Chapter 6-Proceduresfor Reviewand Revision of WaterQuality Standards

CHAPTER 6 PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND REVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

State review and revision of water quality standards are discussed in section 6.1. of this chapter. Guidance is provided on the administrative and regulatory requirements and procedures that should be followed in the State review and submittal process as well as the implication of a State’s failure to submit standards. EPA review and approval procedures are discussed in section 6.2,and the procedures for promulgation of Federal standards are described in section 6.3.

6.1 State Review and Revision

Section 303(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act requires that a State shall, from time to time, but at least once every 3 years, hold public hearings to review applicable water quality standards and, as appropriate, to modify and adopt standards. The 3-year period is measured from the date of the letter in which the State informs EPA that revised or new standards have been adopted for the affected waters and are being submitted for EPA review or, if no changes were made in the standards for those waters, from the date of the letter in which the State informs EPA that the standards
were reviewed and no changes were made.

States identify additions or revisions necessary to existing standards based on their 305(b) reports, other available water quality monitoring data, previous water quality standards reviews, or requests from industry, environmental groups, or the public. Water quality standards reviews and revisions may take many forms, including additions to and modifications in uses, in criteria, in the antidegradation policy, in the antidegradation implementation procedures, or in other general policies.

6.1.1 Consultation with EPA

State consultation with EPA regional offices should occur when States begin activities to revise or adopt new water quality standards and long before the State standards are formally submitted for EPA review. Reasons for early consultation with EPA include the following:

States will benefit from early identification of potential areas of disagreement between EPA and the States, and EPA can determine where assistance may be provided;

EPA must be in a position to respond to litigation and to congressional and other inquiries relating to actions on the revised State water quality standards;

Headquarters must be ready to support promulgation actions when State standards have been disapproved;

early consultation with EPA allows issues to be discussed well before a formal review request is received from the State; and

EPA actions related to State standards should receive as comprehensive a review

as possible.

6.1.2 Public Notice Soliciting Suggestions for Additions or Revisions to Standards

An important component of the water quality standards setting and review process is a

(9/15/93) 6-1WaterQuality StandardsHandbook -SecondEdition



### Figure6-1.Simplified FlowChartofaTypicalStateWaterQuality Standards ReviewProcess

6-2 (9/15/93)meaningful involvement ofthoseaffected bythe

standards decisions. At a minimum, section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires States to hold a public hearing in reviewing and revising water quality standards. (State law may require more than one hearing.) However, States are urged to involve the public more actively inthe review process. Involvement of the public includes the involvement of citizens affected by standards decisions, the regulated community (municipalities and industry), and inter-governmental coordination with local, State, and Federal agencies, and Indian Tribes with an interest in water quality issues. This partnership will ensure the sharing of ideas, data, and information, which will increase the effectiveness of the total water quality management process.

Public involvement is beneficial at several points in the water quality standards decision making process. Enlisting the support of municipalities, industries, environmentalists, universities, other agencies, and the affected public incollecting and evaluating information for the decision making prxess should assist the State in improving the scientific basis for, and inbuilding support for, standards decisions. The more that people and groups are involved early in the process of setting appropriate standards, the more support the State will have in implementing the standards.

6.1.3 Review ofGeneral Provisions

In each 3-year water quality standards review cycle, States review the general provisions of the standards for adequacy taking into consideration:

l new Federal or State statutes, regulations,
or guidance;

l legal decisions involving application of standards; or

l other necessary clarifications or revisions. Inclusion of All Waters of the United States

Water quality standards are nee&d for all “waters of the United States,” defined in the National Pollution Discharge Elintination System Regulations at40CFR 122.2to include all interstate waters, including wetlands, andall intrastate lakes, rivers. streams (including intcmlittont streams), wetlands, natural ponds, etc.1the IJSC degradation or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce. The term “waters of the United States” should be read broadly during the standards review process. States should
ensure that all waters under this dt$nition arc included inthe States’ water quality standards,
are assigned designated uses, and have protective criteria.

Definitions

Terms used in the Water Quality Standards Regulation are defined in 40CFR 131.3. The glossary of this document contains these and other water quality standards-Rlatcd terms defined by the Clean Water Act, EPA txgulation, or guidance. States, when reviewing their water quality standards, should at a minimum define those temls included in the Definitions section of the regulation to bc synonymous with the EPA definitions.

6.1.4 Sektion of Specific Water Bodies for Review

The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows States to establish procedures for identifying and reviewing the standards on specific water bodies in detail. Any procedures States establish to revise standards should be articulated in the continuing planning process consistent with the water quality management regulation. Water b&ies receiving adetailed standards review aw most likely to be those where:WaterOualitv StandardsHandbook -SecondEdition

l combined sewer overflow (CSO) funding decisions are pending;

l water quality-based permits arescheduled to be issued or reissued:

l CWA goal usesare not being met;

l toxics have been identified and are suspected of precluding a use or may be posing an unreasonable risk to human health: or

l there may be potential impacts on threatened or endangered species.

States may have other reasons for wishing to examine awater body indetail, suchashuman health problems, court orders, or costs or economic and social impacts of implementing the existing water quality standards. States must reexamine any water body with standards not consistent with the section 101(a)(2) goals oftheAct every 3years,and ifnew information indicates that section 101(a)(2) goal uses are attainable, revise itsstandards to reflect those
uses.
Statesareencouraged to review standards for a large enough arca to consider the interaction between both point and nonpoint source discharges. In carrying out standards reviews, the States and EPA should ensure proper coordination of all water quality programs. 6.1.5 Evaluation ofDesignated Uses

Once priority water bodies have been selected for review, the designated uses must be evaluated. This mayinvolve some levelofdata collection uptoand including afull water body survey and assessment; however, an intensive survey of the water body is not necessary if adequate data are available. The purpose of the evaluation isto pinpoint problems and to characterize present uses,attainable uses(uses that could existinthe absence ofanthropogenic effects), uses impaired or precluded, and the
reasons why uses are impaired or precluded. Information generaM inthesurveyalsocanbe usedtoestablish thebasisfor seasonal usesand subcategories of uses.

Included in section 2.9 of this Handbook are examples of arange of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics ofthe water body that may be surveyed when evaluating aquatic protection uses, This information isthen used indetermining the existing species inthe water body andthe health ofthose species,aswell as what species could be inthe water body given thephysical characteristics ofthewater body, or what speciesmight beinthewater ifthequality of the water were improved.

Review ofthe Cause ofUsesNot Being Met

If the survey indicates that designated usesare impaired, the next step is to determine the
cause. In many situations, physical conditions and/or the presence of pollutants prevent the water body from meeting its designated use. Physical limitations refer to such factors as depth, flow, habitat, turbulence, or structures suchasdamsthat might make auseunsuitable
or impossible to achieve regardless of water quality.

If uses are precluded because of physical limitations of the water body, the State may wish toexamine modifications that might allow
ahabitat suitable for aspeciesto thrive where it could not before. Some of the techniques

6-4 (9115/93)Chapter 6-Procedure.yJc>rRwietv and Rwision of WarerQuaMy Stundards

which have been used include bank stabilization, current deflectors, construction of oxbows, or installation of spawning beds. A State also might wishtoconsider improving the
access to the water body, improving facilities nearby sothat it can be used for recreational purpo=s, or establishing seasonal uses or subcategories of ause.

If uses are not being met because of water pollution problems, the first step intheprocess is to determine the cause. If the standards review process iswell coordinated with thetotal maximum daily load (TMDL) determination and the permit process, permitees may be required to conduct some of the analyses necessary to determine why uses are not attained (For more information on the TMDL process, seechapter 7,this Handbook.) When background levelsofpollutants are irreversible and criteria cannot be met, States should evaluate other more appropriate usesand revise the water quality standards appropriately.

Determination ofAttainable Uses

Consideration of the suitability of the water body to attain ause isan integral part of the water quality standards review and revision process. The data and information collected from the water body surveyprovide afirm basis for evaluating whether the water body is suitable for the particular use. Suitability depends on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the water body, its geographic setting and scenic qualities, and the socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of the surrounding area. Suitability must be assessedthrough the professional judgment of the evaluators. It is their task to provide sufficient information to the public and the State decision makers.

Insomeinstances, physical factors maypreclude the attainment of uses regardless of improvements inthe chemistry ofthe receiving water. This is particularly true for fish and wildlife protection uses where the lack of a proper substrate maypreclude certain forms of aquatic life from using the stream for propagation, or the lack of cover, depth, flow, pools, riffles, or impacts from channelization, dams, or diversions may preclude particular forms of aquatic life from the stream altogether. While physical factors may influence a State’s decision regarding designation of uses for a water body, States needtogiveconsideration tothe incidental uses that may be made of the water body notwithstanding the use designation. For example, eventhough itmaynot make senseto encourage use of a stream for swimming because of the flow, depth, or velocity of the water, the States and EPA must recognize that swimming and/or wading may, in fact, occur. Toprotect public health, Statesmustsetcriteria to reflect swimming if it appears that primary contact recreation will, in fact, occur in the stream.

While physical factors are important in evaluating whether auseisattainable, physical limitations of the stream may not be an overriding factor. Common sense and good judgment play an important role in setting appropriate usesandcriteria. Insetting criteria and uses,States must assure the attainment of downstream standards. The downstream uses may not be affected by the same physical limitations asthe upstream uses.

If achange inthe designated use iswarranted basedonauseattainability analysis, States may modify theusescurrently assigned. Indoing so, the State should designate uses that can be supported given the physical, chemical, or biological limitations of the water body. Or, a State may designate uses on a seasonal basis. Seasonal usedesignations may be appropriate for streams that lack adequate water volume to support aquatic life year round, but canbeused for fish spawning, etc., during higher flow priods. In setting seasonal uses,care must be taken not to allow the creation of conditions instream that preclude uses inanother season. EPA encourages the designation of seasonal

(9115193) 6-SWaler Quality StandardsHandbook -Scxond Edition

uses as an alternative to completely downgrading the useof awater body.

Economic Impact Assessment

TheWater Quality Standards Regulation allows States to establish uses that are inconsistent with the section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act if the more stringent technology required to meet the goals will cause substantial and widespread economic and social impact. These are impacts resulting specifically from imposition of the pollution controls and reflect such factors as unemployment. plant closures, and changes in the governmental fiscal base. The analysis should address the incremental effects ofwater quality standards beyond technology-based or other State requirements. If the requirements
are not demonstrated to have an incremental, substantial, and widespread impact on the affected community, the standard must be maintained or made compatible with the goals of the Act.

6.1.6 Evaluation ofCriteria
Changes in use designations also must be accompanied by consideration of the need for
achange in criteria. If a use isremoved, the criteria to protect that use may be deleted or revised to assure protection of the remaining
uses. Ifauseisadded, there must beadequate water quality criteria to protect the use. Regardless ofwhether changes ormodifications in u.sesare made, criteria protective ofthe use must ~-KT adopted. Certain criteria are deemed csscntial for inclusion in all State standards, and criteria for section 307(a) toxic pollutants must be addressed consistent with section 303(c)(2)(B) (see chapter 3, this Handbook). All State standards should contain the “free froms” narrative statements (see section 3.5.2) inaddition lo numerical limits that canbeused
asabasisfor regulating discharges into surface waters. Also, water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and bacteriological requirements are basic to all State standards.

EPA’s laboratory-derived criteria may not always accurately reflect the bioavailability and/or toxicity of a pollutant because of the effect of local physical and chemical characteristics or varying sensitivities of local aquatic communities. Similarly, certain compounds may be more or lesstoxic in some waters because of differences in temperature, hardness, or other conditions. Setting sitespecific criteria isappropriate where:

. background water quality parameters, such
aspH, hardness, temperature. color, appear to differ significantly from the laboratory water used indeveloping the section 304(a) criteria; or

l the types of local aquatic organisms differ significantly from those actually tested in developing the section 304(a) criteria.
Developing site-specific criteria isamethod of taking local conditions into account so that criteria are adequate lo protect the designated
use without being more or lessstringent than needed. A three-phase testing program that includes water quality sampling and analysis, a biological survey, and acute bioassays provides
anapproach fordeveloping site-specific criteria. Much ofthedata and information forthe water quality sampling andanalysis andthebiological survey can be obtained while conducting the assessment of the water body. Included in section 3.IOofthis Handbook are scientifically acceptable procedunzs for setting site-specific pollutant concentrations that will protect

6-6 (9115193)Chapter 6-Procedures/or Reviewand Rev&on ofWarerQudity Srandurdv

designated uses. EPA believes that setting sitespecific criteria will occur on only a limited number of stream segments because of the
resources rt@red toconduct the analyses and the basic soundness of the section 304(a) recommendations.

6.1.7 Draft Water Quality Standards Submitted to EPA for Review

While not a regulatory requirement, prudence dictates that draft State water quality standards be submitted to EPA for review. The EPA regional office and Headquarters will conduct concurrent reviews ofdraft standards and make comments on proposed revisions to assist the State in producing standards that are approvable by the Regional Administrator. Continuing cooperation between the State and EPA is essential lo timely approval of State standards.

6.1.8 Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to Standards

Before removing or modifying any use or changing criteria, theClean Water Act requires the State to hold apublic hearing. More than
one hearing may be required depending on State regulations. It may be appropriate to have EPA review the adequacy ofjustifications including the data and the suitability and appropriateness of the analyses and how the analyses were applied prior to the public hearing. Incaseswhere theanalyses arejudged to be inadequate, EPA will identify how the analyses could be improved and suggest the additional types ofevaIuations or data needed. By consulting with EPA frequently throughout the review process, Statescanbebetter assured that EPA will be able to expeditiously review State submissions and make the determination that thestandards meetthe requirements ofthe Act.

The analyses and supporting documentation prepared in conjunction with the proposed water quality standards revision should bemade available to the interested public prior to the hearing. Open discussion of the scientific evidence and analysis supporting proposed revisions in the water quality standards will assistthe State in making itsdecision.

6.1.9 State Adopts Revisions; Submits Standards Package to EPA for Review

Within 30 days of their final administrative action, States submit lo EPA water quality standards revisions, supporting analyses, and State Attorney General certification that the standards were duly adopted pursuant to State law. Final administrative action ismeant tobe the last action a State must take before its revision becomes arule under State law and it
can officially transmit State-adopted standards to EPA for review. This lastaction might bea signature, areview byalegislative committee or

(9/15193) 6-7WaterQuality Standuds Handbook -Sccmd Edition

State Board, or a delay mandated by a State administrative pmcedures act.

In reviewing changes in uses that are inconsistent with the section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act or changes in criteria, EPA will carefully consider the adequacy ofthe analyses and the public comments received during the hearing process. Standards are to meet the goals of the Act unless the State can clearly demonstrate that the usesreflected inthe goals
are unattainable.

cl 

## 6.2 EPA Review and Approval

When Statesadopt newor revised water quality standards, the State is required under CWA Section 303(c) tosubmit suchstandards toEPA for review and approval/disapproval. Section 131.20(c) of the Water Quality Standards Regulation requires the submittal to EPA to occur within 30 days of the final State action. Figure 6.2outlines EPA’s review process. EPA reviewsandapproves/disapproves thestandards based on whether the standards meet the requirements of the CWA and the Water Quality Standards Regulation. States are encouraged to provide early drafts to the EPA Regional Office sothat issuescan be resolved during the water quality standards review process, prior to formal State proposal or adoption of revised or new standards.

When reviewing State water quality standards, EPA ensures that the standards meet the minimum requirements of the Act and Water Quality Standards Regulation. Pursuant to section 510 of the Act, State water quality standards may be more stringent than EPA’s minimum requirements.

The general elements of an EPA review include, but are not limited to, the following:

l EPA determines whether “fishable/ swimmable” designated uses have been assigned to all State waters or a use attainability analysis (UAA) isavailable to support the designation of other uses. Other uses may satisfy the CWA section 101(a)(2) goal if properly supported by a UAA. EPA reviews the adequacy of the analyses.

EPA determines whether the State’s water quality criteria are sufficient to protect the designated usesbyensuring that all numeric criteria are based on CWA Section 304(a) guidance, 304(a) guidance modified to reflect site-specific conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods. EPA’s decision to accept criteria based on sitespecific calculations or alternative scientific procedures isbased on adetermination of the validity and adequacy of the supporting scientific procedures and assumptions and not on whether the resulting criterion is
more or less stringent than the EPA guideline.

EPA ensures that uses and/or criteria are consistent throughout the water body and that downstream standards areprotected. A review to determine compliance with downstream standards is most likely to involve bodies of water on, or crossing, interstate and international boundaries.

Where the analyses supporting any changes in the standards are inadequate, EPA identifies how the analyses need to be improved and suggests the type of information or analyses needed.

For waters where uses have not been designated in support of the fishable/ swimmable goal of the CWA, EPA determines whether the alternative usesare based on an acceptable UAA and whether such UAAs have been reviewed every 3 yearsasrequired by40CFR 131.20(a).

EPA ensures that general “free from” narrative criteria are included that protect all waters at all flows from substances that

6-8 (9115193)Chapter6-Procduresfor Review andRevision

ofWaferQualityStandards

StaleSUM Draft WQStoRegionfor lnfotmal Review 

# 1

Regbn ReviewsDraft WQS

CommentsGivento state 

# 1

StateAdoptsor RevisssWQS

StateSubmits ReMons, Methods,Jusdf’kathnr andAttorneyGeneralCertifkath toRegional

AdministratorforReview

or

IfConditions NotMet byState,WQS Considered Disapproved

Figure 6-2. Overview of EPA Water Quality Standards Review Process

(9/15/93) 6-9WaterQuality Standuds Handbook -second Edition

settle to form objectionable deposits; float 

### as debris, scum, oil, or other matter; produce objectionable 

### color,odor,taste,or turbidity; are acutely toxic; or produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life.

EPA determines whether the State has included criteria for CWA section 307(a) “priority” pollutants sufficient to satisfy the requirements ofCWA section 303(c)(2)(B).

For toxic pollutants where EPA has not issued guidance or it is not known which toxicant or toxicants are causing the problem, EPA ensures that the State standards include or reference amethod for implementing the narrative toxics “free from”criterion.

EPA ensuresthattheState’santidegradation policy meets the requirements of section 131.12 

### of the Water Quality Standards Regulation.

EPA reviews whether theState hasprovided
or referenced aprocedure for implementing the antidegradation policy.

Where (optional) general policies are included intheStatewater quality standards (e.g., mixing zone provisions, variance 

### policies, low-flow exemption policies), EPA reviews whether the policies are consistent with the 

### latestEPA guidance.

EPA reviews comments and suggestions on previous State water quality 

### standards to
ensure that any areas for improvement or conditions attached to previous approvals have been acted upon satisfactorily.

EPA reviews whether the policies are consistent with the latest EPA guidance and regulatory requirements.

EPA ensures that the State has met the minimum requirements for a standards submission 

### asoutlined in section 131.6 of the Water Quality Standards Regulation.

l EPA reviews whether the State has complied with the procedural requirements (e.g., public participation) for conducting water quality 

### standardsreviews.

Since 1972, EPA review and approval/ 

### disapproval includesconcurrent reviews bythe Regions and Headquarters. However, because the EPA regional Administrator has the responsibility forapproving/disapproving water quality standards and because of the decentralized structure of EPA, the regional offices aretheprimary point ofcontact with the States. The EPA regional offices, not the States, are responsible for providing copies 

### of State water quality standards to EPA Headquarters for review and for acting as liaison ktween States and EPA Headquarters
on most matters affecting the water quality standards program. The basic internal EPA review procedures have been described in various guidance documents over theyears;the most wasamemorandum dated December 17, 1984.This memorandum also made one 

### minor change to the process. It required that Headquarters be consulted immediately for possible advice and assistance 

### when the Regional Office learns that aState:

l isproposing to lower designated water uses below thesection 101(a)(2) goals

### oftheAct;

l isnot raising water usesto meet the section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act; or

l is considering 

### adopting a water quality criterion less stringent than currently included 

### inaState’sstandard.

To expedite Headquarters review, copies of State water quality standards revisions (draft and final) 

### must be provided to the Director, Standards and Applied Science Division, atthe time they are received by the Region. The Standards 

### and Applied 

### Science Division will

6-10 (9/I S/93)Chapm6-Procedures for Reviewand Revision of WarerQuuliry S~undards

involve other EPA offices in the review as appropriate, and provide comments and suggestions, if any, to regional offices for consideration in State-EPA negotiations and final standards decisions. Their review will be expeditiously accomplished so as not to slow regional approval/disapproval. Neither the regional nor Headquarters review need be limited only to revisions toexisting standards or lo new standards.

In general, three outcomes are possible:

l EPA approval, in whole or in part, of the submitted State water quality standards;

l EPA disapproval, inwhole or inpart, ofthe submitted Statewater quality standards; and

l EPA conditional approval, in whole or in part, of the submitted State water quality standardsI

Unconditional approval or disapproval of State-adopted water quality standards within the statutory time limits isthe preferred approach. Conditional approvals should beusedonly asa limited exception to this general policy for correcting minor deficiencies inState standards and only if a State provides assurance that it will submit corrections on a specified, written schedule. Failure of a State to respond in a timely manner to the conditions expressed in the letter means that the standards are disapproved and the Region must promptly request Headquarters toinitiate apromulgation action. Where this occurs, the Region should formally notify the State in writing that their failure to meet the conditions previously specified results in the standards now being disapproved as of the original date of the conditional approval letter,

6.2.1 Policies and Procedures Related to Approvals
Authority toapprove ordisapprove State water quality standards is delegated by the Administrator toeach Regional Administrator. The Administrator retains the authority to promulgate standards. Revisions toStatewater quality standards that meet the requirements of the Act and the Water Quality Standards Regulation are approved by the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrator must, within 60days, notify the Governor or his designee by letter of the approval and forward acopy ofthe letter tothe appropriate State agency. The letter should contain anyinformation that might behelpful in understanding thescopeoftheapproval action. If particular events (e.g., State implementation decisions, pending Federal legislation pertaining to water quality standards requirements) could result in afailure ofthe approved standards to continue to meet the requirements of the Act, these events should be identified in the approval letter. Such events should be identified for the record toguide future review and revision activities.

When only aportion ofthe revisions submitted meet the requirements of the Act and the Water Quality Standards Regulation, the Regional Administrator mayapprove only that portion. Ifonly apartial approval ismade, the Region must, in notifying the State, be as specific as possible in identifying what is disapproved and why. The Regional Administrator must also clearly indicate what action the State could take to make the disapproved item acceptable.

6.2.2 Policies and Procedures Related to Disapprovals

If the Regional Administrator determines that the revisions submitted are not consistent with
or do not meet the requirements of the Act or the Water Quality Standards Regulation, the Regional Administrator must disapprove such standards within 90 days. Such disapproval mustbeviawritten notification totheGovernor of the State or his designee. The letter must state why the revisions are not consistent with the Act or the Water Quality Standards

(9/15/93) 6-11WaterQulity Shmiards Handbook -SecondEdition

Regulation and specify the revisions that must beadopted to obtain full approval. The letter

must also notify the Governor that the Adrninistntor will initiate promulgation pnxeedings if the State fails to adopt and submit the necessary revisions within 90 days after notification.

A State water quality standard remains in effect. even though disapproved by EPA, until the Stale revises itor EPA promulgates arule that sll~r~t:s the State water quality standard. This is because water quality standard> artzState laws, not Federal laws,and
once the law is amended by the State, the previrjusly adopted and EPA-approved standani5 no longer legally exist.

6.2.3 Policies and Procedures Related to Conditional Approvals

Conditional approvals are EPA approvals contingent on thc performance of specified actions on the part of a State in a timely
manner. There is an implicit or explicit statt’ment inthe letter to the State that failure to satisfy the identified conditions will nullify the conditional approval and lead to Federal promulgation action. Problems havearisen with in~onsi\t~nt UFO

ofconditional approvals among the rqzions and with followup actions toensure that aState isresponding tothe conditions ina timely manner. Because promulgation of Federal standards is inherently a lengthy press. the use of conditional approvals evolved overthe yearsas another mechanism to maintain the State-Federal relationship in establishing standards. When used properly, conditional approvals canresult instandards that fully meet the requirements of the Act without undue Federal intervention and promote smooth operation ofthe national program.

Ifusedimproperly, conditional approvals canbe
an unacceptable delaying tactic to establishing standards and can beconstrued asEPA failing to properly exercise its duty to review and either approve or disapprove and promptly initiate promulgation action after the allotted %-day period for State action. This improper
useof conditional approvals must beavoided.

It is incumbent on a Region that uses a conditional approval toensure that Stateaction is timely. When a State fails to meet the agreed-upon schedule, EPA should initiate promulgation action. Conditional approvals are to be used only to correct minor deficiencies and should be the exception, not the rule, governing regional responsestoStatestandards. Note that requests forclarification oradditional information are not approval actions of any tYPe*

This policy is modeled after that applied to EPA approval of State implementation plansChup~er6-Procedurt~ /or Reviewand Revision ofWurt*rQwlitv Srclnhrds

(SIPS) in the air program. (See 44 F.R. 38583, July 2, 1979. Seealso Mississippi Commission
on Natural Resources v.Cosrle, 625 F.2d 1269 (5th Cir.) 1980.)
Necessary Elements of Conditional Approvals
First, conditional approvals areappropriate only for “minor deficiencies.” Blatant disregard of Federal statutory or regulatory requirements or changes that will affect major permit issuance
or reissuance are not minor deficiencies. In addition, the State’s standards submission asa whole must be in substantial compliance with EPA’s regulation. Major deficiencies must be disapproved to allow prompt Federal promulgation action.
Second, the State must commit, inwriting, toa mutually satisfactory, negotiated schedule to correct the identified regulatory deficiencies in
asshort atime period aspossible. The time allowed should bear a reasonable relationship to the required action. However, in consideration of the first element above, it is expected that the time period for compliance will be limited toafew months. It isdefinitely not expected that a year or more will be required. Ifthat isthe case,disapproval would be more appropriate. Headquarters
concurrence in the schedule is required if it extends for more than 3months.

cl 6.3 EPA Promulgation

As amatter of policy, EPA prefers that States adopt their own standards. However, under section 303(c)(4) of the Act, EPA may promulgate Federal standards:

l if a revised or new water quality standard submitted by a State isdetermined by the Administrator not to beconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act, or l in any case where the Administrator determines that anewor revised standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the Act.

Under the latter provision of the statute, EPA would be able to promulgate standards for a State, or States, that failed to conduct a triennial review and submit new or revised standards to EPA for review so long as the Administrator determined new standards were necessary. Where one of these conditions is met, the Administrator has the authority to publish proposed revisions to the State(s) standards in the Federal Register. Generally, a public hearing will be held on the proposed standards. Final standards are promulgated after giving due consideration to written comments received and statements madeatany public hearings on the propo.sed revisions.
Although only the Administrator may promulgate Statestandards, theRegional Office hasa major role in the promulgation process. The Regional Office provides the necessary background information and conducts the public hearings. The Regional Office prepares drafts ofthe rationale supporting EPA’s action included intheproposed and final rulemakings. The rationale should clearly statethe reason for the disapproval of the State standard.

Ifconditions warrant (e.g.,a State rcmcdics the deficiencies in itswater quality standards prior to promulgation), the Administrator may terminate the rulemaking proce&ing at any time. However, if aproposed rulemaking has been published inthe Federal Regisfer.th the Regional Administrator must not approkc the State’s changes without obtaining conc’urrcnce from Headquarters.

Whenever promulgation proc&ings are terminated, a notice of withdrawal of the proposed rulemaking will be published in the Federal Register. The Regional Offices are responsible for initiating such action andWaterChalitv StandardsHandbook -SecondEdition

furnishing arationale for use in preparing the notice for the Administrator’s signature.

An EPA-promulgated standard will be withdrawn when revisions toState water quality standards are made that meet the requirements of the Act. In such a situation, the Regional Office should initiate the withdrawal action by notifying the Standards and Applied Science Division (WH-585) that it is requesting the withdrawal, specifying the rationale for the withdrawal, and obtaining Headquarters
concurrence on the acceptability of the State’s water quality standards. EPA’s action to withdraw a federally promulgated standard requires both aproposed and final rulemaking iftheState-adopted standards are lessstringent than federally promulgated standards but, inthe Agency’sjudgment, fully meet the requirements ofthe Act. EPA will withdraw the Federal rule without anotice andcomment rulemaking when the State standards are no lessstringent than the Fedetal rule (i.e.,standards that provide, at least, equivalent environmental and human health protection).

Withdrawal ofaFederal promulgation isbased
on a determination that State-adopted water quality standards meet the requirements ofthe Clean Water Act. Such State-adopted standards may be the same as,more stringent than, or lessstringent than the Federal rule.

6-14 (9/15/93)Chapter 7-TheWaterQuality-Based Approach to Pollution Control

CHAPTER 7

THE WATER QUALITY-BASED

APPROACH TO POLLUTION CONTROL

Table of Contents

7.1 Determine Protection Level

.................................... 7-2

7.2 Conduct Water Quality Assessment

............................... 7-3

7.2.1 Monitor Water Quality

................................ 7-3

7.2.2 Identify Impaired (Water Quality-Limited) Waters

................ 7-3

7.3 Establish Priorities

......................................... 7-5

7.4 Evaluate Water Quality Standards for Targeted Waters

................... 7-6

7.5 Define and Allocate Control Responsibilities

......................... 7-7

7.6 Establish Source Controls

..................................... 7-8

7.6.1 Point Source Control - the NPDES Process

.................... 7-9

7.6.2 Nonpoint Source Controls

............................. 7-10

7.6.3 CWA Section 401 Certification

.......................... 7-10

7.7 Monitor and Enforce Compliance

............................... 7-12

7.8 Measure Progress

......................................... 7-13