# CHAPTER 3 Issue Category: Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Pages 3- 453 – 3- 454

Response to Public Comments

Water Quality Standard Regulatory Revisions

August , 2015

40 CFR Part 131 Docket #: EPA

- HQ

- OQ

- 2010

- 0606

This document is part of a larger document

.Chapter 3 – Response Essays 13.a – Statutory & Exec Order Reviews



## Essay **13 .a –**  **Statutory and Exec**  **utive Order Reviews** 

In response to the commenter recommending the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) withdraw the proposed rule and resubmit with appropriate access to all previous comments, including the public comments from the 1998 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR M) (63 FR 36742, July 7, 1998), EPA disagrees. As described in the preamble to the proposed rule in section I.B, EPA chose not to move forward with the 1998 ANPRM. The Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule and the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions Final Rule is not a direct continuation of the 19 98 ANPRM. The public comments submitted on the 1998 ANPRM are available to the public through the EPA Docket Center, reference Docket W

— 98

— 01. EPA included a copy of the ANPRM, which identifies its docket number, in the docket for the Water Quality Standar ds Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule (EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2010

- 0606

- 0081 , posted on www.regulations.gov on September 4, 2013 ). Additionally, the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule provided contact information for the Office of Water docket, as well as an email address and phone number dedicated to receive the public’s questions on this rulemaking (See the “Addresses” and “For Further Information Contact” sections in the preamble to the proposed rule [ 78 FR 54518 ] ). EPA notes that no one contacted the docket, or the dedicated email address o r phone number to inquire about the ANPRM’s docket number or how to view the comments received on the ANPRM. Additionally, at the time of the 2010 Public Listening Sessions, EPA made clear that the sessions were an informal opportunity to give input and express views and that there would be a formal comment period following publication of the proposed rule (see transcripts at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/wqs_index.cfm , under “Listening Session Records ” or in the Docket for this rulemaking ). However, EPA did also include all written input based on the Listening Sessions in the docket for this rulemaking, and this information was available to the public throughout the public comment period on the proposed rule

. In response to the commenter requesting clarification on the proposed rule preamble (se ction VI.C) related to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
, EPA disagrees with commenter’s conclusion that small entities may be potentially impacted directly by the regulatory requirements in this rulemaking. As stated in the preamble to the final rule ( IV.C), small entities are not directly regulated by this final rule and the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In regards to comments that EPA should account for indirect costs to industry or l ocal governments , see comment response Essay Code 12.a – Econ omics: General Comments

. In response to the comment on the proposed rule preamble (section VI.E) related to Federalism, EPA disagrees with commenter’s conclusion that the voluntary consultations under Executive Order 13132 did not result in greater understanding of the burden on states, tribes, and local governments. As explained in the preamble to the final rule (IV.E), this rule does not have federalism implications and it will not have substant ial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. While the rule finalizes regulatory revisions to provide clarity and transparency in the water quality standards ( WQS ) regulation that may require reevaluation or revision of WQS, the rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state or local governments, nor will it preempt state law , as discussed i n the preamble to the final rule

. As described in the Economic Analysis for the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions (Final Rule), EPA estimates the total annual cost for this final rule to states, territories and authorized tribes to range from $ 5.42 million per year to $ 20.09 million per
year. EPA’s substantial compliance cost threshold, above which an EPA rule can be deemed to haveChapter 3 – Response Essays 13.a – Statutory & Exec Order Reviews

federalism implications is $25 million per year. Given this, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action an d EPA is not required to consult with these entities (although EPA did engage in certain consultations anyway in the spirit of E xecutive O rder 13132)

.