CHAPTER 2 

Issue Category: EPA’s Economic Analysis

Pages 2-1409 – 2-1448

Response to Public Comments

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions

August 2015

40 CFR Part 131

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606

This document is part of a larger document.
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

12 - EPA'S ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

12.A - ECON - GEN COMMENTS 

Comment ID 0125-A1.001.002 

Author Name: Rambler Terry 

Organization: San Carlos Apache Tribe 

However, we are concerned about the added regulatory burden of tracking and complying with a new set of standards. 

We sincerely hope that as the EPA considers this proposed change that it will collaborate with Tribal governments and 

appreciate the unique and diverse circumstances that Tribal governments face as we fulfill the sacred trust placed upon 

us to protect our mother earth, Nigosdzan. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0126-A2.001.005 

Author Name: Barry Marie 

Organization: Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

V. Economic Impacts on State and Tribal WQS Programs CFR 54538 

Incremental burden and costs 39 authorized Indian tribes. There are currently 265 tribes with CWA Section 106 

Program authority, 48 of those tribes have TAS for administering the CWA WQS Program with 39 having approved 

WQS. Yet funding levels for tribal programs continue to be well underfunded at just 12.42% compared to the national 

allocation as shown in the following chart. A 20% allocation would make it more feasible for tribes to obtain authorized 

WQS. It is critical that tribes are provided with the necessary resources as the states have been since the 1970's. 

[Original letter contains additional information in the form of a graph depicting annual funds allocated by the Tribe. See 

original letter.] 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1409
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0127-A1.001.005 

Author Name: Sawtelle Andrew 

Organization: NA 

The Economic Analysis does indicate some increased annual costs for states and tribes associated with designating 

use, due to additional labor hours potentially required to identify the highest available use when performing a UAA. 

However, the recurring incremental administrative burden and costs associated with the new designated uses 

provisions are low overall, as well as significantly lower than either the antidegradation or variance provisions. I agree 

with the Agency's assessment that the costs may by partially offset by the reduction in regulatory uncertaincy and 

consequent increase in overall program efficiency that the proposal would create. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section B 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0158-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

These effects of the proposed WQS regulation are contrary to the purported benefits of the proposed rule changes. The 

KDOW is also concerned that EPA has not adequately calculated both the direct and indirect costs of implementing this 

rule. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section D 

12.a: Section E 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1410
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

Comment ID 0158-A1.001.005 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

In addition, EPA's analysis of the economic burden of the proposed WQS regulation on States is greatly 

underestimated. The proposal would impose considerable additional new burdens on States' financial and personnel 

resources. EPA should be aware of and sensitive to this fact that in the present budgetary climate, states cannot afford 

to take on additional and unnecessary burdens in their implementation of the Clean Water Act; 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0158-A1.001.017 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

In addition to the expansion of the number of waterbodies that will be subject to review under EPA's proposal in States 

that utilize a waterbody-by-waterbody approach, EPA's proposed revisions of the procedures and standards for 

conducting antidegradation reviews would substantially increase the burden on states in conducting such reviews. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0158-A1.001.039 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

8) Economic analysis 

KDOW is concerned EPA's economic analysis has not accounted for all costs that States will bear in implementing the 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1411
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

proposed rule. Examples of such costs include those associated with triennial reviews of water quality criteria, 

determining [highest] attainable uses, costs associated with conducting additional Tier II antidegradation review, costs 

associated with developing interim numeric criteria, and additional hours required to do state-specific cost-benefit 

analyses. KDOW therefore recommends that EPA work with ACWA and States to review the economic analysis and 

update it to reflect costs EPA did not consider. 

Federal and state financial support for water quality protection is likely, at best, to remain constant and at worst diminish 

considerably over the next few years. At all government levels, competing priorities are a significant challenge to 

generating additional resources to continue meeting existing expectations and to support new additional requirements. 

Like EPA, States must navigate through complex technical, economic, political, and social frameworks as they carry out 

water quality programs. The proposed WQS regulation places considerable additional burden on States. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

12.a: Section D 

Comment ID 0166-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

These effects of the proposed WQS regulation are contrary to the purported benefits of the proposed rule changes. The 

KDOW is also concerned that EPA has not adequately calculated both the direct and indirect costs of implementing this 

rule. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section D 

12.a: Section E 

Comment ID 0166-A2.001.005 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1412
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

In addition, EPA's analysis of the economic burden of the proposed WQS regulation on States is greatly 

underestimated. The proposal would impose considerable additional new burdens on States' financial and personnel 

resources. EPA should be aware of and sensitive to this fact that in the present budgetary climate, states cannot afford 

to take on additional and unnecessary burdens in their implementation of the Clean Water Act; 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0166-A2.001.017 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

In addition to the expansion of the number of waterbodies that will be subject to review under EPA's proposal in States 

that utilize a waterbody-by-waterbody approach, EPA's proposed revisions of the procedures and standards for 

conducting antidegradation reviews would substantially increase the burden on states in conducting such reviews. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0166-A2.001.039 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

8) Economic analysis 

KDOW is concerned EPA's economic analysis has not accounted for all costs that States will bear in implementing the 

proposed rule. Examples of such costs include those associated with triennial reviews of water quality criteria, 

determining [highest] attainable uses, costs associated with conducting additional Tier II antidegradation review, costs 

associated with developing interim numeric criteria, and additional hours required to do state-specific cost-benefit 

analyses. KDOW therefore recommends that EPA work with ACWA and States to review the economic analysis and 

update it to reflect costs EPA did not consider. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1413
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

Federal and state financial support for water quality protection is likely, at best, to remain constant and at worst diminish 

considerably over the next few years. At all government levels, competing priorities are a significant challenge to 

generating additional resources to continue meeting existing expectations and to support new additional requirements. 

Like EPA, States must navigate through complex technical, economic, political, and social frameworks as they carry out 

water quality programs. The proposed WQS regulation places considerable additional burden on States. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

12.a: Section D 

Comment ID 0166-A2.001.040 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

KDOW would like to thank EPA for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking, and we appreciate your 

consideration of our recommendations. KDOW encourages EPA to continue discussions with its State co-regulators, 

and remain ready to answer questions regarding these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (502) 564-

3410 ext. 4012 or at Peter.Goodmann@ky.gov if you have any questions or wish to discuss these issues in more detail. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section A 

Comment ID 0175-A1.001.001 

Author Name: Canton Steven 

Organization: GEI Consultants on behalf of Wharf Resources (USA), Inc. and the International Copper Association, Ltd. 

The following comments are submitted on behalf of Wharf Resources (USA), Inc., and the International Copper 

Association, Ltd. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposal, as any changes to the federal 

water quality standards regulations will impact the operation, management and, potentially, the economic viability of 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1414
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

regulated industries. We believe EPA's cost estimates for implementing the rule is vastly underestimated. In addition, 

many of the requirements are likely to "flow downhill" to the regulated community, but EPA's cost estimate does not 

include the cost to permittees because, in EPA's view, the rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable 

to regulated entities. After 40 years of CWA implementation, EPA should be able, and is required, to perform an 

analysis of the costs the rule will impose on the regulated community. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section E 

Comment ID 0175-A1.001.032 

Author Name: Canton Steven 

Organization: GEI Consultants on behalf of Wharf Resources (USA), Inc. and the International Copper Association, Ltd. 

3. There are many instances where the rule would require substantial amounts of data and information to be submitted 

compared to what the current rule mandates. Additional data would be needed to support use designation, 

antidegradation implementation, and WQS variances. Collecting these additional data will be costly and timeconsuming for the states. Examples of additional data submittals not previously required are: 

a. 131.10(j) - UAA required for designating uses for a water body for the first time that do not include uses specified in 

101(a)(2) of the Act 

b. 131.12(b) - States shall develop and make public methods for implementing antidegradation policy 

c. 131.12(b)(2) - Alternatives analysis required for lowering high water quality 

d. 131.14(b)(2) - Justification of the need for WQS variance 

ii. For a waterbody variance, must identify and document any cost-effective and reasonable BMP for nonpoint source 

controls 

e. 131.14(d) For WQS variance renewals must provide documentation of actions taken to meet the requirements of the 

variance 

For these and other reasons, we believe the cost for implementing the rule is grossly underestimated. Although the rule 

may be intended to revise the states' and tribes' roles in WQS development, the revisions in this rule place a financial 

burden on the states and tribes, which in turn, will be passed along to regulated community. Before adoption of this rule 

EPA should be required to provide a cost estimate for how these revisions will affect the regulated community as well 

as the states and tribes. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1415
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

Thank you for your consideration of our comments and concerns on the proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 131. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section D 

12.a: Section E 

5.g 

7.e.ii 

8.f.i 

Comment ID 0178-A2.001.023 

Author Name: Burnell Barry 

Organization: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

VII. Economic Analysis 

A more thorough analysis needs to be done of the economic ramifications of these rule revisions. For example, deriving 

refined uses, if that is what is implied by highest attainable use, also entails criteria development and/or justification. 

This is a cost EPA needs to include in their analysis. EPA should reach out to the states to assist. 

We believe an essential part of a realistic economic analysis is an assessment of which rules likely need to undergo 

revision in response to this federal rulemaking, and the expected extent to which states, tribes, and dischargers will 

need to operate differently after the federal rule change, whether or not there is consequent change to state or tribal 

water quality standards. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section B 

12.a: Section D 

Comment ID 0180-A2.001.008 

Author Name: Hobson Chris 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1416
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

Organization: Southern Company 

Second, the kind of extensive "least degrading alternative" analysis that EPA proposes may end up driving costly 

technology-based decisions by regulators and permittees that end up diverting resources that could be better spent on 

other water quality-based solutions. Requiring a permittee to install the most expensive technology it can afford in order 

to meet permit limits that are more stringent than those needed to meet water quality standards might result in a 

permittee having a "cleaner" discharge, but does not necessarily ensure a "cleaner" receiving waterbody. And while an 

applicant might acquiesce to the expense of stricter limits in order to obtain approval, other important water quality 

measures may suffer from the loss or redirection of available resources. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0184-A2.001.004 

Author Name: Curley Ed 

Organization: The Western Coalition of Arid States 

Requiring a UAA process to determine the HAU places an undue burden with respect to cost to show what is patently 

obvious - that an ephemeral stream does not support aquatic life, wildlife or recreation. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section D 

Comment ID 0184-A2.001.006 

Author Name: Curley Ed 

Organization: The Western Coalition of Arid States 

In 1997 WESTCAS provided comments regarding these issues. "Constructed water conveyance systems are of great 

concern in the arid West. They are critical to the transport of water to the towns, cities and farms of the West. They are 

also critical to reuse of effluent. Proposal of unreasonable standards...will create an economic burden that will prevent 

the beneficial use of these systems for water transport and effluent reuse". Today these comments still remain true. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1417
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

Water becomes even scarcer and the critical need for reuse and moving water is still necessary. 

If EPA changes this Clean Water Act mandate by creating a presumption that the § 101(a)(2) uses are attainable this 

will then create significant burden on municipalities, industries, and other land owners across the United States. By 

doing so, states will be required to adopt standards, TMDLs and permit limits based on a presumption. This then leads 

to permitees being required to develop UAAs in order to establish a site specific standard for which there are many 

instances where those waters clearly have no capability to meet the fishable/swimmable uses and never will have that 

capability. Very often evaluating for a UAA is a huge waste of time and money and requires a permitee to continue to try 

to meet standards that cannot be met. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

12.a: Section D 

5.i 

Comment ID 0191-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Hirst Barbara 

Organization: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

While NJDEP supports some of the proposed revisions to the WQS, there is concern that some provisions of these 

regulations would place an unnecessary burden on states and authorized tribes, of particular concern during a time of 

significant economic challenges and limited resources. As described in specifc comments below, some aspects of the 

proposed WQS rule are difficult to implement as written and could impose administrative burdens that do not materially 

advance the objects of the Clean Water Act. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0196-A1.001.005 

Author Name: Bostic Jason 

Organization: West Virginia Coal Association 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1418
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

WVCA also questions EPA's assumption in its economic analysis that the proposal would not have an impact on permit 

holders. In fact, the regulated community is substantially impacted by the requirements contained in the rule, and at 

times must pay for procedures to be completed when states are unable to fund them. Provided below are WVCA's 

comments on specific proposed changes. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section E 

Comment ID 0196-A1.001.012 

Author Name: Bostic Jason 

Organization: West Virginia Coal Association 

Additionally, the proposed scope of what states must and are encouraged to look at is overly broad, and will result in 

costly and time-consuming procedures that EPA should not force upon the states. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0198-A1.001.015 

Author Name: Card Bethany 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Conclusion 

In closing, MassDEP is quite concerned with the potential implications for both agency resources as well as regulated 

community resources that EPA's proposed regulatory revisions would present. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1419
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0201-A1.001.007 

Author Name: Godfrey Mike 

Organization: Alabama Power 

• EPA has underestimated the total costs associated with the proposals of its Draft Rule. The agency improperly omitted 

from its analysis the economic burden the Draft Rule will place on the regulated community. Instead, EPA only 

considered-and undervalued-the costs States are likely to incur. States will undoubtedly look to the regulated 

community to collect information and/or conduct some or all of the extensive analyses called for by the proposals of the 

Draft Rule. EPA must take a harder look at its cost estimates and be more realistic about the myriad parties that will be 

affected by this rulemaking. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section E 

Comment ID 0205-A1.001.006 

Author Name: Burd Charlie
 

Organization: Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia Inc.
 

Furthermore, USEPA's proposal to require a use attainability analysis to identify the HAU will place an undue burden on 

limited state resources. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section D 

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.021 

Author Name: Foster Wade 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1420
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

IX. Meaningful Regulatory Impact Analysis is Required 

EPA should conduct a meaningful regulatory impact analysis rather than screening the ostensibly "direct" and "indirect" 

effects of the proposed rule, both of which EPA acknowledges will result from its rulemaking. At present, EPA has made 

it very difficult for the public, let alone regulatory decisionmakers, to understand the likely magnitude of the Proposed 

Rule. The mandatory terms and duties that would be imposed by the Proposed Rule (including requirements that "must" 

and "shall" be followed by WQS decisionmakers across the United States) inherently extend beyond mere clarifications. 

As such, because EPA's position is that "WQS are the foundation for other CWA requirements,"[FN44] EPA has an 

obligation to explain how the Proposed Rule could impact the potentially-affected entities EPA identifies [FN45] in 

concrete, empirical terms. Otherwise, the public could underestimate the importance of EPA's Proposed Rule, 

jeopardizing the quality of information shared during this ongoing notice and comment process and the dependability of 

EPA's ultimate decision. 

As background, EPA must develop a complete regulatory impact analysis for "economically significant" regulatory 

actions with projected costs or benefits that exceed $100 million in the aggregate annually.[FN46] EPA's duty to provide 

a transparent accounting of such actions derives from: (1) The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980;[FN47] (2) Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995;[FN48] (3) Executive Order No. 12866 (Sept. 30 1993); and (4) Executive 

Order No. 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011). These four authorities do not create binary distinctions between "indirect" and "direct" 

compliance costs that agencies acknowledge will result from their rules.[FN49] Similarly, these authorities do not 

authorize agencies to "screen out" economic consequences for certain groups of potentially-affected parties in an effort 

to reduce agencies' estimates of aggregated economic impacts below the $100 million threshold, and thereby avoid a 

proper economic analysis. 

Here, the Proposed Rule and its supporting economic analysis document [FN50] artificially reduce the scope of EPA's 

review by segregating ostensibly "direct" and "indirect" impacts, and declining to evaluate the latter (either qualitatively 

or quantitatively). This appears to reflect a position that the amended regulations will not "directly affect" regulated 

entities, but rather, only state and tribal entities charged with developing WQS, implementing WQS, and otherwise 

regulating entities under the CWA within their respective jurisdictions.[FN51] This distinction is not lawful or appropriate: 

EPA must seek to develop a meaningful accounting of economic costs and benefits of the Proposed Rule. EPA already 

has acknowledged that entities regulated by CWA requirements (e.g., through NPDES permits) likely will be impacted 

by this rulemaking.[FN52] Thus, EPA cannot pursue a policy of willful blindness to effects that will result from the 

Proposed Rule - it must acknowledge and analyze the "result"[FN53] for affected parties identified in the Proposed 

Rule. Moreover, EPA should not invoke the principle of cooperative federalism to argue that EPA's WQS rules, which 

bind states and tribal entities to take particular actions, do not "directly affect" anyone else. If that actually were true as 

a legal matter, it would have grave implications for the goals of the CWA and federal enforcement of EPA's WQS 

regulations. 

[FN44] Id. at 54,522. 

[FN45] Id. at 54,519. 

[FN46] Based on the authorities under its regulatory purview, the U.S. Office of Management & Budget ("OMB") 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1421
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

considers a rule to be "economically significant" if it is "likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 

more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities." See OMB, Frequently 

Asked Questions Website, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/ faq.jsp (last visited Dec. 12, 2013) (citing Exec. 

Order No. 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993)); see Exec. Order No. 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011) ("[E]ach agency is directed to use the 

best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. Where 

appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or 

impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.") (emphasis added). 

[FN47] 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-12. In addition to conducting an economic analysis for proposed rules, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act requires that agencies prepare: "a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish 

the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on 

small entities." Id. § 603(c). 

[FN48] 2 U.S.C. §§ 1532-38 ("[B]efore promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in 

promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

1 year . . . the agency shall prepare a written statement containing - . . . (2) a qualitative and quantitative assessment of 

the anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate, including the costs and benefits to State, local, and tribal 

governments or the private sector . . . (3) estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that the agency determines that 

accurate estimates are reasonably feasible, of - (A) the future compliance costs of the Federal mandate; and (B) any 

disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal mandate upon any particular regions of the nation or particular State, 

local, or tribal governments, urban or rural or other types of communities, or particular segments of the private sector; 

(4) estimates by the agency of the effect on the national economy, such as the effect on productivity, economic growth, 

full employment, creation of productive jobs, and international competitiveness of United States goods and services, if 

and to the extent that the agency in its sole discretion determines that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible and 

that such effect is relevant and material[.]"). 

[FN49] See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 12866, § 6(a)(3)(C)(ii) (requiring an "assessment, including the underlying analysis, 

of costs anticipated from the regulatory action (such as, but not limited to, the direct cost both to the government in 

administering the regulation and to businesses and others in complying with the regulation . . . .)") (emphasis added). 

[FN50] EPA, "Economic Analysis for the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications (Proposed Rule)," §§ 1.2 & 

3 (July 2013) (Dkt. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606-0099) (analyzing only the "potential administrative burdens and costs 

that may be associated with the proposed WQS regulation revisions") (emphasis added). 

[FN51] 78 Fed. Reg. at 54,540-541 ("This proposal does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated 

point sources or nonpoint sources of pollution, although the EPA recognizes that these sources could potentially incur 

costs as a result of changes to WQS adopted by states and tribes as a result of this rule (states and tribes could also 

adopt new or revised WQS independent of this proposed rule)."). 

[FN52] Id.; see Exec. Order No. 13563, § 2(c) ("Before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, each agency, where 

feasible and appropriate, shall seek the views of those who are likely to be affected, including those who are likely to 

benefit from and those who are potentially subject to such rulemaking.") (emphasis added) 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1422
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

[FN53] 78 Fed. Reg. at 54,519, 54,540 ("This proposal does not establish any requirements directly applicable to 

regulated point sources or nonpoint sources of pollution, although the EPA recognizes that these sources could 

potentially incur costs as a result of changes to WQS adopted by states and tribes as a result of this rule (states and 

tribes could also adopt new or revised WQS independent of this proposed rule).") (emphasis added). 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section B 

12.a: Section E 

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.023 

Author Name: Foster Wade 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

If EPA proceeds with this rulemaking process, TFI urges EPA to conduct a meaningful economic analysis that 

estimates the actual costs and benefits of the Proposed Rule for the regulated public (rather than just "administrative" 

costs for regulatory agencies), as required by law. Thereafter, if EPA decides to continue with the process, it should repropose the Proposed Rule with the required comprehensive economic analysis. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section B 

12.a: Section E 

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.007 

Author Name: Gilzow Floyd 

Organization: Missouri Public Utility Alliance 

Local and state dollars available to invest in environmental infrastructure are growing increasingly rare. Missouri's 

population growth has fallen behind the national average, and in fact almost half the counties in the state suffered a 

reduction in population. We have many cities where there is a thirty year pattern of population declines, not only in rural 

communities, but in some of our urban centers as well. Cities are still repaying bonds for investments in wastewater 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1423
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

treatment systems designed in the 1980's with customer bases 20-50% smaller than when projects were begun. 

The State's Revolving Fund Program for Clean Water continues to struggle to meet the ever growing demands for 

financing, especially after the consent judgments entered into by both Kansas City and St. Louis where outstanding 

obligations are measured in the billons while annual availability of monies to loan are measured in the millions. 

Missouri's 900 other cities stand even less of a chance of getting the subsidized financing necessary to meet continually 

evolving environmental water quality standards. The state makes every effort to be equitable in distribution, but there is 

not nearly enough money to meet demonstrated and documented needs. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.009 

Author Name: Gilzow Floyd 

Organization: Missouri Public Utility Alliance 

This rule, based on current practices and policies in Region VII of the Environmental Protection Agency, is likely to 

increase compliance costs by billions of dollars measured over the life of the improvements. Are there other projects, 

perhaps in other locations in Missouri, which would provide more improvement in overall water quality? We believe the 

answer is ‘yes'. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section D 

Comment ID 0211-A1.001.007 

Author Name: Lane David 

Organization: Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board 

Third, cost is again at risk of being lost in the shuffle. EPA proposes the following as one of its minimum elements of an 

anti-degradation implementation method: 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1424
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

iv. Requirements for point and nonpoint sources: the state or tribe will ensure that there shall be achieved the highest 

statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point sources and all cost-effective and reasonable best 

management practices for nonpoint source control when allowing a lowering of water quality. [FN8] 

This language is troubling because it suggests that point sources would be required to comply with all requirements 

pertaining to existing and new point sources, again without consideration of implementation cost. The implication for 

point sources is that, notwithstanding the economic analysis referred to in paragraph (ii) above the quoted language (if 

the state even conducts one), the minimally acceptable methods must achieve this objective without any compliance 

cost consideration whatsoever. 

[FN8] 78 Federal Register at 54530. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section E 

7.g.ii 

Comment ID 0222-A1.001.016 

Author Name: Modeer David 

Organization: Western Urban Water Coalition 

In addition, this proposal fails to recognize the costs, which would be paid by the project proponent, for conducting such 

an analysis and potentially implementing a more expensive alternative. The proposed approach simply adds to an 

already time-consuming and expensive process, enhances the possibility of litigation over the "choice" made, and is 

inconsistent with the intent behind E.O. 13604 on the Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects, as it significantly 

adds to the difficulty of securing the necessary approvals. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section D 

12.a: Section E 

Comment ID 0231-A2.001.008 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1425
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

Author Name: Sanderson Stuart 

Organization: The Colorado Mining Association 

Just as important, the States do not have the resources or time to complete all of the additional analysis the EPA's 

proposed revisions would require. This is a particularly acute problem when considering that EPA has not made the 

case to justify the need for such additional analysis. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0231-A2.001.012 

Author Name: Sanderson Stuart 

Organization: The Colorado Mining Association 

• Resources wasted in these areas could be better spent on focused plans to have each waterbody meet uses that are 

appropriate and attainable. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0231-A2.001.032 

Author Name: Sanderson Stuart 

Organization: The Colorado Mining Association 

The money required by States to justify why they are not adopting EPA's standards, particularly in instances where the 

EPA standard would not pass scientific muster, simply does not make sense. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1426
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

12.a 

12.a: Section D 

Comment ID 0233-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Pippy John 

Organization: Pennsylvania Coal Alliance 

Alliance members are subject to regulations emanating from to the Clean Water Act. Any alteration to the existing CWA 

regulations will have a significant impact on the Pennsylvania coal industry. 

Because Pennsylvania is a leading energy-producing state, its economy and residents would be disproportionately 

affected by overly restrictive regulations. The coal industry supports nearly 50,000 direct and indirect jobs in 

Pennsylvania and contributes $7 billion annually to the state's economy. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section E 

Comment ID 0240-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Turner Jr. James 

Organization: Murray Energy Corporation 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposal, as any changes to the federal water quality 

standards regulations will impact the operation, management and, potentially, the economic viability of the coal industry. 

We believe EPA's cost estimates for implementing the rule is vastly underestimated. In addition, many of the 

requirements are likely to "flow downhill" to the regulated community, but EPA's cost estimate does not include the cost 

to permittees because, in EPA's view, the rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated 

entities. At best, such a sentiment is disingenuous. After 40 years of CWA implementation, EPA should be able, and is 

required, to perform an analysis of the costs the rule will impose on the regulated community. The failure to do so 

warrants withdrawing the rule until such an analysis has been performed. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1427
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

12.a: Section B 

12.a: Section E 

Comment ID 0240-A2.001.033 

Author Name: Turner Jr. James 

Organization: Murray Energy Corporation 

3. There are many instances where the rule would require substantial amounts of data and information to be submitted 

compared to what the current rule mandates. Additional data would be needed to support use designation, 

antidegradation implementation, and WQS variances. Collecting these additional data will be costly and timeconsuming for the states. Examples of additional data submittals not previously required are: 

a. 131.10(j) – UAA required for designating uses for a water body for the first time that do not include uses specified in 

101(a)(2) of the Act 

b. 131.12(b) – States shall develop and make public methods for implementing antidegradation policy 

c. 131.12(b)(2) – Alternatives analysis required for lowering high water quality 

d. 131.14(b)(2) – Justification of the need for WQS variance 

ii. For a waterbody variance, must identify and document any cost-effective and reasonable BMP for nonpoint source 

controls 

e. 131.14(d) – For WQS variance renewals must provide documentation of actions taken to meet the requirements of 

the variance 

For these and other reasons, we believe the cost for implementing the rule is grossly underestimated. Although the rule 

may be intended to revise the states' and tribes' roles in WQS development, the revisions in this rule place a financial 

burden on the states and tribes, which in turn, will be passed along to the regulated community. Before adoption of this 

rule EPA should be required to provide a cost estimate for how these revisions will affect the regulated community as 

well as the states and tribes. 

Thank you for your consideration of our comments and concerns on the proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 131. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section D 

12.a: Section E 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1428
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

5.g 

7.e.ii 

8.f.i 

Comment ID 0241-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Licata Angela 

Organization: New York City Department of Environmental Protection 

Any proposed changes to water quality standards regulations should be supported by rigorous scientific analysis, as 

well as analysis of their potential benefits as balanced against potential costs, including potential unintended costs. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section B 

Comment ID 0241-A2.001.004 

Author Name: Licata Angela 

Organization: New York City Department of Environmental Protection 

NYCDEP would oppose this proposed modification if it can be used by states to require municipalities to make costly 

investments where a locality is in attainment with a designated use below primary contact for only marginal water 

quality benefit. Such an outcome would require costly and unadvisable investments for negligible water quality gains, 

and be contrary to sound public policy decisions. 

We appreciate EPA's consideration of NYCDEP's comments. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0243-A2.001.004 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1429
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

Author Name: Daniels Zane 

Organization: Ohio Coal Association 

It also requires UAAs in cases where UAAs were not previously required. This will place a huge financial burden on the 

states, tribes, and regulated community depending on the (as yet undefined) nature and quantity of data that EPA 

would require for use-determination decisions/approval. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section D 

Comment ID 0244-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Loomis Marion 

Organization: Wyoming Mining Association 

Furthermore, the proposed rule is going to impose additional requirements on the State at a time where the State 

already struggles to maintain the water quality program. The State will need additional resources to conduct the 

analyses that would be required by the proposed rule. Without justification for these additional requirements, EPA 

should not be compounding the issue of the State's limited resources. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0244-A2.001.020 

Author Name: Loomis Marion 

Organization: Wyoming Mining Association 

The money required by the State to justify why they are not adopting EPA's standards, simply does not make sense. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1430
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section D 

Comment ID 0248-A2.001.026 

Author Name: Jellerson David 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

7. EPA Cost Estimate 

Mosaic believes that EPA has understated the economic impact of the Proposed Rule by improperly drawing an 

arbitrary distinction between direct impacts on states and "indirect" impacts on dischargers and others whose economic 

activities will in fact be affected by the Proposed Rule. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 54538. Undoubtedly, EPA recognizes that 

the Proposed Rule will considerably impact the conduct and practices of regulated entities (otherwise the rule would be 

self-evidently pointless), but EPA relies on a specious argument that the Rule only directly regulates states, and on that 

basis the Agency is able to dramatically underestimate the financial impact of the Proposed Rule. Mosaic concurs with 

and incorporates by reference the argument of TFI on this issue. Additionally, Mosaic believes that EPA may have 

underestimated the time needed by the states to implement the requirements of the Proposed Rule. As a matter of 

good policy, administrative law and transparency in government regulation, Mosaic urges EPA to provide a more 

complete and candid analysis of all of the economic impacts of the Proposed Rule before finalizing it. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section B 

1.c 

Comment ID 0252-A2.001.006 

Author Name: Fry Eric 

Organization: Peabody Energy 

Just as important, the States do not have the resources or time to complete all of the additional analysis or provide all of 

the extra data submittals [FN1] the EPA's proposed revisions would require. This is a particularly acute problem when 

considering that EPA has not made the case to justify the need for such additional analysis. Peabody asks what State 

or Tribe has the resources to complete all of the extra analysis that is being proposed by EPA? 

[FN1] Peabody notes there are numerous examples of proposed mandated additional data submittals beyond what the 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1431
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

current rule requires. Examples: 131.10(j) (UAA required for designating uses for waterbody for the first time that does 

not include uses specified in CWA s. 101(a)(2)); 131.12(b) (States shall develop and make public methods for 

implementing antidegradation policy); 131.12(b)(2) (Alternatives analysis required for lowering high water quality); 

131.14(b)(2) (justifying need for WQS variance - for waterbody variance identify/document any cost-effective and 

reasonable best management practice for nonpoint source controls); 131.14(d) (in case of WQS variance renewal, 

documentation of actions taken to meet variance requirements must be provided). 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

12.a: Section D 

Comment ID 0252-A2.001.010 

Author Name: Fry Eric 

Organization: Peabody Energy 

• Resources wasted in these areas could be better spent on focused plans to have each waterbody meet uses that are 

appropriate and attainable. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0252-A2.001.033 

Author Name: Fry Eric 

Organization: Peabody Energy 

The money required by States to justify why they are not adopting EPA's standards, particularly in instances where the 

EPA standard would not pass scientific muster, simply does not make sense. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1432
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

12.a 

12.a: Section D 

Comment ID 0262-A2.001.002 

Author Name: Rawlings Laurent 

Organization: Home Builders Association of Kentucky 

General 

While HBAK provides comments on each section of the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed 

Rule, as this is the substance of the given proposal, HBAK views a particular section of the Preamble of this proposal 

as foundational to the proposal in its entirety, and views the need to address the following: 

"Protection of waters that meet or exceed levels necessary to support the CWA uses is central to supporting both 

economic and community growth and sustainability....Degradation of water quality may result in increasing public health 

risks...and increasing treatment costs that must be borne by ratepayers and local governments...Using an 

antidegradation program to prevent the degradation of a water body may be more cost-effective and efficient than longterm restoration efforts." 

HBAK applauds EPA's acknowledgement of an economic impact from their proposal, but cautions EPA to perform a 

more complete economic analysis. The EPA's claim that meeting increasingly onerous regulatory standards equals 

"protection" is an arbitrary claim and needs to be quantified. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section B 

Comment ID 0262-A2.001.005 

Author Name: Rawlings Laurent 

Organization: Home Builders Association of Kentucky 

EPA must understand the cost of such regulations to homebuilders, operating in such fragile economic times, and 

ultimately to home owners, as only so much cost can be absorbed. 

The level of uncertainty this proposal entails would allow the EPA to require further information before approving 

Kentucky's submittals, and going so far as to allow full denial. Additional Water Quality Standards requirements, 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1433
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

specifically in the area of antidegradation revisions, will ultimately end in job losses. This increase in the number of 

requirements - which will be increasingly difficult, if possible, to meet - will result in ongoing lawsuits. 

EPA's use of the term "ensure" is not met with somnolence by HBAK. This strategic malapropism will demand of KDOW 

the impossible. Is this EPA so detached from state budgets, including Kentucky's, that it assumes the resources 

currently exist to complete all of the extra analysis it is proposing? 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0262-A2.001.010 

Author Name: Rawlings Laurent 

Organization: Home Builders Association of Kentucky 

• Resources wasted in these areas could be better spent on focused plans to have each waterbody meet uses that are 

appropriate and attainable 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

Comment ID 0264-A2.001.003 

Author Name: Chard-McClary Shellie 

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators 

States are also concerned that EPA has not adequately considered both the direct and indirect costs of implementing 

this rule. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1434
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

12.a: Section B 

Comment ID 0280-A2.001.022 

Author Name: Aspatore Amanda 

Organization: National Mining Association 

In particular, the proposal would require EPA to micromanage the data analysis and decision-making processes that 

states undertake with respect to their own local waterways, thereby causing states to divert their limited resources away 

from important, substantive environmental issues to deal with increasingly costly, burdensome, and unnecessary 

procedures. Importantly, not only will state agencies be burdened, but industry, local governments, and state taxpayers 

will bear the costs of these increased expenses and delays. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.a 

12.a: Section C 

12.B - ECON - RULEMAKING 

Comment ID 0131-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Rager David 

Organization: Sanitation District Number 1 of Northern Kentucky 

Furthermore, SD1 respectfully disagrees that "this proposal will not establish any requirements directly applicable to 

regulated entities" (78 FR 54538). Municipalities, industries, and confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that hold 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits will all be affected by the proposed rulemaking and 

will incur additional economic burden as a result. We are very concerned that the proposed revisions do more than 

clarify the existing regulations, and instead expand EPA's authority such that there will be more, not less, controversy in 

how the Clean Water Act is implemented. SD1 is further concerned that EPA did not adequately document the 

economic impact that the rule and key sections of the rule will have on states and local economies. 

For example, the new requirements that EPA is imposing on state anti-degradation policies and implementation 

methods will require states to conduct extensive alternatives analyses when issuing NPDES permits to high quality 

waters. It is highly likely that the state will need permittees, such as SD1, to expend significant resources to collect 

information to support these analyses, including EPA's proposed requirement to identify "non-degrading" and "minimally 

degrading practicable alternatives". Of particular concern is the cost of demonstrating these alternatives for storm water, 

which would seem to require complex monitoring, modeling and other analyses. It is also likely that such a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1435
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

determination will be subject to stakeholder scrutiny and potential litigation, which would result in additional costs to 

SD1. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.b 

12.b: Section H 

12.a 

Comment ID 0151-A1.001.017 

Author Name: Tate Michael 

Organization: Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

4) Economic Analysis – We have one comment regarding the presentation of costs in the proposal. Costs of 

implementing the new regulations appear to be amortized or annualized. However, the reality will be that the 

implementation of these new water quality standards will be borne up-front in the process by the States with no vehicle 

to spread those cost over subsequent years. Therefore, the economic impact will be weighed toward the first few years 

of States implementing the new rules. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.b 

12.b: Section F 

Comment ID 0158-A1.001.006 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

For example, at a minimum in order to conduct additional analyses required for the triennial review KDOW would need 

to add additional personnel to the water quality standards program and the KPDES permitting program. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1436
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

12.b 

12.b: Section E 

Comment ID 0166-A2.001.006 

Author Name: Goodmann Peter 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Water 

For example, at a minimum in order to conduct additional analyses required for the triennial review KDOW would need 

to add additional personnel to the water quality standards program and the KPDES permitting program. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.b 

12.b: Section E 

Comment ID 0167-A1.001.012 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

Organization: Paul G. Anderson, LLC On behalf of the Lower Fountain Metropolitan Sewage Disposal District 

E. Economic Analysis 

The Lower Fountain District very strongly urges EPA to revise its economic analysis of the proposed rule to include 

potential financial impacts to regulated entities, in particular small government bodies like the District, that as a practical 

matter will end up incorporating additional control measures as a result of state and tribal water quality program 

responses to EPA adopting the proposed rule. Notwithstanding EPA's certifications under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (p. 54542, second column), the District is convinced that the proposed rule will 

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities like the District and that the proposed rule contains 

requirements that will significantly and/or uniquely affect small governments. Depending on how the states respond to 

EPA adopting the proposed rule, the District submits the cost to regulated entities could run several hundred millions if 

not billions of dollars. 

Although EPA qualified its statements, it seems to recognize that regulated entities are likely to incur additional costs if 

it adopts the proposed rule (p. 54540, second column): 

"The EPA acknowledges that achievement of any benefits associated with cleaner water would involve additional 

control measures, and thus costs to regulated entities and nonpoint sources, that have not been included in the 

economic analyses for this proposed rule." 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1437
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

EPA's bases for not preparing an analysis (p. 54540, third column), i.e., the proposed rule is not directly applicable to 

regulated entities and "[regulated entity] sources could potentially incur" compliance costs if the proposed rule is 

adopted, seems premised on two fairly unlikely events: One, that state water quality programs will do nothing, or next to 

nothing, in response to EPA adopting the proposed rule; and two, that even if states or tribes take some action in 

response that regulated entities like the District might avoid incurring any compliance costs. As a practical matter, that 

just won't happen. A particular concern is the HAU requirement will result in far more restrictive standards by focusing 

on the most sensitive aquatic life, especially macroinvertebrates, and thus the potential compliance costs through use of 

more sophisticated and expensive treatment methods should be addressed by EPA. From the District's experience, 

Colorado looks to regulated entities (publicly-owned treatment works and/or industrial dischargers) to take on the 

majority of the compliance costs even in instances when such entities are not the primary cause of the water quality 

impact. A recent example of this concerns Colorado's adoption of numeric nutrients criteria and their applicability on 

Fountain Creek, into which the District's treated discharge ultimately flows. The vast majority of nutrients loading on 

Fountain Creek comes from irrigation runoff, storm water flow and atmospheric deposition rather than treated 

discharge; and despite the absence of impacts on Fountain Creek due to nutrients loading (e.g., no dissolved oxygen 

sags, no macroinvertebrate species missing, no algae observed) the District could end up spending another $20 - $30 

million dollars to comply with nutrients regulations, or nearly twice the original cost of its recently constructed facility. On 

the other hand, if the HAU concept can result in a subcategory that defines expected macroinvertebrates and enables 

less stringent standards, the economic analysis should estimate the costs avoided by this more flexible regulatory 

approach. 

The Lower Fountain District does not expect EPA to predict what regulatory response measures each state and tribe 

will take to the proposed rule if adopted; nonetheless, the District believes EPA is familiar enough with each water 

quality program to be able to meaningfully analyze and quantify the economic impacts to regulated entities at a basic 

planning level. If as EPA indicates it is "interested in the potential implications of this proposal for regulated entities" (p. 

54541, first column), it will take the time to prepare a thoughtful economic analysis on this point. The District submits 

that the stakes are too high for entities like itself and thus an economic analysis under these circumstances is 

necessary. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.b 

12.b: Section H 

13.a 

Comment ID 0186-A1.001.032 

Author Name: Claff Roger 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute 

Economic Impacts on State and Tribal WQS Programs (Section V., 78 Fed. Reg. 54538- 54541) 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1438
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

EPA has underestimated the economic and workload burden for states to adopt antidegradation implementation 

methods as part of their WQS rules. 

EPA has estimated a one-time labor burden of 48,580-129,270 labor hours and cost of $2.48- $6.61 million (78 Fed. 

Reg. 54541). EPA has stated elsewhere in the proposal that 25 states have adopted antidegradation implementation 

methods into their WQS rules (78 Fed. Reg. 54529). Thus, there are 25 states, 5 territories and 45 tribes that do not 

have antidegradation implementation methods included as part of their WQS rules. Simple arithmetic shows that EPA 

has estimated 647 to 1,724 hours per regulated entity to propose and adopt antidegradation implementation methods 

into their rules. Given the complexity of the antidegradation implementation methodology that must meet all the 

requirements of proposed 40 CFR 131.12 while still retaining state discretion and flexibility in application, this estimated 

labor burden and associated implementation costs are underestimated. 

API believes that state antidegradation implementation methods are likely to be controversial, will elicit active 

substantial comment from both the regulated community and public and private stakeholders, and in some cases may 

be appealed through state administrative procedures for rule review. Also, history has shown that EPA's input to state 

proposals often results in lengthy periods of time and effort to develop satisfactory rules that states believe that they can 

implement and that EPA can approve. Therefore, we believe EPA should re-evaluate its estimated labor and cost 

burdens on states if they are required to adopt antidegradation implementation methods as part of their WQS rules. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.b 

12.b: Section B 

12.b: Section C 

Comment ID 0192-A1.001.010 

Author Name: Reeder Thomas 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

VI. Economic Analysis 

As NC DWR faces scrutiny at the potential for any cost to be incurred by rule-making, NC DWR is concerned that EPA's 

economic analysis has not accounted for all costs that states and affected parties will bear in implementing the 

proposed rules. NC DWR has expended numerous hours and many dollars in drafting a state-specific cost-benefit 

analysis during its most recent Triennial Review. 

Response 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1439
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.b 

12.b: Section A 

12.b: Section E 

Comment ID 0203-A1.001.032 

Author Name: Christman Jim 

Organization: Hunton & Williams on behalf of Utility Water Act Group 

IX. EPA Underestimates the Costs of the Proposed Rule 

EPA's analysis of economic impacts, embodied in Economic Analysis for the Water Quality Standards Regulatory 

Clarifications (Proposed Rule) and summarized at 78 Fed. Reg. 54,538-41, is not adequate. 

First, EPA calculates the burdens only to governments, not to the private sector. EPA acknowledges that point and 

nonpoint sources of pollution "could potentially incur costs" (id. at 54,540 col. 3), but declines to consider them because 

the proposal will not establish requirements "directly applicable" to regulated entities (id. at 54,538 col. 2) and because 

EPA cannot predict what these requirements will be (id. at 54,540-41). 

Presumably EPA did its Economic Analysis to satisfy the requirement that agencies perform a regulatory analysis as 

required under § 6(a)(3)(c) of Executive Order 12866, A Regulatory Planning and Review, the Regulatory Right-toKnow Act, and related authorities. See OMB, Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003). But an agency cannot 

promulgate a far-reaching regulation that changes the water quality standards program and avoid considering the 

consequences merely because there is a layer of state and tribal governments between EPA's regulation and the 

consequences to the private sector. It is not enough to simply say it is too difficult to foresee what the consequences of 

the rule will be. Doubtless it will be difficult to predict the costs to regulated entities, including municipalities and 

industry, but there are always ways to make assumptions and estimates, and the difficulty of analyzing costs is no 

reason not to try. 

Second, even for the calculations of burdens on state and tribal governments, found in chapter 3 of the Economic 

Analysis, EPA provides almost no basis for its estimates of how many hours it will take the states to implement the new 

rule. EPA says it estimated the number of labor hours using "historical EPA information and data, and the historical 

knowledge and best professional judgment of the EPA's personnel with experience administering the WQS program" 

(Economic Analysis page 3-1). Thus there is no way for the outside world to judge whether EPA's estimates are 

realistic, because no details are provided. We are told that the labor needed for state rulemakings ranges on average 

from about 100 hours for relatively small rule changes to 500 hours for new or more complex rulemakings (Economic 

Analysis page 3-2). EPA then multiplies the numbers of hours by an estimated average hourly wage rate from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics to conclude that each state or tribal government could spend from $4800 to $24,000 for 

"rulemaking activities" (id.; see also Exhibit 3-2 page 3-3). Multiplying these dollar numbers by the 59 states, territories, 

tribes, and the District of Columbia, the total estimated cost is $456,000 to $2,280,000, which is reduced even further by 

annualizing it over 20 years "for comparative purposes." To UWAG, these numbers appear impossibly small, and quite 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1440
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

unrealistic. 

In short, the Economic Analysis disregards costs to the private sector, even though everyone knows they will be 

enormous, and uses estimates of how long regulators will work on implementing the rule that have no basis except EPA 

"judgment" and cannot be assessed by outsiders. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.b 

12.b: Section A 

12.b: Section H 

12.a 

Comment ID 0217-A2.001.007 

Author Name: Hale Michelle 

Organization: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

ADEC believes the EPA's economic analysis has greatly underestimated the cost of implementing this section of the 

proposed regulation, particularly in Alaska where the cost of data collection is much higher than other states due to the 

difficulty of accessing remote locations and the very large number of waterbodies. Since there is insufficient information 

currently available to designate use subcategories in Alaska on a statewide basis, the only other alternative is to create 

location specific use subcategories and their associated criteria. The proposed regulations would lead to a significant 

increase in the requirements of a UAA. The UAA process currently requires a demonstration that the designated use is 

not attainable. The proposed regulation would potentially create an additional requirement that proposed UAA's will 

need to determine whether a HAU subcategory could be supported and develop the criteria that would protect that new 

use. This process would entail developing a suite of scientifically defensible site specific criteria and place a substantial 

burden upon states without the commitment of additional federal resources to complete such work. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.b 

12.b: Section A 

Comment ID 0220-A2.001.012 

Author Name: Anderson Paul 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1441
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

Organization: Paul G. Anderson, LLC On behalf of the Lower Fountain Metropolitan Sewage Disposal District 

E. Economic Analysis 

The Lower Fountain District very strongly urges EPA to revise its economic analysis of the proposed rule to include 

potential financial impacts to regulated entities, in particular small government bodies like the District, that as a practical 

matter will end up incorporating additional control measures as a result of state and tribal water quality program 

responses to EPA adopting the proposed rule. Notwithstanding EPA's certifications under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (p. 54542, second column), the District is convinced that the proposed rule will 

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities like the District and that the proposed rule contains 

requirements that will significantly and/or uniquely affect small governments. Depending on how the states respond to 

EPA adopting the proposed rule, the District submits the cost to regulated entities could run several hundred millions if 

not billions of dollars. 

Although EPA qualified its statements, it seems to recognize that regulated entities are likely to incur additional costs if 

it adopts the proposed rule (p. 54540, second column): 

"The EPA acknowledges that achievement of any benefits associated with cleaner water would involve additional 

control measures, and thus costs to regulated entities and nonpoint sources, that have not been included in the 

economic analyses for this proposed rule." 

EPA's bases for not preparing an analysis (p. 54540, third column), i.e., the proposed rule is not directly applicable to 

regulated entities and "[regulated entity] sources could potentially incur" compliance costs if the proposed rule is 

adopted, seems premised on two fairly unlikely events: One, that state water quality programs will do nothing, or next to 

nothing, in response to EPA adopting the proposed rule; and two, that even if states or tribes take some action in 

response that regulated entities like the District might avoid incurring any compliance costs. As a practical matter, that 

just won't happen. A particular concern is the HAU requirement will result in far more restrictive standards by focusing 

on the most sensitive aquatic life, especially macroinvertebrates, and thus the potential compliance costs through use of 

more sophisticated and expensive treatment methods should be addressed by EPA. From the District's experience, 

Colorado looks to regulated entities (publicly-owned treatment works and/or industrial dischargers) to take on the 

majority of the compliance costs even in instances when such entities are not the primary cause of the water quality 

impact. A recent example of this concerns Colorado's adoption of numeric nutrients criteria and their applicability on 

Fountain Creek, into which the District's treated discharge ultimately flows. The vast majority of nutrients loading on 

Fountain Creek comes from irrigation runoff, storm water flow and atmospheric deposition rather than treated 

discharge; and despite the absence of impacts on Fountain Creek due to nutrients loading (e.g., no dissolved oxygen 

sags, no macroinvertebrate species missing, no algae observed) the District could end up spending another $20 - $30 

million dollars to comply with nutrients regulations, or nearly twice the original cost of its recently constructed facility. On 

the other hand, if the HAU concept can result in a subcategory that defines expected macroinvertebrates and enables 

less stringent standards, the economic analysis should estimate the costs avoided by this more flexible regulatory 

approach. 

The Lower Fountain District does not expect EPA to predict what regulatory response measures each state and tribe 

will take to the proposed rule if adopted; nonetheless, the District believes EPA is familiar enough with each water 

quality program to be able to meaningfully analyze and quantify the economic impacts to regulated entities at a basic 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1442
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

planning level. If as EPA indicates it is "interested in the potential implications of this proposal for regulated entities" (p. 

54541, first column), it will take the time to prepare a thoughtful economic analysis on this point. The District submits 

that the stakes are too high for entities like itself and thus an economic analysis under these circumstances is 

necessary. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.b 

12.b: Section H 

13.a 

Comment ID 0264-A2.001.026 

Author Name: Chard-McClary Shellie 

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators 

VII. Economic Analysis 

Financial support for traditional water quality protection is likely, at best, to remain constant over the next few years. At 

both the federal and state levels, competing priorities make gathering additional resources to continue meeting existing 

expectations and to support new requirements a challenge. Like EPA, states must navigate through complex technical, 

economic, political, and social frameworks as they carry out water quality programs. 

ACWA is concerned that EPA's economic analysis has not accounted for all costs that states will bear in implementing 

the proposed rule. Examples of such costs include those associated with adopting revised variance provisions, triennial 

reviews of water quality criteria, determining [highest] attainable uses, and additional hours required to do state-specific 

cost-benefit analyses. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.b 

12.b: Section D 

12.b: Section E 

12.b: Section H 

12.a 

Comment ID 0280-A2.001.003 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1443
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

Author Name: Aspatore Amanda 

Organization: National Mining Association 

NMA also questions EPA's assumption in its economic analysis that the proposal would not have any impact on 

dischargers. In fact, the regulated community, which includes publicly owned treatment works, is substantially impacted 

by the requirements contained in the rule, and will either directly undertake or pay for the proposed procedures to be 

completed when states are unable to fund them. EPA must take such factors into consideration in its economic 

analysis. 

Provided below are NMA's comments on specific proposed changes. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.b 

12.b: Section H 

12.a 

12.C - ECON - EPA'S B&C (BURDENS AND COSTS) 

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.032 

Author Name: Ettinger Albert
 

Organization: One of the counsel for the Environmental Law and Policy Center et al.
 

Further, it assumes certain costs will be caused by enactment of these regulations without taking into account the costs 

of the existing chaos or the benefits of enacting regulations that would better protect water quality. Indeed, to the extent 

these proposed regulations are just clarifications, why do they cost anyone anything? 

We look forward to continuing to work with EPA to improve its regulations and restore water quality. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.c 

12.c: Section A 

12.c: Section C 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1444
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

12.D - ECON - UNCERTAINTIES 

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.022 

Author Name: Foster Wade 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

As a practical matter, even assuming a legal distinction between "indirect" and "direct" impacts would be lawful and 

appropriate in order to remain under the $100 million threshold for a full regulatory impact analysis, EPA states that 

predicting the impacts of the Proposed Rule might be difficult, and thus, declines to speculate on the scope of those 

impacts.[FN54] However, EPA has ample administrative tools at its disposal to request or collect estimates from the 

regulated public, subject to proper administrative procedures.[FN55] No doubt, regulated entities already have started 

to forecast how the Proposed Rule could affect them in financial terms and may be willing to share those estimates with 

EPA. 

[FN54] Id. at 54,540-541. 

[FN55] See, e.g., Memorandum from Cass R. Sunstein, Administrator, U.S. Office of Management & Budget, Office of 

Information & Regulatory Affairs, re: "Information Collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act," at 2-3 (Apr. 7, 2010), 

available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/PRAPrimer_04072010.pdf. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.d 

12.E - ECON - BENEFITS 

Comment ID 0192-A1.001.011 

Author Name: Reeder Thomas 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

As quantifying the environmental and socioeconomic benefit is a developing field of expertise, it is most notably 

challenging to accurately and adequately measure the benefits achieved by modifying water quality standards. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1445
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

12.e 

12.e: Section A 

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.008 

Author Name: Gilzow Floyd 

Organization: Missouri Public Utility Alliance 

It may be time for all regulatory agencies to step back and ask whether the money being spent makes the most 

environmental sense. Yes, there may be benefit, and in the complicated world of cost/benefit analysis there may be 

ways to demonstrate that the benefit outweighs the cost. However the real question that needs to be asked is not 

whether there is a benefit, but whether it is the ‘best' benefit. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.e 

12.e: Section A 

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.031 

Author Name: Ettinger Albert
 

Organization: One of the counsel for the Environmental Law and Policy Center et al.
 

EPA's Burden and Cost Analysis 

Although not part of the regulatory proposal, it should be noticed that the EPA economic cost analysis does not take 

properly into account the benefits of clean water. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.e 

12.e: Section A 

Comment ID 0262-A2.001.004 

Author Name: Rawlings Laurent 

Organization: Home Builders Association of Kentucky 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1446
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

The statement is inherently misleading for a number of reasons. EPA fails to demonstrate the benefits of such 

increased levels of "protection" will manifest. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.e 

12.e: Section A 

Comment ID 0264-A2.001.027 

Author Name: Chard-McClary Shellie 

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators 

We are also concerned that benefits are not adequately quantified. ACWA therefore recommends that EPA work with 

states to review the economic analysis and update it to reflect costs EPA did not consider. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.e 

12.e: Section A 

12.F - ECON - OTHER GENERAL 

Comment ID 0236-A2.001.033 

Author Name: Weigel Brian 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Recommended changes: 

•As referenced in section F.2.b.ii, WDNR would like to suggest updates to the Interim Economic Guidance for Water 

Quality Standards published March 1995 to include more concrete benchmarks to determine widespread social and 

economic impacts for industrial permittees, as exist for municipal facilities with the 2% MHI benchmark. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1447
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents EPA's Economic Analysis 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

12.f 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1448