same method EPA use s to estimate the number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews in Section 3.2.5.1

. EPA obtained sufficient informat ion to
estimate whether or not 40 states and authorized tribes (with a total of 41,618 individual NPDES

permitted dischargers) do or do not evaluate a range of non

- degrading and less degr ading practicable alternatives . Of these 40 states and authorized tri bes , EPA estimates that 19 of the m do not evaluate a range of non

- degrading and less degr ading practicable alternatives . These 19 states and authorized tribes have 19,059 NPDES

- permitted dischargers

. Of the 96 states and authorized tribes, EPA does not hav e sufficient information to identify
whether or not 56 of them (96

– 40 ) evaluate a range of non

- degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives

. EPA estimates the number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews that will begin evaluating a range of non

- degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives in these 56
states and authorized tribes by applying the ratio of NPDES permits in states that EPA has
sufficient information to make such a conclusion

. F or the 40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information, EPA estimates that 19,059 out of 41,618 NPDES permits (or 45.8% of NPDES permits) are in states and authorized tribes that do not evaluate a range of non

- degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives

. The 56 states and autho rized tribes for which EPA
does not have sufficient information to identify if they will need to begin evaluating a range of

non

- degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives have 8

, 684 individual NPDES

permitted dischargers. Thus

, in states and au thorized tribes for which EPA has in sufficient information to identify if they will need to begin evaluating a range of non

- degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives

, EPA estimates there are 3,977 dischargers (45.8% × 8,684 NPDES permits ). Thus , EPA estimates a total of 23,036 individual NPDES

- permitted dischargers (19,059 + 3,977) in states and authorized tribes that will need to begin evaluating a range of non

- degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives

. EPA previously estimated the labor hours required to process a single Tier 2 antidegradation review that does not include an alternatives analysis to rang e from 100 hours to 300 hours, and that including an alternatives analysis could require approximately 30 to 90 additional labor hours. Using the same ratio of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews each year to total NPDES permitted dischargers that was used in Se ction 3.2.5.1 (2%) , EPA estimates that states and authorized tribes will process 461 Tier 2 antidegradation reviews that will need to begin evaluating a range of n on

- degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives (23,036 NPDES permits in affected states and authorized tribes × 2% of NPDES permits ). EPA estimate s the total
labor hours associated with this activity range s from 13, 830 hours (461 Tier 2 antidegra dation reviews per year × 30 hours per review) to 41, 490 hours (461 Tier 2 antidegradation reviews per

year × 90 hours per review). Using the average hourly wage rate of $49 ( Exhibit 3

- 1 ), EPA estimates the total incremental cost range s from approximately $ 69 2 ,0 0 0 ( 13,830 hours × $49 per hour ) to $2, 02 8

, 000 ( 41,490 hours × $49 per hour )

. Exhibit 3

- 6 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost associated with more
extensive Tier 2 antidegradation reviews.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 12 Exhibit 3

- 6 : Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated With More Extensive Tier 2
A ntidegradation Reviews

Total Number of Dischargers in All Affected
States and Authorized
Tribes 1 Potential Number of
Tier 2 antidegradation
Reviews 2 Annual Burden (hours/year) 3 Annual Cost ( 201 3 $/year) 4

23,036 461 13, 8 30

- 41, 4 90 $ 69 2 ,0 0 0

- $2, 02 8

, 000

1. Based on data from EPA ’s ICIS

- NPDES database

.
2 . Represents 2 % of the total number of dischargers in each affected state or authorized tribe

.
3. N umber of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews in each affected state and tribe multiplied by potential per review burden of 30 to 90 hours and summing across all affected states and authorized tribes.

4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49

.

3.2.5.3 Public Involvement

– Deciding Which Waters Will Receive Tier 2 Antidegradation Protection When Using a Water Body

- By

- Water Body Approach Today’s rule specifies that where the state or authorized tribe identifies water s for antidegradation protection on a water body

- by

- water body basis, the state or authorized tribe
shall provide an opportunity for public involvement on any decisions about whether Tier 2 antidegradation protection s will be afforded to a water body and the factors considered when making those decisions. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that those states and
authorized tribes that currently identif y waters for Tier 2 protection on a parameter

- by

- parameter basis already fulfill the public part icipation requirement of today’s rule because any Tier 2 antidegradation review in those states and authorized tribes already includes a public process in association with NPDES permit issuance or reissuance. EPA also makes the conservative assumption (lik ely to over estimate cost s ) that states and authorized tribes that currently use a water body

- by

- water body approach do not currently involve the public when deciding which waters will receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection. EPA further assumes that such a decision

making process will occur as a single effort for all waters of the state or authorized tribe . Once a state or authorized tribe designates the waters to which Tier 2 protection applies, EPA assumes
that the state or authorized tribe does not inc ur further incremental burden or cost associated with revising those designations because such revisions will likely occur in association with NPDES permit issuance or reissuance that already involve s a public process.

EPA estimates the effort needed to in volve the public (i.e., solicit comments, document the comments, and review, deliberate, and respond to comments) when deciding which water bodies
receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection is approximately 30% of the effort required for a WQS rulemaking as described in Section 3.2.1 . Thus

, EPA estimates the labor hours associated with
each occurrence of providing an opportunity for public involvement on decisions ab out which
water bodies receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection s and the factors considered when making
those decisions range from 150 hours (500 hours × 30% ) to 300 hours (1,000 hours × 30% ).

After reviewing all available state and authorized tribal antidegradation policies and implementation methods, EPA conclude s it has sufficient information to identify whether or not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 13 40 states and authorized tribes that use the water body

- by

- water body method provide an opportunity for public involvement on decisions about Tier 2 antidegradation protection in a
manner that is consistent with today’s rule

. Of those 40 states and authorized tribes, 18 of them may need to begin provid ing an opportunity for public involvement on decisions about Tier 2 antidegrad ation protection

. EPA does not have sufficient information to identify whether or not 56 states and authorized
tribes may need to begin providing an opp ortunity for public involvement (96 states and
authorized tribes

– 40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information )

. Of the 56 states and authorized tribes without sufficient information, EPA estimates the number of them that may need to begin providing an opportunity for public involvement by applying the ratio of the
number of states and author ized tribes with sufficient information to make such a conclusion

. As
described above for the 40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information

, EPA
estimates 18 of them ( 45 %) do not provide an opportunity for public involvement and may need

to begin doing so

. Applying this ratio to the 56 states and authorized tribes without sufficient
information results in 25 additional states and authorized tribes that may not currently provide an opportunity for public involvement and may need to begin doing so. Thus EPA estimates a total of 43 (18 + 25) states and authorized tribes may need to begin providing an opp ortunity for public involvement

. EPA estimates one

- time incremental labor hours range from approximately 6,450 hours (150 hours per state or auth orized tribe × 43 states and authorized tribes) to 12,900 hours (300 hours per state or authorized tribe × 43 states and authorized tribes). Using the estimated average hourly wage rate of $49 ( Exhibit 3

- 1 ), EPA estimates the total one

- time incremental cost associated with involving the public when deciding which waters will receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection could range from approximately $318,00 0 ( 6,450 hours × $ 4 9 per
hour ) to $632,000 ( 12,900 hours × $ 4 9 per hour ). Exhibit 3

- 7 summarizes the incremental
burden and cost associated with providing an opportunity for public involvement on decisions
about whether Tier 2 antidegradation protection s w ill be afforded and the factors considered when making those decisions

.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 14

Exhibit 3

- 7 : Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Public Involvement When Deciding Which Waters Will Receive Tier 2 Antidegradation Protection

Burden per
Effort ( h ours) 1 Cost per
Effort 2 Number of Potentially
Affected States
and Authorized
Tribes 3 Total Burden (h ours) 4 Total Cost (2013 $; one

time) 5 Annualized
Cost (2013 $/year) 6

150

- 300 $ 7,400

- $14,700 43 6,450

– 12,900 $318,000

- $632,000 $ 21,400

- $ 42,500

1. Reflects potential public involvement for determining the level of antidegradation protection
afforded to all waters

. 2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3. EPA estimates that 43 states and authorized tribes currently use the water body

- by

- water body approach.
4. Burden per state or authorized tribe multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and
authorized tribes.

5. Total burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49

. 6. Although EPA expects states and authorized tribes to incur rulemaking cost over an initial three

year period, it annualized total one

- time cost at a 3% discount rate over 2 0 years for comparative

purposes.

3.2.5.4 Public Involvement

– Developing or Revising Implementation Methods Today’s rule could potentially lead to incremental burden and cost associated with requiring states’ and authorized tribes’ antidegradation implementation methods (whether or not those methods are adopted into state or tribal rule) to be consistent with their antidegradation policies and with § 131.12(a). Burden and costs could also be associated with the requirement for states and authorized tribes to provide an opportunity for public involvement during the development and any subsequent revisions of antidegradation implementation methods, and to make the methods available to the public.

If a sta te or au thorized tribe adopts antidegradation implementation methods as part of its WQS or other legally binding provisions, the state’s or authorized tribe’s own public participation requirements and 40 CFR Part 25 and § 131.20(b) of the federal regulatio n, will satisfy this requirement and there is no incremental burden or cost . For states and authorized tribes that do

not adopt antidegradation implementation methods as part of their WQS or other legally binding provisions

, there may be incremental burden and cost associated with providing an opportunity for public involvement

. States and authorized tribes can use various mechanisms to provide such opportunities, including a public hearing, a public meeting, a public workshop, and different ways of engagin g the public via the Internet, such as webinars and website postings

.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 15 On the basis of stakeholder input, EPA estimates that involving the public when developing or revising antidegradation methods requires between 150 and 300 labor hours. EPA estimates tha t states and authorized tribes will develop and/or revise their antidegradation implementation methods no more often than once every ten years. Using the average hourly wage rate of $49 ( Exhibit 3

- 1 ), EPA estimates the cost of involving the public for a single state or authorized tribe that does not already adopt their implementation metho ds as legally binding WQS could range from approximately $700 ($49 per hour × 150 hours per occurrence ÷ 10 years per occurrence) to $1,500 ($49 per hour × 300 hours per occurrence ÷ 10 years per occurrence) per year.

Estimating the total incremental burde n and cost for all affected states and authorized tribes requires knowledge of the number of states and authorized tribes that do not already conduct a public process in association with developing or revising their antidegradation implementation
methods. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that those states and authorized tribes that do not already have antidegradation implementation methods in legally binding WQS do not provide the opportunity for public involvement when developing or revising t heir antidegradation methods

. After reviewing available state and authorized tribal antidegradation policies and implementation methods, EPA obtained sufficient information to identify whether or not 27 st ates and authorized
tribes may need to develop or r evise antidegradation implementation methods that are not currently adopted as WQS . Of these 27 states and authorized tribes , EPA concludes that 12 of
them will likely need to develop or revis e their antidegradation methods

. Of the 96 states and authorized tribes, EPA does not have sufficient information to conclude whether or not 69 of them (96 states and authorized tribes

– 27 states and authorized tribes with
sufficient information ) may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation methods
tha t are not currently adopted as WQ S

. EPA estimates the number of these states and authorized tribes by applying the ratio of the number of states and authorized tribes with sufficient
information to make such a conclusion

. As described above, EPA estimates 1 2 out of 27 states and authorized tribes (4 4 %) may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation methods that are not currently adopted as WQ S

. Applying this ratio to the 69 states and
authorized tribes without sufficient information results in 31 additional states and authorized tribes that may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation methods that are not currently adopted as WQ S

. Thus EPA estimates a total of 43 (1 2 + 31 ) states and authorized tribes may need to develop or revi se antidegradation implementation methods that are not currently adopted as WQ S

. EPA estimates the number of total labor hours required to involve the public in developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods range from 645 hours (150 hours × 43 states
and authorized tribes ÷ 10 years per occurrence) to 1,290 hours (300 hours per occurrence × 43
states and authorized tribes ÷ 10 years per occurrence) per year. Using the average hourly wage rate of $49 ( Exh ibit 3

- 1 ), the total cost of involving the public in developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods could range from approximately $30,000 ($49 per hour × 645 hours) to $65, 000 ($49 per hour × 1,290 hours) per year. This cost may be lower if a state or authorized tribe decides to formally adopt implementation methods into WQS or otherwise already complies with the public participation requirement of today’s rule

. Exhibit 3

- 8
summarizes the incremental burden and cost associated with involving the public in developing

or revising antidegradation implementation methods.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 16 Exhibit 3

- 8 : Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Public Involvement for Developing or Revising Antidegradation Implementation Methods

Bu rden per
Effort ( h ours) 1 Annual Cost per State or
Authorized
Tribe 2 Number of Potentially
Affected States and
Authorized Tribes 3 Total Annual Burden (h ours) 4 Total Annual Cost (2013

$ /year ) 5

150

- 300 $ 700

- $ 1,500 43 645

– 1,290 $30,000

- $65,000

1. Reflects potential incremental effort for public involvement in developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods

.
2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49 and divided by 10

years.

3. EPA estimates that there are 43 states and authorized tribes that do not have antidegradation implementation methods adopted into WQS

. 4. Burden per effort multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and authorized tribes and divided by 10 years.

5. Total annual burden for all potentially affected state s and authorized tribe s multiplied by average hourly wage of $49

.

3.2.6 WQS Variances

EPA identifies two requirements in today’s rule that could potentially result in incremental
burden and cost associated with WQS variances :

• Today’s rule specifies the documentation a state or authorized tribe must submit to EPA when requesting EPA review and approval of a WQS variance. Some states and authorized
tribes may not currently provide such documentation and may incur incremental burden and

cost associated with providing this documentation

.

• Today’s rule requires a state or authorized tribe to reevalua t e WQS variances with a term longer than 5 years no less frequently than every five years. S ome states and authorized tribes

may not be reevaluating WQS variances as required by today’s rule and may need to begin doing so

.

3.2.6.1 Submission Requirements

A state or authorized tribe may incur incremental burden and cost associated with developing the required documentation for a WQS variance if it do es not already do so

. For the proposed rule,
EPA estimate d that developing and documenting a single WQS variance prev iously require d

, on
average , 1 25 to 150 labor hours , and that each state or authorized tribe will adopt approximately 3 WQS variance s each year

. After receiving stakeholder input, EPA revises its estimate to 1 25 to 3 00 labor hours to develop and document a single WQS variance and adoption of approximately 10 WQS variance s per year

.
EPA further estimate s that if a state or authorized tribes has not fulfill ed the WQS variance
documentation requirements specified in today’s rule

, doing so could increase the labor hours approximately 25 %. Thus, EPA estimates the potential incremental burden associated with*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 17 fulfilling the WQS variance documentation requirements c ould range from approximately 31
hours ( 1 25 hours × 25 % ) to 75 hours ( 3 00 hours × 25 % ) for each WQS variance

.
A state or authorized tribe typically reviews a discharger

- specific WQS variance request by a NPDES permittee , adopt s the WQS variance into their WQS, and then submit s the WQS
variance and supporting documentation to EPA for review and approval or disapproval

. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that all 96 states and authorized tribes currently do not fulfill all of the submission requirements specified in today’s rule

. Thus, EPA estimates the total
incremental labor hours associated with the documentation requirements for WQS variances

range from 29,760 hours per year ( 31 additional hours per WQS variance × 10 WQS variance s
per year × 96 states and authorized tribes ) to 72,000 hours per year ( 75 additional hour s per WQS variance × 10 WQS variance s per year × 96 states and authorized tribes )

. Using EPA ’s estimated average hourly wage rate of $49 ( Exhibit 3

- 1 ), total incremental cost c ould range from $ 1,459, 0 00 per year ( 29,760 additional hours per year  $49 per hour) to $ 3,53 3

, 0 00 ( 72,000 additional hours per year  $49 per hour). Exhibit 3

- 9 summarizes the potential
incremental annual burden and cost associated with additional documentation requirements for WQS variance submissi ons

.
Exhibit 3

- 9 : Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Additional Documentation Requirements for WQS Variance Submissions

Bu rden per State

or A uthorized
T ribe (hours /year ) 1 Cost per State or
A ut horized
T ribe ( 2013 $/ y ear) 2 Number of Potentially
Affected States
and A uthorized
T ribes Annual
Burden (hours /year ) 3 Annual Cost ( 2013 $/year) 4

31

- 75 $ 15,200

– $ 36,800 96 29,760

– 72,000 $ 1,459, 0 00

– $ 3,53 3

, 0 00

1. Assuming states and authorized tribes adopt 10 WQS variance s per year

. 2. Hours per state or authorized tribe per year multiplied by average hourly wage of $49

. 3. Burden per state or authorized tribe per year multiplied by total number of potentially affected
states and authorized tribes

.
4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly wage of $49

.

3.2.6.2 Reevaluations

For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that states and authorized tribes will reevaluate WQS variance s either every 3 years during their triennial review or every 5 years during permit
reissuance

. Although EPA expects the term of WQS variances to vary widely from a few years to significantly more than 10 years , f or the purpose of this analysis

, EPA assumes an average WQS variance term of 10 years. A n average WQS variance term of 10 years is a reasonable estimate because it is consistent with a log distribution of WQS variance terms reflecting the likely scenario that most WQS variances will have relatively short terms and few er WQS
variances will have long terms. EPA estimates the labor hours needed to reevaluate a WQS*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 18 variance is approximately 15 % of the labor hours needed to process a new WQS variance application that fulfills the init ial submission requirements of today’s rule

. Today’s rule provides for a state or authorized tribe to specify the schedule of reevaluations so long as they occur no less frequently than every 5 years. EPA expects some states and authorized
tribes to synchr onize reevaluations to permit

- reissuance while other states and authorized tribes may synchronize reevaluations to the triennial review. EPA estimates one reevaluation per WQS
variance per year if a state or authorized tribe chooses to synchronize reevalua tions to permit
reissuance

, and 3 reevaluations per WQS variance per year if a state or authorized tribe chooses to synchronize reevaluations to the triennial review

. Thus, the average number of reevaluations
for each state or authorized tribe could range from 10 reevaluations per year (1 reevaluation per WQS variance per year × 10 WQS variances per year ) to 30 reevaluations per year (3
reevaluation s per WQS variance per year × 10 WQS variances per year)

. Using the previous
estimates of labors hours require d to process a WQS variance that does not include all submission requirements in S ection 3.2.6.1 (125 to 3 00 hours) and the additional labor hours required to fulfi ll those submission requirements ( 31 to 75 hours), EPA estimates that the labor hours to submit a complete WQS variance to EPA for review and approval or disapproval could

rang e from 156 hours ( 125 hours + 31 hours ) to 375 hours ( 3 00 hours + 75 hours )

. EPA
estimates that the labor hours needed to conduct a reevaluation of a WQS variance are approximately 15 % of the labor hours needed to process a new WQS variance. Thus, EPA
estimates that the incremental labor hours associated with revaluating each WQS vari ance could range from 23 hours ( 156 hours × 15 %) to 56 hours ( 375 hours × 15 %)

. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA mak es the conservative assum p tion (likely to over estimate
the cost ) that all 96 states and authorized tribes will adopt and submit to EPA 10 WQS variances each year. EPA estimates the total incremental labor hours associated with reevaluating WQS
variances range s from approximately 22,080 hours per year ( 23 hours per WQS variance × 1
reevaluations per WQS variance per year × 10 WQS variances per state or authorized tribe per
year × 96 states and authorized tribes ) to 161,280 hours per year ( 56 hours per WQS
variance × 3 reevaluations per WQS variance per year × 10 WQS variances per state or authorized tribe per year × 96 states and authorized tribes )

. Multiplying these estimated labor hours by EPA ’s estimated average hourly wage rate of $49 ( Exhibit 3

- 1 ) results in an estimated
total increm ental cost of approximately $ 1,08 5

, 000 to $ 7,90 1

, 00 0

. Exhibit 3

- 10 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost associated with today’s rule requir ing reevaluation of a WQS variance with a term longer than 5 years no less frequently than every 5 y ears

.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 19 Exhibit 3

- 10 : Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Reevaluating WQS
Variance s

Bu rden per State

or A uthorized
T ribe (hours /year ) 1 Cost per State or
A uthorized
T ribe ( 2013 $/year) 2 Number of Potentially
Affected States
and A uthorized
T ribes Annual Burden (hours /year ) 3 Annual Cost ( 2013 $/year) 4

230

– 1,680 $ 11,30 0

– $ 82,3 0 0 9 6 22,080

– 161,280 $ 1,08 5

, 000

– $ 7,90 1

, 00 0

1. Assuming states and authorized tribes adopt 10 WQS variance s per year and that states and
authorized tribes will reevaluate each WQS variance 1 to 3 times prior to expiration depending on the reevaluation cycle (e.g., permit cycle or triennial review)

. 2. Hours per state or authorized tribe per year multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.
3. Burden per state or authorized tribe per year multiplied by total number of potentially affected
states and authorized tribes

.
4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by ave rage hourly wage of $49

.

3.2.7 Compliance Schedules Authorizing Provisions Today’s rule requires that if a state or authorized tribe intends to authorize the use of compliance schedules for WQBELs in NPDES permits, it must first adopt a permit compliance schedu le authorizing provision. The authorizing provision must be consistent with the CWA and is subject to EPA review and approval as a WQS. Section 3.2.1 accounts for the incremental burden and cost associated with adoption of such a provision as a part of state or authorized tribal rulemaking burden and cost.

3.2.8 Summary of Estimated Burden and Cost to States and A uthorized T ribes

Exhibit 3

- 11 provides a summary of the estimated national cost to all states and authorized tribes

. T he cost associated with designated uses , triennial reviews, more and/or more extensive antidegradation review s , involving the public when developing or revising antidegradation methods, and WQS variances are annual costs. Costs associated with WQS rulemaking activities
and public i nvolvement when deciding which water bodies will receive Tier 2 antidegradati on protection o ccur once but are annualized for comparative purposes

.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 20 Exhibit 3

- 11 : Summary of Potential Incremental Burden and Cost to States and
Authorized Tribes

Provision One

- time Activities Annual Acti vities

Burden (hours) Total Cost (2013$ millions) Annual ized Cost (2013 $ million/year) 1 Burden (hours/year) Annual Cost (2013 $ million/year)

Rulemaking
Activities 48,000

- 96,000 $2.35

- $4.70 $0.16

- $0.32

-- --

Designated Uses

-- -- -- 2,250

- 4,500 $0.11

- $0.22

Triennial Review

-- -- -- 4,320

– 21,600 $0.21

- $1.06

Antidegradation 6,450

- 12,900 $0.32

- $0.63 $0.02

- $0.04 4 8

, 015

- 143, 400 $2.37

- $7.02

WQS V ariances

-- -- -- 51,840

- 233,280 $2.54

- $11.4 3

National Total 54,450

- 108,900 $2.67

- $5.34 $0.18

- $0.36 106, 425

- 402, 780 $5.2 4

- $19.73

‘

-- ‘ = not applicable

Note: Individual annual cost estimates do not add to total because of independent rounding.

1. Although EPA expects the o ne

- time rulemaking activit y cost to be incurred over an initial three

year period

, it annualized the cost at a 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes

.

3.3 Estimated Burden and Cost to the Agency

I n addition to the potential burden and cost to states and authorized tribes , the WQS regulation
revisions may be potentially associated with incremental burden and cost to EPA

. These
incremental burden and cost to EPA are associated with the potential increase in workload to
review the additional WQS program materials submi tted by states and authorized tribes because of the WQS regulation revisions

. Based on best professional judgment, EPA conservatively
estimates (likely overestimating the cost ) the incremental burden and cost to EPA assuming the

cost is approximately 20% of the cost to states and authorized tribes . Thus, EPA estimates that
the one

- time incremental cost to the Agency range s from $ 534,000 ($ 2,670,000 × 20%) to $ 1,067,000 ($ 5,336,000 × 20%) , and e stimated annual incremental cost to EPA range s from $1, 04 8 ,000 ( $ 5, 23 9

, 00 0 × 20%) to $ 3, 94 6 ,000 ( $19, 7 32

, 000 × 20%).

EPA assumes that EPA staff review ing 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. 13 per hour (U.S. Office of Personnel*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 21 Management 201 3 )

. 3 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 $ 7 5.41 ($ 47. 13 per hour + (60% × ($ 47. 13 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, EPA estimate s the
number of labor hours and EPA FTEs associated with the increased work load under the WQS regulation revisions . Estimated one

- time incremental labor hours to EPA ranges from 7, 0 80 hours ($ 534,000 ÷ $ 7 5.41 per hour) to 14, 150 hours ( $1,067,000 ÷ $ 7 5.41 per hour). These one

time incremental labor hours estimates correspond to 3. 4 FTEs ( 7,010 hours ÷ 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year) to 6. 8 FTEs ( 14, 150 hours ÷ 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year)

. Estimated annual incremental burden to EPA ranges from 13, 900 hours per year ( $ 1, 04 8 ,000 ÷ $ 7 5.41 per hour) to 5 2, 320 hours per year ( $3, 94 6 ,000 ÷ $ 7 5.41 per hour). These annual incremental burden estimates correspond to 6. 7 FTEs per year ( 13, 880 burden hours ÷ 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year) to 25.2 FTEs per year ( 5 2

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

Exhibit 3

- 12 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost to the Agency
associated with the WQS regulation revisions

.
Exhibit 3

- 12 : Summary of Potential Incremental Burden and Cost to the Agency

One

- time Recurring

Cost to the

Agency

( 2013$
million ) 1 Annualized
Cost to the

Agency (2013$ million per year) 2 Burden Cost to the Agency ( 2013$

million per

year ) 1 Burden

Hours 3 FTEs 4 Hours per

year 3 FTEs per

year 4

$0.53

- $1.07 $0.04

- $0.07 7, 0 80

- 14, 150 3. 4

- 6. 8 $1.05

- $3.95 13, 900

- 5 2, 320 6. 7

- 2 5.2

1. Assuming that the incremental burden and cost to EPA are equal to 20% of the burden and cost

to states and authorized tribes

.
2. Although EPA expects this one

- time cost to be incurred over an initial three

- year period, the cost
is annualized at 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes.

3. Tot al cost to the Agency divided by hourly wage rate ($ 7 5.41 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).

3 The employees reviewing and approving WQS materials submitted by states an d authorized tribes include EPA staff in the Washington, DC area and EPA regional staff. Hence, EPA calculates the average of all locality wage rates for federal employees at GS 13, Step 5 in 2013.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 22 3.4 Summary of Potential Burden and Cost

Exhibit 3

- 13 provides a summary of the estimated cost to all potentially affect ed states and
authorized tribes

, and to EPA

. To obtain a total cost estimate that accou nts for both one

- time and recurring cost

, EPA cho s e a period for analysis, calculated the cost for each year within that period, calculated the present value of the cost , and then estimated a total annualized cost

. The

cost of today’s rule is the same in e ach year after the first year. Therefore, EPA chose a 20

- year period because 20 years extends past the time when the cost has reached a steady state and for which it is reasonable to project into the future. Note that t his period may result in an
overestimation of the total cost because most of the one

- time cost will probably have already
occurred before 20 year s

. Using a 20

- year period of analysis and a discount rate of 3%, the net present value of the cost associated with today’s rule ranges from $ 96. 78 million to $ 358. 70 million, while the total annualized cost range s from $ 6. 51 million to $ 24. 11 million

.
Exhibit 3

- 13 : Summary of Potential Incremental Burden and Cost to States, Authorized Tribes, and the Agency

One

- time Activities Annual Activities

Burden (hours) Cost (2013$ million) Annual ized Cost (2013$ million/year) 1 Burden (hours/year) Annual Cost (2013$ million/year)

States and
Authorized
T ribes 54,450

- 108,900 $2.67

- $5.34 $0.18

- $0.36 106, 425

- 402, 780 $5.2 4

- $19.73

Agency 7, 0 8 0

- 14, 15 0 $0.53

- $1.07 $0.04

- $0.07 13, 90 0

- 5 2

, 32 0 $1.05

- $3.95

Total 2 61, 530

- 12 3

, 050 $3.2 0

- $6.4 0 $0.22

- $0.43 120, 325

- 45 5

, 100 $6. 2 9

- $23. 6 8

Note: Individual annual cost estimates do not add to total because of independent rounding.

1. Although EPA expects states and authorized tribes to incur a rulemaking cost over an initial
three

- year period

, it annualized the one

- time cost at a 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes

.
2. The net present value of the total cost over a 20

- year period (using a 3 % discount rate) ranges from $ 96. 78 million to $ 358. 70 million, while the total annualized cost range s from $ 6. 51 million to $ 24. 11 million

.

3.5 Limitations and Uncertainties

The re are limited data available to estimate the potential burden and cost associated with the regulatory revisions. This section discuss es the quality of the d ata and information underlying the
estimates , limitations on the data use, and quality assurance and quality control activities that EPA performed to support the economic analysis.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 23 3.5.1 Key Assumptions

EPA used best professional judgment to develop estimates of potential burden. As such, there is substantial uncertainty surrounding these estimates. EPA acknowledges this uncertainty, which
could result in under or overestimates of incremental burden.

For some estimates, EPA estimated burde n based on the number of permitted dischargers reported in ICIS

- NPDES. EPA designed this system for tracking permitted dischargers. As such,
the estimates from this source are the best estimates available.

EPA used federal data sources to estimate the cost of the incremental burden. The federal agencies that develop these data do so specifically for tracking the cost of labor. As such, the
estimates from these sources are the best estimates available. Uncertainties relate to the labor categories and mix of categories. Additionally, data are not available for tribes. EPA ’s use of an
average based on four different occupation categories may over

- or underestimate the actual cost

. Exhibit 3

- 14 documents a ddition al assumptions that EPA made in developing the estimates, notes the likely direction of impact of the assumption on the estimates, and provides additional information for evaluating the strength of each assumption.

E xhibit 3

- 14 : Uncertainties in the Analysis

Key Assumption/Uncertainty Potential Impact
on Estimated
Burden and Cost Comment

Labor hours required to implement various provisions based on best professional judgment. ? Labor hours needed depend on a number of factors including state and
authorized tribe sizes, level of economic activity involving dischargers to water, as well as existing regulatory framework and may be higher or lower than EPA ’s estimates.
Th e estimates do not account for potential reductions in burden resulting from the increased clarity provided by today’s rule

.

Number of states and authorized
tribes affected by each provision is
uncertain. ? Actual number of states and
authorized tribes that will incur costs could be higher or lower than EPA
estimates.

Labor cost based on state government wage rates. ? The mix of labor categories (e.g., environmental scientist, engineer, etc.) may be different for individual states
from the mix that EPA used to calculate a wage rate. Also, labor cost for authorized tribes and territories may differ from states.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 24 E xhibit 3

- 14 : Uncertainties in the Analysis

Key Assumption/Uncertainty Potential Impact
on Estimated
Burden and Cost Comment

States and authorized tribes are not currently documenting their reasons for not adopting new or revised
criteria during the triennial review

process for parameters for which EPA published new or updated CWA section 304(a ) criteria
recommendation s

. + The cost may be overestimated
because t he WQS regulation already requires states and authorized tribes to submit the re sults of their triennial
review to EPA . If this submission
includes explanation as to why new or revised criteria are not adopted for parameters for which EPA published new or updated CWA section 304(a)
criteria recommendations

, the cost
could be lower

.
States and authorized tribes do no t currently involve the public in antidegradation determinations or in the development of their implementation methods. + The cost may be overestimated for
states and authorized tribes that already solicit public involveme nt in accordance with the WQS regulation
revisions.

States or tribes do not reevaluate WQS variance s at regular intervals. + The c osts may be overestimated for
states and authorized tribes that
reevaluate WQS variance at least every 5 years in accordance with the WQS regulation revisions.

All states and authorized tribes undertake a rulemaking effort in
response to today’s rule

. + The cost may be overestimated
because s tates and authorized tribes that already have policies and methods
consistent with today’s rule do not incur an incremental cost

.
The number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews per year is
based on information from two states (Iowa and Missouri). ? The actual number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews per state or authorized tribe may be higher or
lower than EPA ’s estimates.

WQS variance s last for 10 years. ? The number of re evaluations per WQS
variance depends, in part, on the
duration of the WQS variance . Shorter WQS variance periods result in fewer

re evaluations and vice versa.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3

- 25 E xhibit 3

- 14 : Uncertainties in the Analysis

Key Assumption/Uncertainty Potential Impact
on Estimated
Burden and Cost Comment

States and authorized tribes may be required to undertake activities
related to today’s rule that EPA has not identified in this analysis. – The cost may be underestimated
because EPA has not identified all the
relevant activities states and authorized

t ribes may need to perform as a result of today’s rule.

Incremental cost to the Agency are equal to 20% of the cost to states and authorized tribes

. + The cost may be overestimated
because t he estimated burden on the Agency to review and approve WQS materials submitted by states and
authorized tribe may be too high

. Key:

“+” = Burden and cost potentially overestimated

“

- “ = Burden and cost potentially underestimated

“?” = Impact on burden and cost uncertain

3.5.2 QA/QC Activities To ensure the quality of the estimates based on the data and assumptions described above, EPA performed a variety of checks on the spreadsheet calculations and the transfer of the results into the tables and text throughout this report. These include using best practices for developing spreadsheets to minimize errors; verifying data inputs and transfer from the source; checking formulas; and compari ng results across formats.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 4. Small Entity Analysis 4

- 1 

### 4. Small Entity Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires F ederal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small entities, to analyze alternatives that minimize those impacts, 4 and to make their analyses available for public comments. The RFA addresses three types of small entiti es: small businesses, small nonprofits, and small government jurisdictions. These entities have the following definition under the RFA:

• Small business has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act, whic h authorizes the Small Business Administration to define “small business” by regulations. These definitions generally categorize which businesses are small based on the number of employees or average annual receipts;

• Small organization means any not

- for

- p rofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field; and

• Small governmental jurisdiction means governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.

Additionally, Federal agencies may establish , with opportunity for public comment and with publicatio n of the alternate definition in the Federal Register that entities should qualify as small
based on additional factors

. The RFA describes the regulatory flexibility analyses and procedures that must be completed by federal agencies unless they certify tha t today’s rule , if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification must be supported by a statement of factual basis, such as addressing the number of small entities affected by the pr oposed action, expected cost impacts on these entities, and evaluation of the economic impacts.

As documented in Section 3 of this report, the revisions to the WQS regulation do not establish any new requirements directly applicable to regulated entities. T oday’s rule impacts states and
authorized tribes that implement WQS in the form of administrative burden and cost , and to EPA
in the form of additional reviews of program materials submitted by states and authorized tribes

. States and tribes are not small entities under the RFA. As such, today’s rule will not result in impacts to small entities.

4 Section 603(c) of the RFA provides examples of such alte rnatives as: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolida tion, or simplification of compliance and reporting require ments under today’s rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of today’s rule, or any part thereof, for such
small entities.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 1 

### 5. Potential Incremental Benefits of the Revisions

States and authorized tribes will benefit from today’s rule by better utilization of available regulatory tools that allow them the flexibility to implement their WQS programs in an efficient manner. Stakeholders and the public will benefit from greater transparency and open public participation. Although EPA estimates the burden and cost directly associated with today’s rule, EPA does not estimate the potential burden and costs savin gs associated with reducing regulatory uncertainty and increasing overall program efficiency. Moreover, EPA does not estimate potential indirect burden and cost associated with today’s rule because EPA cannot reliably predict the control measures each indi vidual state and authorized tribe is likely to implement. Because more efficient and effective implementation of state and authorized tribal WQS provides a variety of economic benefits associated with cleaner water, the sections below qualitatively describ e some of the benefits of today’s rule. The first section describes some of the potential direct benefits of today’s rule. The second section describes some of the potential indirect benefits of improving and maintaining the nation’s waters.

5.1 Benefits by Pr ogram Area Today’s rule will increase clarity and specificity in 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 ) WQS variance s ; and (6) compliance schedule authorizing provisions

. States and authorized tribes , other stakeholders, and the public will benefit from clarification in these key areas by being able to better understand and make proper
use of available CWA tools and flexib ilities under the conditions of 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 physic al integrity of the nation’s waters

.

5.1.1 Administrator’s Determinations

Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA provides the EPA Administrator with authority to determine that a new or revised WQS is necessary to meet the CWA requirements in those situations where

a s tate fails or is unable to act in a manner consistent with CWA provisions. An Administrator’s determination triggers the requirement for EPA to promptly prepare and publish regulations setting forth a revised or new WQS for the waters of the United States that are involved

. The public and stakeholders do not always clearly underst an d or interpret t he process whereby the Administrator determines that new or revised standards are necessary. For EPA to ensure effective implementation of the national WQS progra m, provide direct, clear, and transparent
feedback on state and tribal actions, it is essential that EPA maintain an open and constructive dialogue with states and authorized tribes and stakeholders on important water quality issues.
T he revision will establish a more transparent process for the Administrator to announce any
determination made under section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA. This revision will allow states and
authorized tribes to develop their WQS without fear of litigation trig gering a mandatory duty on the part of EPA to develop WQS for a state or authorized tribe before it is appropriate or necessary and before the state or authorized tribe had an opportunity to act on EPA ’s comments and guidance.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 2 5.1.2 Designated Uses Designated u ses communicate a state’s or authorized tribe’s environmental management goals
for its waters and drive on

- the

- ground water quality decision

- making and improvements. To establish appropriate WQS, states and authorized tribes define the water quality goals of a water body first by designating the use(s) and second by setting criteria necessary to protect those uses. WQS are the foundation for other CWA requirements applicable to a water body , such as WQBELs for point source dischargers, as well as assessment of waters and establishment of
TMDLs for waters not meeting applicable WQS

. Because designated uses play such an important role in the effective implementation of the CWA, it is essential to provide clear and concise regulatory requirements to states and authorized
tribes for designated uses. Today’s rule provides regulatory clarifications that will prevent conflicting interpretations which may lead to case

- by

- case analys e s and direct resources away from water quality restoration and maintenance efforts

. W hen stakeholders

, states and authorized
tribes collectively understand and determine the management goals for a particular water body or water bodies, stakeholders are more likely to become involved and work closely with the states and authorized tribes in the establishment and attainment of WQS, leading to improved stewardship and watershed protection efforts. The c learer, more accurate, and more refined the designated uses are in describing the state’s or tribe’s objective for a water body to support

aqua tic life, human health, recreation and other uses , t he more effective those use designations can be in driving the management actions necessary to restore and protect water quality

. Under today’s rule

, if a state or authorized tribe demonstrates through a defensible UAA that the use specified in Section 101(a)(2) or a sub

- category of such a use is not attainable and subsequently removes the use, then the state or authorized tribe shall adopt as replacement standards the highest degree of use that is attaina ble (i.e., the HAU )

. States and authorized tribes have flexibility to adjust current designated uses through a UAA process in accordance with the provisions of § 1 31.10(g). However, that flexibility is provided in the context of meeting the overall goals o f the CWA. As part of the UAA process, a state or authorized tribe may be able to adequately demonstrate that , for example, historic mining activities in an area result in nonattainment of applicable water quality criteria and the aquatic life use. However , if some less sensitive aquatic organisms are able to survive at the site, the goals of the CWA are not achieved by simply removing the aquatic life use designation and applicable criteria without considering if existing water quality can be maintained or , where applicable, restored. Rather, the revised provision require s that states and authorized tribes determine through the UAA the level of aquatic life protection that is attainable

, and then designate that use. This revision will ensure
that WQS reflect the greatest water quality possible, thus protecting the economic, .

5.1.3 Triennial Reviews

T oday’s final rule contains two revisions to the triennial review requirements at 40 CFR 131.20(a). First, the rule requires that if states and authorized tribe s choose not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recomm endations, states and authorized tribes must explain their decision when reporting the results of their triennial review to EPA under CWA section 303(c)(1) and 40 CFR 131.20(c). Second, the rule clarifies what are the “applicable water quality standards” that states
and authorized tribes mu st review triennially

. These provisions ensure that states and authorized
tribe s appropriately consider any and all existing criteria established pursuant to 40 CFR 131.11*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 3 during the triennial review, including EPA’s new or updated CWA section 304(a)
recommendations

. WQS optimally protect water quality when they are based on the latest science and information.
The water quality requirements needed to support aquatic life

, recreation

, unique and significant ecologies

, and species habitat can change as new scientific studies establish new knowledge about how aquatic systems operate. Achieving the water quality needed to protect designated
uses are best achieved when states and authorized tribes established and update their WQS using
the best available science and information. The triennial review provisions in today’s rule will

ensur e that states and authorized tribes use the latest scientific information to provide for the greatest water quality possible

, leading to the economic, human health and ecological benefits
that derive from clean water.

5.1.4 Antidegradation

Section 101(a) of the CWA emphasizes the prevention of water pollution and expressly includes the objective of restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (33 U.S.C. 1251). The antidegradation requirements that EPA incorporated by regulation in 1983 into § 1 31.12 implement the maintenance aspect of CWA section 101(a) and are an essential component of the overall WQS program. Antidegradation policy plays a critical role in allowing states and authorized tribes to maintain and protect the valuable resource of high quality water s , and ensur es that decisions to allow a lowering of water quality are made in a public and transparent manner that serve s the public good. High quality water s support aquatic life

, recreation

, unique and significant ecologies

, and species habitat. High quality waters

can maintain a greater diversity of biological species and a more complex community structure than other waters. These attributes confer a special degree of resiliency and resistan ce to adverse effects, particularly as the N ation’s waters face an increasing degree of stress from anthropogenic
influences

. Protection of high quality waters is support s both economic and social development. High quality water s contribute to public healt h, aquatic ecosystems, drinking water supplies, and to the welfare of families and communities. The health and growth of tourism, recreation, fishing, and businesses and jobs they create rely on a high quality and sustainable source of water

. Degradation o f water quality poses a risk to public health, harms aquatic ecosystems , and can
increas e water treatment cost that must be borne by ratepayers and local governments

. Maint aining high quality waters can save time and economic resources to a community in th e long

- term. If a high quality water becomes impaired, it can take significant amounts of time and financial resources to develop a TMDL and implement activities to restore the water body

. Effectively using an antidegradation program to prevent water degra dation in the first place is very often more cost

- effective and efficient. In addition, maintaining a water body in its initial high quality state helps ensure the preservation of unique attributes that might be impossible to fully restore. Section 5.2 of this report contains a more detailed discussion on the benefits associated with high quality water

.

5.1.4.1 Identifying High Quality Waters Today’s rule requires states and authorized tribes to identify high quality waters on a parameter

by

- parameter basis or on a water body

- by

- water body approach, unless the state or authorized
tribe describes an alternate approach that considers the chemical, physical, and biological*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 4 integrity of the water body

. In the absence of data for such holistic evaluation, the state or authorized tribe shall apply high quality water protection per § 1 31.12(a)(2).

EPA expects states and authorized tribes to consider a combination of chemical, biological, and physical characteristics, using all the relevant available data to conduct an overall holistic
assessment of one or more of these characteristics in order to determine whether a water body
receive s Tier 2 protection. The approa ch should not simply limit the applicability of Tier 2 through a list of disqualifiers for Tier 2 protection (e.g., listing on the state’s CWA section 303(d) list) because such disqualifiers are potentially poor indicators of the overall quality of a
surfa ce water and the value of affording it Tier 2 protection under antidegradation policy

. This
revision will ensure protection of a larger number of high quality waters under antidegradation requirements.

5.1.4.2 Alternatives Analysis

Under today’s rule

, before allo wing a lowering of high water quality, states and authorized tribes must find, after an analysis of al ternatives, that such a lowering is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located. That

an alysis must evaluate a range of non

- degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives. When an analysis identifies one or more such practicable alternatives, states and authorized tribes may only find that a lowering is necessary if one such alternativ e is selected for implementation.

Today’s rule ensures that, where the alternatives analysis identifies one or more feasible alternatives to allowing the degradation, a project is modified to minimize degradation of water quality . This balanced analysis of water quality impacts along with other holistic considerations
offer s the most thorough and publicly transparent way to ensure that lower water quality is
allowed only when necessary, consistent with EPA ’s regulation

.

5.1.5 WQS Variance s The objective of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” However, as environmental challenges become more complex,
states and authorized tribes may require more time to determine and implement the best

strat egies to improve water quality and attain applicable designated uses while striving to achieve the CWA goal. As an alternative to a permanent use downgrade, EPA has encouraged
states and authorized tribes to utilize WQS variances as an important WQS tool t o provide states and authorized tribes time to make progress towards attaining a designated use and criteria

.
EPA ’s existing WQS regulation lacks explicit provisions on the issue of WQS variance s . A s a result, EPA has heard from states and authorized tribe s , and stakeholders that there are confusion, inconsistency, and mixed interpretations about how, when, and where WQS variance s may be used. Today’s rule provide s greater regulatory specification for implementation of a WQS variance as a time

- limited desig nated use and criterion. This revision will encourage proper use of WQS variance s as a tool for achieving WQS and facilitating water quality improvements.

WQS variance s are different from changes to the permanent designated use and associated
criteria in t hat they are intended as a mechanism to provide time for stakeholders to implement adaptive management approaches that will improve water quality where the designated use and criterion currently in place are not being met. EPA requir es that interim limits and requirements*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 5 reflect the highest attainable condition during the term of the WQS variance . Th ese requirements must protect the interim designated use and be based on sound scientific rationale

. This provision is essential because it provides regulatory assurance that the WQS variance will result in more than just maintaining the current water quality . Further, stakeholders may be less likely to perceive WQS variance s as a means of locking ambient conditions in place and delaying environmental improvements.

WQS variance s allow stakeholders to implement actions that will achieve interim uses and criteria that are attainable when there is uncertainty as to whether the designated use and
criterion may be ultimately attainable. WQS variance s are typically limited in their scope to one pollutant. WQS variance s are an environmentally preferable tool to a permanent designated use change in that d esignated use protection is retained for all pollutants as they apply to al l sources with the exception of those specified in the WQS variance . When properly applied, a WQS
variance can lead to improved water quality over time, and in some cases, full attainment of designated uses due to advances in treatment technologies, contro l practices, or other changes in circumstances, thereby furthering the objectives of the CWA

. The revisions will establish a standardized set of requirements to facilitate efforts to improve water quality by allowing stakeholders to address any challenges and uncertainties associated with attaining the designated use and the associated criterion

. The revisions ensure that states and
authorized tribes base their identification and water body assessments decisions (under CWA sections 303(d) and 305(b))

, and d evelopment of WQBELS in permits for pollutants and dischargers not specified in the WQS variance

, on the designated use and criterion, even under
the waterbody WQS variance scenario

. Through re evaluations, t hese revisions will also ensure that further feas ible progress toward the designated use and criterion will be made during the WQS variance period and will help meet CWA goals.

5.1.6 Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions

CWA section 502(17) defines “schedule of compliance” to mean “a schedule of remedial measures including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with an effluent limitation, other limitation, prohibition, or standard.” EPA ’s NPDES regulat ion at 40 CFR 122.2 defines a schedule of compliance as “a schedule of remedial measures included in a ‘permit,’ including an enforceable sequence of interim requirements...leading to compliance with the CWA and regulations.” Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA specifies that there shall be achieved “...not later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent limitation, including those necessary to meet WQS, treatment standards, or schedules of compliance, established pursuant to any state or authorized trib al law or regul ations (under authority preserved by section 1 370 of this title) or any other f ederal law or regulation, or required to implement any applicable water quality standard established pursuant to this chapter.”

EPA ’s current WQS regulation is silent regarding compliance schedules and compliance schedule authorizing provisions

. As a result, EPA is concerned that state and tribal permitting authorities may be including compliance schedules in permits, thus delaying compliance with a WQ BEL , even though the state o r authorized tribe may not have authorized the use of such compliance schedules in its WQS or implementing regulations. Today’s rule adds a new regulatory provision at § 1 31.15 to clarify that a state or authorized tribe may only issue compliance schedules for WQBELS in NPDES permits if the state or authorized tribe has authorized issuance of such compliance schedules pursuant to state or authorized tribe law in its*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 6 WQS or implementing regulations. Any such compliance schedule authorizing provision is a WQS subject to EPA ’s review and approval. The provision also clarif ies that individual compliance schedules issued pursuant to such authorizing provisions are not WQS but must be
consistent with CWA section 502(17), the state or authorized tribe ’s EPA

- approve d compliance schedule authorizing provision, and the requirements of 40 CFR § § 1 22.2 and 122.47.

Compliance schedule authorizing provisions allow the state or authorized tribe to provide a permittee additional time to comply with a WQBEL that derives from and complies with the applicable WQS beyond the date of permit issuance, which is the date upon which a permittee is otherwise required to comply with its WQBEL. A compliance schedule authorizing provision
allows the state or authorized tribe to delay when it will meet the applicable WQS

. By requiring
states and authorized tribes to authorize the use of compliance schedules in their WQS or implementing regulations, EPA ensures that WQBELs subject to appropriately issued compliance schedules are fully consiste nt with the requirements of WQS . Once approved pursuant to CWA section 303(c)(3), the compliance schedule authorizing provision itself becomes part of the applicabl e WQS . T herefore, any delay in compliance with a WQBEL pursuant to that permit compliance schedule is consistent with WQS

. These revisions will ensure that permittees do not unnecessarily delay implementation of WQS that are protective of water quality

.

5.2 Be nefits of Improved Water Quality
As stated above, today’s rule will improve the e ffectiveness of the WQS regulation in restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Improved water quality has many human health and ecological benefits , described below

.

5.2.1 Market Benefits The market benefits of improved water quality are reflected in its value to water supply and use, commercial fishing, and public and private ownership.

5.2.1.1 Water Supply and Use

• Drinking Water Treatment and Household Water Use. Reducing contaminants, nutrients, and sediment in potable water supplies lowers the cost of treating these waters

, reduces the health risk from potential exposure to contaminated drinking water, and
avoids the need to dev elop alternative raw water sources. Discharged pollutants worsen water quality and require increased spending on treatment measures such as settlement ponds, filtration, and chemical treatment. Reducing nutrient loadings to surface waters reduces eutrophic ation, which is one of the main causes of taste and odor impairment in drinking water. Taste and odor in drinking water ha ve a major negative impact on the public perception of drinking water safety and result in a significant increase in drinking

water tr eatment cost to address foul taste and odor in the source waters. If adequate water treatment is not available, a temporary water source needs to be substituted (if available). If an alternative water supply is not at hand, urban areas might need to be sup plied with bottled or tankered water, as has been the case in Ohio ( Yeager

- Kozacek

, 2014 ). Long

term solutions might require the development of new raw water supplies, which would involve investments for acquisition of land (if available), regulatory review and permitting, development of infrastructure (dams, pumps, pipes), and watershed protection.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 7 • Agricultural Water Use. Irrigation water that contains pollutants can harm crops and reduce agricultural productivity (Clark et al. 1985). Although elevate d nutrient concentrations in irrigation water would not adversely affect its usefulness for plants, concerns exist for potential residual effects due to contaminants entering the food chain. More importantly, eutrophication promotes cyanobacterial blooms t hat can kill livestock
and wildlife that drink the contaminated surface water. T he reduction in nutrients loading

, for example due to adoption or improved implementation of WQS, can provide benefits in increased cattle production or avoided cost due to cat tle sickness or death.

• Reservoir Dredging. Water storage facilities (e.g., reservoirs) serve many functions, including providing drinking water, flood control, hydropower supply, and recreational opportunities. Sediment, one of the pollutants likely to be reduced by improved implementation of WQS , can be carried from streams into reservoirs, where it can settle and build up layers of silt over time. This increase in sedimentation rates will reduce reservoir capacity. To replace this capacity, sediment must be dredged from reservoirs, or new reservoirs must be constructed (Clark et al. 1985). Water quality criteria reduce the amount of sediment entering reservoirs and, as a result, the need for sediment mitigation
measures in these reservoirs and the cost of reservoir maintenance. Because sediment mitigation is often accomplished through dredging, which itself is environmentally destructive, an additional benefit to reduced reservoir sediment buildup is the reduced environmental impact of dredging sediment an d disposing of it.

• Industrial Water Use. Sediment discharges may also have negative effects on industrial water users. Suspended sediment increases the rate at which hydraulic equipment, pumps, and other equipment wear out, causing accelerated depreciation of capital equipment. Sediment can also clog cooling water systems at power plants and other large industrial facilities (Clark et al. 1985). Improved water quality standard implementation will reduce
sediment concentrations in source waters and thus leng then the useful life of industrial equipment

.

5.2.1.2 Commercial Fishing Pollutants regulated by WQS can greatly reduce fish populations and therefore the size of
commercial harvest by inhibiting reproduction and survival of an aquatic species. These changes

nega tively affect subsistence anglers, commercial anglers and fish sellers, and consumers of fish and fish products. Improvement of water quality due to the more efficient implementation of WQS will enhance aquatic life habitat and thus contribute to reproduct ion and survival of commercially harvested species, which in turn will lead to an increase in producer and consumer surplus.

5.2.1.3 Public and Private Property Ownership Aesthetic degradation of land and water resources resulting from pollutant discharges (e.g., increased water turbidity) can reduce the market value of property and thus affect the financial status of property owners. For example, a hedonic price study by Bejranonda et al. (1999) found that “the rate of sediment inflow entering the lakes has a neg ative influence on lakeside property rent” (p. 216). Sediment discharges also have a significant impact on stream morphology. For example, higher coarse sediment load leads to an increase in width of the riverbed and, as a result, bank erosion (Wheeler et al. 2003). A 1993 study of Lake Erie’s housing market found
that “erosion

- prone lakeshore property will be discounted” (Kriesel et al. 1993).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 8 Conversely, w ater quality i mprovement and protection can increase or maintain waterfront property values

. Studies suggest that waterfront property is more desirable when located near unpolluted water, and therefore property values increase with improved water quality. Likewise, stabilization of stream banks leads to an increase in the value of surrounding property (St reiner and Loomis 1996).

5.2.2 Nonmarket Benefits The nonmarket benefits of improving or protecting water quality include those associated with human health, recreation, and nonmarket nonuse values.

5.2.2.1 Human Health Improvements Cleaner water may lead to a reduction in illness either through reduced consumption of
contaminated seafood or through reduced exposure to infectious disease during recreati on activities in contaminated waters. Some contaminants , such as mercury, PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, and DDT, may persist for long periods of time and bioaccumulate (e.g., they can be found in levels several time higher than ambient water in large fish such as b ass that consume contaminated bottom dwelling animals ) . Eating fish contaminated with mercury or PCBs may
lead to d evelopmental and neurological problems and is especially hazardous for children and pregnant wom e n. Consumption of shellfish may lead to exposure to bacteria and viruses that can accumulate in shellfish from ambient water

. Swimmers, boaters, and other recreational water users may also suffer from gastrointestinal and other illnesses due to ingesting, immersing, or wading in water that contains enteric pathogens
such as fecal bacteria and viruses. To the extent that today’s r ule increases the nation’s water quality by reducing current exposures and illness and prevent ing future exposures and illness, society benefits

. The benefits are reflected in the avoided cost of illness, including treatment cost and lost wages, as well as in the public’s willingness

- to

- pay , which also includes the value of avoided pain and suffering.

5.2.2.2 Recreational Benefits Benefits also include the value of improved environmental goods and services used and valued by people even if these services and goods are not traded in markets. Aesthetic degradation of water resources can reduce owner satisfaction with the property and the residential area in general. It can also adversely affect recreational opportunities. Improved water quality from reducing pollutant discharges or preventing degradation may translate into two components of recreational benefits: (1) an increase in the value of a recreational trip resulting from a more enjoyable experience, and (2) an increase in recreational participation

. Recreationa l activities that may be adversely impacted by water pollution are summarized below

.

• Outings. Activities that take place near water such as hiking, jogging, picnicking, and
wildlife viewing may be adversely affected by pollutant discharges into the water. While these activities do not involve contact with the water, murky and visually unpleasant water and odors associated with some types of pollutants may greatly detract from the enjoyment of these activities. Decreases in fish populations may cause a reduc tion in wildlife near the resource, affecting wildlife viewing. Pollutants may negatively affect local flora and fauna, reducing the aesthetic appeal of the area near the resource and negatively impacting wildlife viewing.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5

- 9 • Recreational Fishing. Degraded wa ter can reduce fish populations by inhibiting reproduction and survi val of an aquatic species. This effect may lead to fewer and smaller fish and a reduction of the game fish population. In addition, pollutants may reduce the
aesthetics of the water body

, which may reduce anglers’ utility (enjoyment) of their fishing experience. Additionally, turbidity caused by pollutant discharges may affect recreational anglers by reducing the distance over which fish can see lures, resulting in lower catch rates (Clark et al. 1985).

• Boating. Polluted water greatly reduces the aesthetic appeal of recreational boating activities. Turbidity caused by sediment and other pollutant discharges may affect the safety of boating. Turbidity may obscure underwater obstacles, making collisions more likely. Increased sediment concentrations may also create sandbars, increasing the chances of running aground. Clark et al. (1985) estimated that turbidity (from all sources) may be responsible for as many as 200 boating fatalities and many more injuries each year. Using the value for a statistical life’s worth of risks ($7 million) and multiplying it by the number of boating fatalities yields the value of preventing these fatalities of $1.4 billion per year. Even if reducing discharges prev ents only a small number of fatalities and injuries each year, the expected monetary value of preventing boating accidents can be significant

.

• Swimming. Pollution of water by toxic chemicals or by fecal indicator bacteria may cause closure of water bodies for swimming. Eutrophication caused by nutrients and turbidity caused by sediment and other pollutants also may greatly reduce a swimmer’s aesthetic enjoyment of a water body . Additionally, turbidity may create safety haza rds for the swimmer by reducing the ability to see underwater hazards or increasing diving accidents by impairing the ability to gauge water depth

.

• Hunting. Similar to the effect on outings, discharged pollutants may greatly detract from the hunters’ aesthetic enjoyment of a water resource. Damage to flora and fauna may also
affect the game population, reducing the number and quality of the game available

.

5.2.2.3 No nmarket Nonuse Benefits Even if no human activities or uses are affected by the potential positive environmental changes caused by today’s rule , such environmental changes may still affect social welfare. For a variety of reasons, including bequest, altrui sm, and existence motivations, individuals may value the knowledge that water quality is maintained, that ecosystems are protected, and that populations of individual species are healthy

, completely independent of their use value. It is often difficult

to quantify the relationship between changes in pollutant discharges and the improvements in
societal well

- being that are not associated with current use of the affected ecosystem or habitat. That these values exist, however, is indisputable, as evidenced, fo r example, by society’s willingness to contribute to organizations that purchase and preserve lands or habitats to avert development (although some portion of these donations may be motivated by use values). Notwithstanding challenges involved in estimatio n of nonuse values, there is a substantial literature devoted to such issues (Bateman et al. 2002). This literature supports the significan ce of nonmarket, nonuse values within various types of policy contexts and for various types of

resources.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 6. References 6

- 1 

### 6. References

Bateman, I. J., R. T. Carson, B. Day, M.; Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones

- Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Özdemiroḡlu, D. W. Pearce, R. Sugden, J. Swanson. 2002.
E conomic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: a Manual. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bejranonda, S. F.J. Hitzhusen; and D. Hite. 1999. “Agricultural Sedimentation Impacts on Lakeside Property Values.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 28(2): 20 8

- 18.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 201 3

. May 201 3 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, United States

. Available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

. Clark, E., J.A. Haverkamp, and W. Chapman. 1985. “Eroding Soils: The Off

- Farm Impacts.” Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation

. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2008. Fiscal Impact Statement Associated with the Notice of Intended Action: Antidegradation

– Water Quality Standards (Chapter 61)

. Kriesel, W., A. Randall, and F. Lichtkoppler. 1993. “Estimating the Benefits of Shore Erosion Protection in Ohio’s Lake Erie Housing Market.” Water Resources Research. 29(4). 795

- 801.

Missouri Department of Natural Re source ( MDNR ). 2008. Missouri Register: Proposed
Amendment: 10 CSR 20

- 7.031 Water Quality Standards. January 16, 2008.

Streiner, C.F. and Loomis, J.B. 1996. “Estimating the Benefits of Urban Stream Restoration Using the Hedonic Price Method.” Rivers. 5(4): 267

- 278.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2014. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/sw guidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm

. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011 b . Variance Compendium.
Available at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/humanhealth/rulemaking/VarianceComp endium110124.pdf

. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009 . National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/upload/nrwqc

- 2009.pdf

. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2007. Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/index.cfm/

. United States Environmental Prote ction Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Revised National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health . December.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. EPA

- 822

- R

- 02

- 047

. November.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1999. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria

– Correction. EPA 822

- Z

- 99

- 001 . April.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 6. References 6

- 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water (Gold Book ). EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001 . May

. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1976. Quality Criteria for Water (Red Book). PB

- 263 943. June

. United States Office of Personnel Management. 2014

. Sal ary Table 2014

- GS . Available at: http://www.opm.gov/policy

- data

- oversight/pay

- leave/salaries

- wages/2014/general

- schedule/

. Wheeler, A.P., A.E. Keiter Rosenberger and P.L. Angermeier. 200 3. Potential Impacts of I

- 73 on Stream Habitat and Biota, with Emphasis on the Federally Endangered Roanoke Logperch. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife services, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Yeager

- Kozacek

, C. 2014. Toledo Issues Emergency ‘Do Not Drink Water’ Warning to
Residents. Available at http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2014/world/toledo

- issues

emerge ncy

- warning

- residents

- drink

- water/

.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 7. Appendix 7

- 1 

### 7. Appendix: EPA’s CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendations

In this analysis, EPA estimate s the number of new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria a
state or authorized tribe may need to consider at each triennial review (Section 3.2.4 ) by reviewing historical CWA section 304(a) criteria recomm endations. Exhibit 7

- 1 shows all
section 304(a) criteria recommendations published since enactment of the CWA in 1972

.
EPA count s 371 new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations (U.S. EPA 1976; 1986; 1999; 2002; 2003; 2009; 2014). Over the 4 2

- year period of the CWA (2014

– 1972 = 42), this represents approximately 9 new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations per year, or 27 per 3

- year triennial review period (371 CWA section 304(a)
recommendations ÷ 42 years × 3 years per trie nnial review = 27 CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations per triennial review).

Exhibit 7

- 1 : Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation
Publication Years

Pollutant Criteria Publication Year

(Prior Publication Years)

1,1,2,2

- Tetrachloroethane 2002 (1999)
1,1,2

- Trichloroethane 2002 (1999)
1,1

- Dichloroethylene 2003 (1999)
1,2,4

- Trichlorobenzene 2003 (1999)
1,2

- Dichlorobenzene 2003 (1999)
1,2

- Dichloroethane 2002 (1999, 1986)
1,2

- Dichloropropane 2002 (1999, 1986)
1,2

- Diphenylhydrazine 2002 (1999, 1986)
1,2

- Trans

- Dichloroethylene 2003 (1999)
1,3

- Dichlorobenzene 2002 (1999, 1986)
1,3

- Dichloropropene 2003 (1999, 1986)
1,4

- Dichlorobenzene 2003 (1999)
2,3,7,8

- TCDD (Dioxin) 2002 (1999)
2,4,6

- Trichlorophenol 2002 (1999, 1986)
2,4

- Dichlorophenol 2002 (1999, 1986)
2,4

- Dimethylphenol 2002 (1999)
2,4

- Dinitrophenol 2002 (1999)
2,4

- Dinitrotoluene 2002 (1999, 1986)

2

- Chloronaphthalene 2002 (1999)

2

- Chlorophenol 2002 (1999)

2

- Methyl

- 4,6

- Dinitrophenol 2002 (1999) 3,3'

- Dichlorobenzidine 2002 (1999, 1986) 4,4'

- DDD 2002 (1999)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 7. Appendix 7

- 2 Exhibit 7

- 1 : Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation
Publication Years

Pollutant Criteria Publication Year

(Prior Publication Years)

4,4'

- DDE 2002 (1999) 4,4'

- DDT 1980 4,4'

- DDT 2002 (1999, 1986) Acenaphthene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Acrolein 2009

Acrolein 2009 (2002) Acrylonitrile 2002 (1999, 1986) Aesthetic Qualities 1986

Aldrin 1980 (1976)

Aldrin 2002 (1999, 1986) Alkalinity 1986 alpha

- BHC 2002 (1999, 1986) alpha

- Endosulfan 1980 (1976) alpha

- Endosulfan 2002 (1999, 1986) Aluminum pH 6.5

– 9.0 1988

Ammonia

- freshwater 2013

Ammonia

- saltwater 1989

Anthracene 2002 (1999) Antimony 2002 (1999, 1986)

Arsenic 1992 (1986)

Arsenic 1995 (1986, 1976)

Asbestos 1991 (1986)

Bacteria 1986

Barium 1986

Benzene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Benzidine 2002 (1999) Benzo(a) Anthracene 2002 (1999) Benzo(a) Pyrene 2002 (1999) Benzo(b) Fluoranthene 2002 (1999, 1986) Benzo(k) Fluoranthene 2002 (1999, 1986) Beryllium 1976

beta

- BHC 2002 (1999, 1986)

beta

- Endosulfan 1980

beta

- Endosulfan 2002 (1999, 1986) Bis(2

- Chloroethyl) Ether 2002 (1999, 1986)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 7. Appendix 7

- 3 Exhibit 7

- 1 : Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation
Publication Years

Pollutant Criteria Publication Year

(Prior Publication Years)

Bis(2

- Chloroisopropyl) Ether 2002 (1999, 1986) Bis(2

- Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 2002 (1999, 1986)

Boron 1986

Bromoform 2002 (1999) Butylbenzyl Phthalate 2002 (1999)

Cadmium 2001 (1986, 1976) Carbaryl 2012

Carbon Tetrachloride 2002 (1999)

Chlordane 1980 (1976)

Chlordane 2002 (1999, 1986)

Chloride 1986

Chlorine 1986 (1976)

Chlorobenzene 2003 (1999)

Chlorodibromomethane 2002 (1999)

Chloroform 2002 (1999, 1986) Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4

- D) 1986 Chloropyrifos 1986 Chromium (III) 1995 (1986, 1976) Chromium (VI) 1995 (1986) Chrysene 2002 (1999)

Color 1986 Copper 1992 (1986, 1976) Copper 2007 (2002) Cyanide 1985 (1976) Cyanide 2003 (1999, 1986)

Demeton 1985

Diazinon 2005 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 2002 (1999)

Dichlorobromomethane 2002 (1999)

Dieldrin 1995 (1986)

Dieldrin 2002 (1999, 1986) Diethyl Phthalate 2002 (1999, 1986) Dimethyl Phthalate 2002 (1999)

Di

- n

- Butyl Phthalate 2002 (1999) Dinitrophenols 2002 (1999)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 7. Appendix 7

- 4 Exhibit 7

- 1 : Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation
Publication Years

Pollutant Criteria Publication Year

(Prior Publication Years)

Endosulfan Sulfate 2002 (1999)

Endrin 1995 (1986, 1976)

Endrin 2003 (1999) Endrin Aldehyde 2002 (1999) Ether, Bis( Chloromethyl) 2002 (1999) Ethylbenzene 2003 (1999, 1986)

Fluoranthene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Fluorene 2002 (1999)

gamma

- BHC (Lindane) 1995

gamma

- BHC (Lindane) 2003 (1999)
Gases, Total Dissolved 1986

Guthion 1986

Hardness 1986 Heptachlor 1980 (1976) Heptachlor 2002 (1999, 1986) Heptachlor Epoxide 1981 Heptachlor Epoxide 2002 (1999)

Hexachlorobenzene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Hexachlorobutadiene 2002 (1999) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 2003 (1999, 1986)

Hexachloroethane 2002 (1999) Ideno(1,2,3

- cd)Pyrene 2002 (1999)

Iron 1986 Isophorone 2002 (1999, 1986)

Lead 1980

Malathion 1986 Mercury/Methylmercury 1995 (1986, 1976) Methoxychlor 1986 Methoxychlor 1986 Methyl Bromide 2002 (1999) Methylene Chloride 2002 (1999) Methylmercury 2001

Mirex 1986

Nickel 1995 (1986, 1976)

Nickel 1998 (1986)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 7. Appendix 7

- 5 Exhibit 7

- 1 : Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation
Publication Years

Pollutant Criteria Publication Year

(Prior Publication Years)

Nitrates 1986

Nitrobenzene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Nitrosamines 1980 Nitrosodibutylamine, N 2002 (1999) Nitrosodiethylamine, N 2002 (1999) Nitrosopyrrolidine, N 2002 (1999)

N

- Nitrosodimethylamine 2002 (1999, 1986)

N

- Nitrosodi

- n

- Propylamine 2002 (1999)

N

- Nitrosodiphenylamine 2002 (1999) Nonylphenol 2005

Oil and Grease 1986 Oxygen, Dissolved Freshwater/ Oxygen, Dissolved
Saltwater 1986

Parathion 1995 (1976) Pathogen and Pathogen Indicators 2012

Pentachlorobenzene 2002 (1999, 1986) Pentachlorophenol 1995 (1986) Pentachlorophenol 2002 (1999, 1986) pH 1986 pH 1986

Phenol 2009 (2002) Phosphorus Elemental 1986 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 2002 (1999, 1986) Pyrene 2002 (1999)

Selenium 1999 (1986)

Selenium 2002 (1999, 1986)

Silver 1980 Solids Dissolved and Salinity 1986 Solids Suspended and Turbidity 1986

Sulfide

- Hydrogen Sulfide 1986 Tainting Substances 1986 Temperature 1986
Tetrachlorobenzene,1,2,4,5

- 2002 (1999, 1986) Tetrachloroethylene 2002 (1999)

Thallium 2003 (1999, 1986)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

December 2014 7. Appendix 7

- 6 Exhibit 7

- 1 : Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation
Publication Years

Pollutant Criteria Publication Year

(Prior Publication Years)

Toluene 2003 (1999, 1986) Toxaphene 1986 (1976) Toxaphene 2002 (1999, 1976) Tributyltin (TBT) 2004 (1999) Trichloroethylene 2002 (1999) Trichlorophenol,2,4,5

- 2002 (1999, 1986) Vinyl Chloride 2003 (1999)

Zinc 1995 (1986)

Zinc 2002 (1999, 1986)

Count of CWA section 304(a) Criteria, 1972 to 2014 171 (200)

Source: U.S. EPA 1976; 1986; 1999; 2002; 2003; 2009; 2014