INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST

FOR

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REGULATION

(RENEWAL)

DRAFT

May, 2015

EPA ICR Number 0988.12

OMB Control Number 2040-0049

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology

MC 4305T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460
CONTENTS 

Page

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

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

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

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ..................................................................5

2.1 Need and Authority for the Collection...........................................................................5

2.2 Practical Utility/Users of the Data .................................................................................7

3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER 

COLLECTION CRITERIA .............................................................................................9

3.1 Non-duplication .............................................................................................................9

3.2 Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB .........................................10

3.3 Consultations................................................................................................................10

3.4 Effects of Less Frequent Collection.............................................................................11

3.5 General Guidelines.......................................................................................................12

3.6 Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions......................................................................13

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED.................................14

4.1 Respondents/NAICS Codes.........................................................................................14

4.2 Information Requested.................................................................................................15

4.3 Respondent Activities..................................................................................................18

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTEDBAGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT..................................21

5.1 Agency Activities.........................................................................................................21

5.2 Collection Methodology and Management..................................................................22

5.3 Small Entity Flexibility................................................................................................23

5.4 Collection Schedule .....................................................................................................24

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION.............................26

6.1 Estimating Respondent Burden....................................................................................26

6.2 Estimating Respondent Costs ......................................................................................28

6.3 Estimating Agency Burden and Cost...........................................................................30

6.4 Total Burden and Costs................................................................................................31

6.5 Reasons for Change in Burden ....................................................................................32

6.6 Burden Statement.........................................................................................................32

Attachment A. Average Cost for State/Tribal Review Process ...............................................33
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

3

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1.1 TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

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

Regulation (Renewal). This draft ICR updates the previous estimates of burden and costs to 

states and Indian tribes presented in the ICR entitled Water Quality Standards Regulation (EPA 

ICR Number 0988.11, OMB Control Number 2040-0049), that expires on December 31, 2015.

1.2 SHORT CHARACTERIZATION/ABSTRACT

Water quality standards are provisions of state1, tribal, or federal law which consist of 

designated uses for waters of the United States, water quality criteria to protect those uses, and 

an antidegradation policy. Water quality standards are established to protect public health or 

welfare, protect and enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. 

Such standards serve the dual purposes of establishing the water quality goals for water bodies, 

and serving as a regulatory basis for establishing water quality-based treatment controls and 

strategies beyond technology-based treatment required by sections 301 and 306 of the Act.

The Water Quality Standards Regulation establishes the framework for states and 

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

implementation of regulatory controls to take place. For the purposes of this draft ICR, the 

Regulation consists of 40 CFR part 131, and portions of part 132 related to water quality 

standards, including 40 CFR 132.3, Appendixes A, B, C, D, E, and Procedures 1 and 2 of 

Appendix F. The regulation includes requirements for information collection to enable EPA, 

states, and tribes to implement the regulation. This draft ICR is for information collection 

required by the Water Quality Standards Regulation and for implementing the water quality

standards program. 

The Regulation includes the information collection activities shown in Table 1.1.

Note: This draft ICR does not include estimates for the burden and costs related to the 

recent changes EPA is finalizing to 40 CFR Part 131. (See OMB control #2040-0286, EPA ICR 

2449.02 for the separate ICR covering those additional activities). 

 

1

The Clean Water Act defines the term “state” to mean the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and specific 

territories including Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

4

Table 1.1: Overview of information collected

Information Collected Sections of Water Quality 

Standards Regulation

(A) Standards Adoption and 

Revisions

New and revised water 

quality standards, results of 

triennial reviews, and 

supporting information 

submitted to EPA for review 

and approval.

40 CFR part 131, especially

sections 131.6, 131.20-

131.22

(B) Tribal Program 

Applications

Tribal applications to be 

treated in the same manner as 

a state (TAS) to administer 

water quality standards 

programs 

40 CFR 131.8

(C) Dispute Resolution 

Requests

Tribal or state requests for 

dispute resolution

40 CFR 131.7

(D) Great Lakes Water 

Quality Guidance: 

(D1) Great Lakes 

Bioassay Tests

(D2) Great Lakes 

Antidegradation 

Demonstrations

(D3) Great Lakes 

Regulatory Relief 

Requests

Bioassay tests and other 

studies to support 

development of water quality

criteria for the Great Lakes 

system

40 CFR part 132, especially

sections 132.1, 132.2, 132.3, 

132.5, and Appendixes A, B, 

C, and D

Studies and demonstrations 

required by the 

antidegradation policy for the 

Great Lakes system*

40 CFR part 132, especially

sections 132.1,132.2, 132.4, 

132.5, and Appendix E

Requests for regulatory relief 

(e.g., variances) from water 

quality standards for the 

Great Lakes system*

40 CFR part 132, especially

sections 132.1, 132.2, 132.4, 

132.5, and Procedures 1 and 

2 of Appendix F

*Items D1, D2 and D3 involve both water quality standards burden and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) burden. This draft ICR covers only the water quality standards burden. A separate ICR, EPA ICR 

Number 0229.20, OMB Control Number 2040-0004, covers the NPDES burden.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

5

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2.1 NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION

(A) Standards Adoption and Revision. Since the passage of the Water Quality Act in 

1965, the states have been required by federal law to establish water quality standards. These 

requirements were expanded by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act 

(CWA), in 1972. Section 303(c) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1313(c), governs the water quality 

standards program. Section 303(c) requires states and authorized tribes2to review and revise 

their water quality standards at least once every three years, and to submit to EPA the results and 

revisions resulting from the reviews. EPA then reviews each state or tribal submission for 

approval or disapproval. 

These requirements are encompassed in 40 CFR part 131 of the Water Quality Standards 

Regulation. Section 131.20 establishes the requirement for state or tribal review and revision of 

water quality standards. Section 131.6 establishes the minimum requirements for a water quality 

standards submission. Section 131.5 prescribes EPA’s review of state and tribal submission. The 

review criteria are: (a) whether the state or tribe has adopted uses which are consistent with the 

requirements of the Act; (b) whether the state or tribe has adopted criteria to protect the 

designated water uses; (c) whether the state or tribe has followed its legal procedures for revising 

or adopting standards; (d) whether the water quality standards which do not include uses 

specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act are based on appropriate technical and scientific data 

and analyses; and (e) whether the submission meets the minimum elements from section 131.6. 

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

make approvals or disapprovals.

(B) Tribal Program Applications. In 1987, through the Water Quality Act (P. L. 100-4), 

Congress made substantial additions to the CWA. The Water Quality Act added section 518(e) 

which requires EPA to promulgate regulations specifying how Indian tribes would qualify to 

administer the CWA section 303 water quality standards program. EPA published such 

regulations in 1991 in section 131.8 of the Water Quality Standards Regulation. The revisions do 

not require tribes to apply for administering the water quality standards programs. However, 

where tribes desire to be authorized to administer the water quality standards program, some 

information collection is necessary in order for EPA to fulfill the Agency’s responsibilities under 

CWA section 518(e) in a reasonable and timely manner.

The statute and Regulation specify four criteria for an Indian tribe to qualify to administer 

a water quality standards program (40 CFR 131.8): The tribe must be federally recognized, the 

tribe must have a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers, the 

water quality standards program must be administered for water resources within the borders of 

an Indian reservation or legal equivalent, and the tribe must be reasonably expected to be capable 

 

2

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

CFR 131.8. EPA maintains a current list of such tribes at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/approvtable.cfm
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

6

of carrying out the functions of an effective water quality standards program under the Act. 

Section 131.8(b) specifies the information a tribe must submit in order for EPA to review and 

approve the application. (See section 4.2 below.)

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. The 1987 amendments to the CWA also included 

specific requirements in section 518(e)(3) for EPA to establish a mechanism for resolution of 

disputes which arise between states and tribes over water quality standards on common water 

bodies. EPA published such regulations in 1991 in section 131.7 of the Water Quality Standards 

Regulation. The revisions do not require tribes or states to request EPA assistance in resolving 

state/tribal disputes. However, where a tribe or state desires a formal EPA dispute resolution 

action, some information collection is necessary in order for EPA to fulfill the Agency's 

responsibilities under CWA section 518(e) in a reasonable and timely manner.

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 

1990 amended section 118 of the CWA. It directed EPA to publish water quality guidance for 

the Great Lakes system.3EPA published this guidance in March 1995, which is codified at 40 

CFR part 132. The Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria, implementation 

procedures, and antidegradation provisions for the Great Lakes system. The Great Lakes water 

quality standards components included in this draft ICR are:

(1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. States or dischargers may choose to undertake 

bioassays or other studies that states may use to develop water quality criteria or values to 

protect waters of the Great Lakes system. For this draft ICR, EPA assumed that 

dischargers would perform the tests. If states perform the tests, the overall burden might 

be less. The bioassay tests are discretionary activities. If a state or discharger chooses to 

undertake them, they must produce data consistent with the requirements of the Great 

Lakes Guidance. See 40 CFR 132, Appendixes A, B, C, and D.

(2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Dischargers may undertake 

activities in the course of their operations that would be subject to the antidegradation 

requirements of the Guidance. For example, a planned expansion of a manufacturing 

facility might produce increased loadings of bioaccumulative chemicals of concern that 

result in a significant lowering of water quality. In these situations, the facilities must 

conduct studies and demonstrations to ensure compliance with the Guidance and 

implementing state requirements. See 40 CFR part 132, Appendix E.

(3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Dischargers may choose to apply

for regulatory relief (e.g., modifications to water quality criteria, or discharge variances 

from water quality standards) from provisions implementing the Guidance. The requests 

for such relief are discretionary activities. If a discharger chooses to make such a request, 

it must perform additional monitoring or special studies to support the request. See 

Procedures 1 and 2 of 40 CFR part 132, Appendix F.

 

3

The Great Lakes system means all the streams, rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water within the drainage 

basin of the Great Lakes within the United States.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

7

2.2 PRACTICAL UTILITY/USERS OF THE DATA

(A) Standards Adoptions and Revisions. EPA uses the new and revised water quality 

standards and supporting information submitted by states and authorized tribes to carry out its 

responsibility under the CWA to approve or disapprove the standards. 

Section 131.5 of the Regulation prescribes EPA's review of state and tribal submissions. 

The review criteria are: (a) whether the state or tribe has adopted uses which are consistent with 

the requirements of the Act; (b) whether the state or tribe has adopted criteria to protect the 

designated water uses; (c) whether the state or tribe has followed its legal procedures for revising 

or adopting standards; (d) whether the water quality standards which do not include uses 

specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act are based on appropriate technical and scientific data 

and analyses; and (e) whether the submission meets the minimum elements from section 131.6 

(see section 4.2 below). 

Once EPA approves the standards, they become effective for all purposes under the Act. 

EPA makes the full text of all water quality standards available on its web site, 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech to assist the public, states, tribes, dischargers, and other stakeholders. 

EPA, states, and tribes use the standards as the foundation for water quality protection under the 

CWA. Standards establish the water quality goals for specific water bodies, and provide the 

regulatory basis for the establishment of water quality-based treatment controls and strategies 

beyond technology-based levels of treatment.

In particular, water quality standards serve as the basis for EPA, states, and authorized 

tribes to determine which waters are not in attainment under section 303(d) of the CWA, for 

establishing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for non-attainment waters under section 

303(d), for water quality-based effluent limitations in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits for point source dischargers (including publicly-owned treatment 

works and industrial facilities) under sections 301(b)(1)(C) and 402 of the Act, and for 

certifications under section 401. They also help federal, state, tribal, and local governments 

develop water quality management plans and objectives, and plan for and protect water supplies.

If these information collection activities were not carried out, explicit requirements of the 

CWA would be violated, TMDLs could not be developed where needed, and federal or state

permit writers would be unable to establish permit limits to protect water quality where 

technology-based controls are not adequate.

(B) Tribal Program Applications. EPA uses the information supplied by interested 

tribes to determine whether they qualify to administer water quality standards programs under 

the CWA. EPA must assess the tribe’s applications to determine whether they meet the 

requirements specified in section 518(e) of the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 

CFR 131.8. If these information collection activities were not carried out, interested and 

otherwise qualified tribes would be unable to implement a key program under the CWA. This 

would not be consistent with the CWA or federal Indian policy.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

8

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. EPA uses the information supplied in the requests to 

initiate its role of attempting to resolve disputes arising from differing water quality standards on 

common bodies of water. If this information collection activity were not carried out, interested 

states and tribes would be unable to resolve such disputes as envisioned in the CWA. 

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. Great Lakes states and tribes4 will use the results of 

bioassay tests conducted by dischargers to help develop or revise water quality criteria and 

values to protect aquatic life in the Great Lakes system. Such testing can result in more 

scientifically accurate criteria, or criteria more suited to specific water bodies.

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Great Lakes states and tribes will 

use the information supplied by dischargers to make “antidegradation decisions” under the Great 

Lakes Water Quality Guidance. These decisions determine whether the activity the discharger is 

about to undertake will be allowed, even though it may lower water quality. 

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Great Lakes states and tribes will use 

the information supplied by dischargers to decide whether to grant the regulatory relief requests 

(e.g., water quality variances, or modifications of water quality criteria). This information may 

be used to ensure compliance with provisions consistent with the Guidance and to re-evaluate 

existing permit conditions and monitoring requirements.

 

4

A Great Lakes tribe is a tribe which is located in whole or in part in the Great Lakes system, and which 

EPA has authorized to administer a water quality standards program.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

9

3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION 

CRITERIA

3.1 NON-DUPLICATION

(A) Standards Adoption and Revision. State and tribal water quality standards reviews 

and revisions are a unique component of the water quality management process, with states and 

authorized tribes having the exclusive responsibility to adopt, certify, and submit standards, and 

EPA having the exclusive authority to review and approve/disapprove the standards. However, in 

developing and analyzing the standards, the states and tribes use existing data and information 

from other programs wherever possible. Some key programs that provide data and other 

information on sources of pollution, characteristics of pollutant discharges, ambient water quality

conditions, and cause-and-effect relationships are as follows.

-The NPDES permitting program, including information from “NPDES Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge Management Permits” (OMB No. 2040-0086); “NPDES Modification 

and Variance Requests” (OMB No. 2040-0068); “NPDES and Sewage Sludge 

Monitoring Reports” (OMB No. 2040-0004); and, the Permit Compliance System (PCS), 

an automated database of discharger data. 

-The ambient water monitoring and water quality management programs, including 

information from the National Water Quality Inventory Reports (CWA sections 305(b), 

303(d), 314(a), and 106(e)); OMB Control No. 2040-0071; and, the STORET (short for

STOrage and RETrieval), an automated database of ambient water quality data; and other 

discharger or ambient water quality data the states voluntarily collect.

Historically, states typically design and conduct water quality studies with multiple 

objectives in mind (e.g., general water quality assessment, use attainability analysis, site-specific 

criteria development, wasteload allocation analysis). EPA works with the states and tribes to 

minimize any duplication of data collection efforts.

EPA considered alternative data sources for the water quality standards program. The 

data needed for this program are found primarily in state and tribal water quality management 

and planning programs and generally cannot be purchased or otherwise obtained from private 

sources. Further, the adoption and submission of water quality standards are governmental 

functions that can only be accomplished by states and authorized tribes.

(B) Tribal Program Applications. Under EPA’s regulations, a tribe must submit a 

separate TAS (Treatment in a Manner Similar to a State) application for each program it wishes 

to administer. To avoid requiring tribes to submit duplicate information, the Water Quality 

Standards Regulation specifies that a tribe need only provide the required information which has 

not been submitted in a previous application. For example, in evaluating whether a tribe qualifies 

to administer water quality standards, EPA does not require a tribe to resubmit information from 

its previously-approved TAS application under section 106.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

10

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. Because each dispute over water quality standards 

will be unique, and the information required to be submitted pertains solely to the dispute, it is 

very unlikely that tribes or states will be required to re-submit information which was previously

provided to EPA. 

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. EPA has examined all the reporting 

requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 403, 501, and 503. 

The Agency also has consulted the following sources of information to determine if similar or 

duplicate information is available elsewhere: EPA’s Information Systems Inventory, EPA’s 

Inventory of Information Collection Requests, Federal Information Locator System, 

Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule (53 CFR 51698), and EPA’s Toxics Release 

Inventory. Examination of these databases revealed no duplicate requirements.

3.2 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB

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

60-day period on this draft ICR. See the accompanying Federal Register notice for instructions to 

provide comments.

3.3 CONSULTATIONS

When EPA revised the Water Quality Standards Regulation in 1983, EPA made a 

substantial effort to involve the public. The process began in 1978 with the publication of an 

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The ANPRM resulted in comments from 

110 individuals, public agencies, organizations, and interest groups. EPA developed ideas for 

revisions to the existing regulation from the comments. EPA also began a dialogue with states 

and with the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators 

(ASIWPCA). The states and ASIWPCA continued their involvement until publication of the 

proposed rule through discussions with EPA and review of drafts of the proposed rule. None of 

the state comments pertained to reporting requirements in the then existing rule or in the 

proposal. The final rule was published in November 1983.

Additionally, EPA published an ANPRM for the WQS Regulation in 1998 to begin a 

structured public dialogue with states, tribes, dischargers, and other interested parties on whether 

and what changes, if any, are needed in the water quality standards program to improve the 

effectiveness of water quality standards. EPA also held meetings to assist stakeholders in 

reviewing and developing their positions/comments on the ANPRM. The information received 

from written comments and from the public meetings has been useful to EPA in managing the 

standards program, and has helped EPA develop guidance, and provide assistance to states and 

tribes. 

In 2001 through 2003, EPA conducted outreach to stakeholders and state co-regulators to 

revisit the essential role of water quality standards and criteria in restoring and maintaining water 

quality. EPA held over 50 listening sessions with over 350 people in 2001, and received written 

comments in 2002 from over 65 stakeholders. The review resulted in the publication of the 
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

11

Strategy for Water Quality Standards and Criteria in August 2003 by EPA’s Office of Science 

and Technology (OST). See 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/strategy/index.cfm. The listening sessions 

revealed no concerns about reporting burden, no expressed needs for reduced reporting burden, 

and no suggestions for changes to regulatory requirements regarding information collection.

From August through December 2010, the EPA held multiple listening sessions with 

stakeholders and the public, as well as consultation sessions with states, tribes, and 

representatives of state and local elected officials, concerning possible revisions to the Water 

Quality Standards regulation at 40 CFR 131. On September 4, 2013, EPA proposed revisions to 

the regulation (see 78 FR 54518). The proposal was accompanied by a draft ICR. EPA will 

prepare a final ICR in conjunction with the final rule for any information collection requests 

associated with the rule. 

EPA consulted with seven (7) states in March 2014 to gather input regarding burden 

estimates related to the base program and the proposed WQS Regulatory Revision rule. States 

preferred EPA wait until the revisions to 40 CFR Part 131 regulations were finalized and 

implemented before making changes to the burden estimates for the WQS program as a whole. 

The new rule was proposed in FY14 and is expected to be finalized in FY15. It will consolidate 

WQS regulations discussion.

The final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (Guidance) was published 

in the Federal Register on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15366). It is the result of a six-year effort 

begun by the eight Great Lakes states and EPA in 1989 to develop more consistent water quality

standards in the Great Lakes Basin. To stay abreast of public expectations for the final Guidance, 

EPA met with state, local, and tribal government officials, financial officials and co-regulators, 

the regulated community and environmental interests to listen and openly discuss their concerns.

During the post-proposal process, EPA participated in more than 40 such meetings with over 

1,000 stakeholder representatives. The comments and issues raised by the various stakeholders 

were considered in EPA’s option selection process and regulatory impact analysis for developing 

the final Guidance.

The final Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria (including for the first 

time criteria specifically to protect wildlife), antidegradation policies, and implementation 

procedures using an ecosystem approach for waters of the Great Lakes Basin. This includes 

waters within the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Ohio and Wisconsin, and waters within the jurisdiction of several Indian tribes. All eight of the 

Great Lakes states have adopted criteria, methodologies, policies, and procedures consistent with 

the final Guidance that were approved by EPA, and are currently implementing these 

requirements in their state.

3.4 EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION

(A) Standards Adoption and Revision. The information collection schedule is pursuant 

to the mandates of Section 303(c) of the CWA for the states and tribes to review their water 
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

12

quality standards once every three years and thus is not adjustable by the EPA. Additionally, if 

water quality standards were reviewed less frequently, they would be more likely to be based on 

out-of-date information regarding existing stream uses, attainability of designated uses, 

pollutants of concern, and appropriate water quality criteria values. A triennial review cycle 

ensures that the latest scientific and other information are reflected in the standards.

(B) Tribal Program Applications. Application by Indian tribes to administer the water 

quality standards program is a one-time collection of information per respondent, initiated 

voluntarily by interested tribes.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. Requests for dispute resolution will be a one-time 

collection of information per respondent, initiated voluntarily by a tribe or state interested in 

EPA’s assistance.

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. Permitted facilities may initiate bioassay tests to 

support development of water quality criteria voluntarily at any time. Because the Guidance does 

not require such testing, EPA has no discretion to reduce reporting frequency. EPA operates a 

GLI Clearinghouse of previously-collected information in order to help avoid redundant data 

collection efforts. See http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse.

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Permitted facilities may

undertake activities in the course of their operations that would be subject to the antidegradation 

requirements of the Guidance. EPA has no control over the frequency of such activities. In these 

situations, the facilities conduct studies and demonstrations to ensure compliance with the 

Guidance and implementing state requirements.

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Regulatory relief requests will generally 

be associated with the reissuance of NPDES permits. Permitted facilities must reapply for 

NPDES permits before their existing permits expire, generally once every five years. The CWA 

prohibits issuance of NPDES permits with terms longer than five years. Less frequent permit 

applications would not provide the permitting authority with sufficiently current data to establish 

effective limitations or conditions when issuing permits. Since permittees will decide whether or 

not to apply for regulatory relief (e.g., modifications to water quality criteria or discharge 

variances from water quality standards) from provisions implementing the Guidance, and since 

pursuing relief is generally a one-time effort for the permittee, EPA has no discretion to allow 

less frequent information collection.

3.5 GENERAL GUIDELINES

EPA reviewed this draft ICR’s compliance with OMB’s information collection guidelines 

in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). EPA found that one element of record keeping under the Water Quality

Standards Regulation may fall under 1320.5(d)(2)(iv), which prohibits agencies from requiring 

record retention longer than three years unless necessary to satisfy statutory requirements or 

other substantial need. In this draft ICR, such longer-term record retention could occur in some 

situations because the Regulation prohibits the removal of any waterbody uses that have been 

actually attained on or after November 28, 1975, when revising designated uses adopted into 
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

13

water quality standards. In order to be able to implement this provision, states and tribes need a 

way of knowing or estimating “existing uses” of water bodies as far back as 1975. To do so, state

and tribes may use any available information from other sources, or may choose to retain some 

of their own information – for example, water quality monitoring data, biological surveys, or 

anecdotal evidence of human recreational water usage – for more than three years. 

EPA believes there is a substantial need for this historical information. The regulatory

prohibition to removing “existing uses” is based on EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water 

Act’s statutory objective “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation’s waters,” and to set water quality standards that “... protect the public health or 

welfare, enhance the water quality of water and serve the purposes [including the objective] of 

this Act” (33 U.S.C. 1251(a), 1313(c)(2)). The loss of existing uses would be inconsistent with 

this mandate. 

States and tribes may choose to use an EPA information management system, STORET, 

described at http://www.epa.gov/storet, which can minimize the burden to retain their own 

historical records of water quality.

3.6 CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS

(A) Standards Adoptions and Revisions. State and tribal submissions under this draft 

ICR will contain no confidential or sensitive information. 

(B) Tribal Program Applications. Tribal program applications under this draft ICR will 

contain no confidential or sensitive information.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. State and tribal dispute resolution requests under this

draft ICR will contain no confidential or sensitive information.

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. Bioassay testing under this draft ICR will contain no 

confidential or sensitive information.

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. It is possible that such 

demonstrations may contain confidential business information. If this is the case, the respondent 

may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be 

handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part III, 

chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. However, CWA section 308(b) specifically states that effluent 

data may not be treated as confidential.

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. It is possible that variance requests may

contain confidential business information. If this is the case, the respondent may request that 

such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance 

with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part III, chapter 9, dated August 

9, 1976. However, CWA section 308(b) specifically states that effluent data may not be treated 

as confidential.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

14

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4.1 RESPONDENTS/NAICS CODES

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

estimated to submit information annually are described in section 6.

(A) Standards Adoption and Revision. The Water Quality Standards Regulation 

requires reporting at least once every three years from 96 jurisdictions: 56 states and territories, 

and the 40 Indian tribes with EPA-approved standards as of May 2015.

5

 The respondents 

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

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

(B) Tribal Program Applications. Any of over 300 federally recognized tribes with a 

reservation could potentially apply to administer a water quality standards program. As of May

2015, 64 such tribes have such applications, of which 49 tribes have received EPA authorization 

to administer the water quality standards program. The respondents affected by this collection 

activity are in NAICS code 92411 “Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste 

Management Programs.” 

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. Any of the 40 Indian tribes with EPA-approved water 

quality standards, or the states that share common water bodies with these tribes, may submit 

dispute resolution requests. The respondents affected by this collection activity are in NAICS 

code 92411 “Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management 

Programs.”

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. The respondents potentially affected by this 

collection activity include eight Great Lakes states, four Great Lakes tribes, and 2,323 facilities 

permitted to discharge to waters of the Great Lakes system. 

The Great Lakes states and tribes are the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, 

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and four tribes currently authorized to 

administer water quality standards programs for waters of the Great Lakes system.6These 

respondents are in NAICS code 92411 “Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid 

Waste Management Programs.”

 

5

A total of 49 tribes have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality standards program 

under 40 CFR 131.8. Of these, 40 tribes have adopted water quality standards that EPA has approved. All states and 

tribes with standards in place under the CWA are subject to the requirement for triennial reviews. EPA maintains a 

current list of these tribes at http://water,epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/approvtable,cfm.

6Mole Lake Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Sokaogon Chippewa Community (WI); 

Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa (MN); Grand Portage Band of Chippewa (MN); and St. Regis Band of Mohawk 

Indians (NY).
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

15

NPDES permits are required any time there is a point source discharge of pollutants to 

waters of the United States, regardless of the type of discharger. Consequently, all point source 

dischargers must apply for an NPDES permit. Any of the 2,323 point sources with permits to 

discharge to the Great Lakes system could potentially choose to conduct bioassay tests, be 

subject to antidegradation demonstrations, or choose to apply for regulatory relief, under the 

Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. The respondents affected by this collection activity are in 

the following NAICS codes: Mining (except oil and gas) (212), Food manufacturing (311), Paper 

manufacturing (322), Chemical manufacturing (325), Petroleum refineries (32411), Primary

metal manufacturing (331), Fabricated metal product manufacturing (332), Machinery

manufacturing (333), Computer and electronic product manufacturing (334), Electrical 

equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing (335), Transportation equipment 

manufacturing (336), Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution (2211), and 

Sewage treatment facilities (22132).

4.2 INFORMATION REQUESTED

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. Section 131.20 of the Water Quality Standards 

Regulation requires states and authorized tribes to review their water quality standards at least 

once every three years and submit the results of the review, along with any new or revised 

standards, to EPA for approval. States and tribes may choose to adopt new or revised standards 

more frequently. Section 131.6 of the Water Quality Standards Regulation establishes the 

following minimum requirements for a water quality standards submission: 

(1) use designations consistent with section 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of the Act, 

(2) methods used and analyses conducted to support water quality standards 

revisions, 

(3) water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses, 

(4) an antidegradation policy consistent with 40 CFR 131.12, 

(5) certification by the state attorney general or other appropriate state or tribal 

legal authority that the water quality standards were duly adopted pursuant to state

or tribal law, and

(6) general information which will aid the EPA in determining the adequacy of 

the scientific basis of the standards which do not include the uses specified in 

section 101(a)(2) of the Act as well as information on general policies applicable 

to state standards which may affect their application and implementation.

States and authorized tribes may choose to provide additional information from time to 

time concerning draft, proposed, or adopted standards to enable EPA to better understand the 

standards and how they are implemented. Such information may include brief descriptions of 

selected standards provisions or program practices.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

16

(B) Tribal Program Applications. Section 131.8(b) of the Regulation specifies the 

information a tribe must provide in its program application. Specifically, an interested tribe must 

submit:

(1) a statement that the tribe is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior, 

(2) a descriptive statement demonstrating that the tribal governing body is 

currently carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers over a defined 

area, 

(3) a descriptive statement of the Indian tribe’s authority to regulate water quality, 

and an identification of the surface waters for which the tribe proposes to 

establish water quality standards, 

(4) a narrative statement describing the capability of the Indian tribe to administer 

an effective water quality standards program, and 

(5) any additional documentation required by the Regional Administrator to 

support the application. 

Approvals for tribes to administer standards programs are valid unless rescinded. 

Therefore, an interested tribe normally needs to apply only once. Where a tribe has previously 

qualified for “treatment in the same manner as a state” under another program, the tribe need 

only provide the required information which has not been submitted in a previous application.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. Section 131.7 of the Regulation specifies that a tribe 

or state interested in having EPA initiate a formal dispute resolution action must submit a written 

request to EPA. Information that a state or tribe must submit with the request includes: 

(1) a statement of the alleged unreasonable consequences that have arisen due to 

the differing water quality standards; 

(2) a description of the actions which have been taken to resolve the dispute 

without EPA involvement; and, 

(3) an identification of the state/tribal water quality standards provision which has 

resulted in the unreasonable consequences, and a statement of the relief sought. 

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. Section 132.3 of the Regulation specifies that Great 

Lakes states and tribes must adopt certain water quality criteria published by EPA, or criteria that 

they develop using methodologies published by EPA. Dischargers may choose to conduct 

bioassay tests or other studies to assist the states or tribes in developing such criteria. Any

bioassay tests or other studies must conform to the methodologies in Appendixes A, B, C, and D 

of part 132. 
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

17

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Appendix E to part 132 of the 

Regulation specifies that any entity seeking to lower water quality in a high quality water of the 

Great Lakes system, or proposing a new or increased discharge to Outstanding International 

Resource Waters (OIRWs) of the Lake Superior Basin, must submit an antidegradation 

demonstration to the NPDES permitting authority (normally the state or EPA). The Regulation 

specifies that the demonstration include:

(1) a pollution prevention alternatives analysis, 

(2) an alternative or enhanced treatment analysis, and

(3) an important social or economic development analysis.

Appendix E also contains additional requirements where OIRWs or certain remedial 

actions7are involved. 

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Appendix F to part 132 of the 

Regulation specifies at least two ways that the Great Lakes water quality standards adopted 

pursuant to part 132 may be modified to provide regulatory relief: site-specific modifications to 

criteria and values (Procedure 1), and variances from water quality standards (Procedure 2). 

Dischargers seeking site-specific water quality criteria modifications would need to 

provide data to the state or tribe in accordance the methodologies in Appendixes A, B, C, and D 

to part 132. 

Point-source dischargers seeking variances from water quality standards would need to 

submit an application to the state or tribe that includes information demonstrating that attaining 

the standards is not feasible based on one or more of six specified factors, including natural 

conditions, human-caused conditions that cannot be remedied, certain hydrologic modifications, 

or controls that would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.

 

7

Remedial actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), corrective actions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or similar actions 

under other federal or state laws.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

18

4.3 RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. EPA, in coordination with selected states, 

identified the following activities to supply information for standards adoption and revision. 

Respondent burden estimates in section 6.1 were developed through a survey of a sample of 

states using the factors described below.

- Review of instructions, guidance and regulations: Includes time reviewing 

documents necessary for the state/tribe to revise its standards. Burden hours may

vary, depending on staff knowledge and turnover rates. (Note that time spent in 

the field, laboratory and office performing and documenting special water 

quality-monitoring studies or surveys in connection with the Water Quality

Standards Program is considered under other categories.)

- Identify issues and plan activities: Includes identifying the standards issues to be 

addressed, ordering the standards issues based on EPA and state or tribal priorities 

and policies, and planning the activities to be performed. Also includes gathering 

and analyzing existing water quality data and waterbody use information as 

needed. Planned activities may include developing site-specific criteria 

modifications, and conducting use attainability analyses.

- Use attainability analysis studies conducted to support a possible change in use 

designation: The Regulation in section 131.10 requires conducting use 

attainability analyses (UAAs) when a state or tribe wants to remove a designated 

use that is not an existing use. UAAs are structured scientific assessments of the 

factors affecting attainment of a use, including physical, chemical, biological, and 

economic factors specified in section 131.10(g) of the Regulation.8EPA has 

published a series of technical guidance documents concerning UAAs. The actual 

experiences of states were the primary basis of this portion of the burden estimate. 

Burden estimates include a mix of “Simple” cases, involving small water 

segments, segments where only minor augmentation of physical, chemical and/or 

biological data are needed, or where simple corrections are needed to correct 

earlier use classifications; and "Complex" cases generally involving multiple 

dischargers, larger water segments, and fewer existing physical, chemical, or 

biological data. Complex cases may involve performing a waterbody survey to

help pinpoint the water quality problems and determine present uses, uses 

impaired, and the reasons the uses are impaired. For purposes of this burden 

calculation, it was assumed that the states would devote some supplementary

review time to significant or controversial UAAs.

 

8

Removing a designated use requires information demonstrating that the use is not existing, and that 

attaining the use is not feasible based on one or more of six specified factors, including natural conditions, humancaused conditions that cannot be remedied, certain hydrologic modifications, or controls that would result in 

substantial and widespread economic and social impact. 
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

19

- Site-specific criteria development studies conducted using acceptable 

methodologies for specific segments, basins, or states: The Regulation allows 

states and tribes to adopt site-specific criteria to reflect local conditions. 

Site-specific modifications can ensure that the criteria are neither more nor less 

stringent than necessary to protect the designated use. EPA has published 

technical guidance for deriving site-specific criteria and has tested the guidance at 

field sites. The actual experiences of states were the primary basis of this portion 

of the burden estimate. Burden estimates include a mix of "Simple" cases, 

reflective of relatively easy studies where a single or possibly two dischargers are 

present, discharging few pollutants, and no appreciable nonpoint source impacts 

exist; and “Complex” cases involving a water segment with several discharges 

and numerous pollutants, including nonpoint source impacts.

- Prepare revised water quality standards package for submission: Includes 

determining changes to be made to the existing standards, preparing and 

reviewing the revised standards package, adopting the revised standards according 

to the state’s/tribe’s internal administrative procedures and EPA’s public 

participation requirements, conducting a public hearing, and submitting the 

revised standards to EPA for approval. Also includes the time state or tribal 

agency staff spends in consultation with the state legislature and legislative 

committees or tribal council, respectively.

- Certification by the state attorney general or other appropriate legal authority 

that Water Quality Standards were duly adopted according to state law: Any time 

a state or tribe adopts or revises water quality standards, the state/tribal attorney

general or other appropriate legal authority must certify that the change was 

adopted according to the unique provisions of state law. This certification is in the 

form of a letter to the EPA Regional Administrator. This certification is necessary 

because state and tribal water quality standards may result in enforceable 

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

water quality standards, EPA must be assured of their legal validity.

(B) Tribal Program Applications. Includes the activities directly associated with 

assembling, writing and submitting a TAS application. This includes reading the regulatory

requirements and obtaining any necessary background understanding, assembling the categories 

of information in section 4.2 above, writing any application materials needed, obtaining reviews 

and approvals of tribal environmental officials, and obtaining approval by the tribe’s governing 

body, if necessary.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. Includes the activities directly associated with 

assembling, writing and submitting a request. This includes reading the regulatory requirements 

and obtaining any necessary background understanding, assembling the categories of 

information in section 4.2 above, writing the request itself, and obtaining reviews and approvals 

of state or tribal environmental officials.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

20

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. Respondent activities may include the 

following:

- Preparing Basic Information: Includes reading and reviewing regulatory

application requirements, gathering general information, typing or filling out 

forms, drafting letters, reviewing applications or other materials, and mailing 

completed submissions.

- Generating Detailed Information: Information may include data on production 

levels, data on effluent characteristics, pollutant minimization programs, financial 

estimates, engineering data, socioeconomic data, or other information required by

permitting authorities.

- Sampling and Analyzing Discharges: This may involve pollutant analyses, 

biological toxicity testing, predicting in-stream impacts, field monitoring, 

bioconcentration testing, or other scientific analyses.

- Maintaining Records: All NPDES permittees must keep records of the data used 

to complete their applications and to demonstrate their compliance for at least 

three years. First-time applicants may need to develop a record keeping system, 

enter data, train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record 

keeping entails collecting and filing raw data.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

21

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5.1 AGENCY ACTIVITIES

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. States and tribes are required to review and, as 

appropriate, revise their water quality standards at least once every three years. The results of 

such review and revision must be submitted by the states and tribes to EPA. EPA reviews the 

states’ or tribes’ water quality standards for consistency with the CWA. If the water quality

standards are inconsistent with the Act, EPA must promulgate replacement federal standards. 

EPA conducts a full range of activities to manage the water quality standards program. 

Activities related to, but not included in, this draft ICR include the transmission of policy and 

guidance to the states and tribes; development of recommended scientific water quality criteria; 

assisting states and tribes in interpretation and implementation of regulations, policies and 

initiatives; and the coordination of activities related to standards with other CWA programs, with 

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

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience for more information.

For this draft ICR, EPA activities associated with water quality standards review include 

the following.

- Assembling relevant information to conduct the EPA review of submitted 

standards.

- Reviewing standards revisions for consistency with the CWA, with downstream 

state’s or tribe’s water quality standards, and with any standards for international 

waters. 

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

disapproval decision(s).

- Making findings that federal water quality standards are necessary.

- Proposing and promulgating federal replacement standards where state’s or tribes 

standards are disapproved or where federal standards are otherwise necessary.

- Proposing and finalizing the withdrawal of federal standards when a state or tribe 

corrects its standards.

(B) Tribal Program Applications. After a tribe submits an application to administer a 

water quality standards program, EPA will review the application and use the submitted 

information to determine if the tribe meets the statutory criteria under CWA section 518(e) to 

administer the water quality standards program information submission requirements.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

22

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. After a tribe or state submits a written dispute 

resolution request to EPA, EPA reviews the submitted information to determine if initiation of a 

formal EPA dispute resolution action is justified under CWA section 518(e).

(D1) Great Lakes bioassay tests. EPA reviews and approves or disapproves any water 

quality standards adoptions or revisions that result from states or tribes incorporating the results 

of bioassay tests into water quality criteria.

(D2) Great Lakes antidegradation demonstrations. EPA reviews and approves state

and tribal antidegradation policies. However, EPA does not have a direct role in reviewing and 

approving activities that could lower water quality as these policies are implemented. In some 

cases, depending on the facility involved, EPA may issue an NPDES permit or review a state- or 

tribe-issued permit. This draft ICR covers the water quality standards portion of any such EPA 

reviews. A separate ICR, EPA ICR Number 1639.04, OMB Control Number 2040-0180, covers 

the NPDES burden.

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. To the extent that a regulatory relief 

request results in a change in standards, such as a site-specific criteria modification, or a water 

quality standards variance, EPA must review and approve the standards change for it to become 

effective. This draft ICR covers the water quality standards portion of any such EPA reviews. A 

separate ICR, EPA ICR Number 1639.04, OMB Control Number 2040-0180, covers the NPDES 

burden.

5.2 COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. States and tribes submit their revised water 

quality standards to their EPA Regional office, who have been delegated the responsibility to 

review the submissions for consistency with the Water Quality Standards Regulation, and 

approve or disapprove the standards. The Water Quality Standards staff in the Regional offices 

work closely with their respective states and tribes on water quality standards issues, including 

the review of both draft and final submissions of water quality standards. EPA’s national water 

quality program provides support to the Regional offices in the review of these submissions. 

EPA approved state/tribal standards can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase/. EPA 

promulgated standards for states/tribes are located at 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

23

(B) Tribal Program Applications. Interested tribes submit their TAS applications to 

their EPA Regional office, who have been delegated the responsibility to review the applications 

for consistency with the Water Quality Standards Regulation, and approve or disapprove the 

applications. Regional Office staff work closely with the tribes in this process. EPA’s national 

water quality program provides support to the Regional offices in the review of these 

submissions/requests. 

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. Interested states or tribes submit their dispute 

resolution requests to their EPA Regional office, who have been delegated the responsibility to 

review the applications for consistency with the Water Quality Standards Regulation, and 

approve or disapprove the requests. 

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. For Great Lakes information, EPA 

maintains some application data in the Agency’s PCS, ICIS-NPDES, and STORET databases. 

This technology reduces the burden to EPA Headquarters for gathering and analyzing national 

permit and water quality data. Because each information collection activity associated with 

implementation of the Guidance will contain unique information, and because permittees submit 

applications only once every five years at the most, improved information technology may not be 

effective in further reducing respondent burden.

5.3 SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY

For many reasons discussed below, EPA believes the reporting requirements discussed in 

this draft ICR do not place an unreasonable burden on small entities. 

(A, B, C) Standards Adoption and Revisions, Tribal Program Applications, and 

Dispute Resolution Requests. EPA has long recognized that tribes require special 

considerations considering their generally small size and their unique status as sovereign entities. 

For the WQS program, EPA has provided special guidance, training, and technical assistance 

tailored to the unique needs of tribes to help build their capacity to apply for and administer the 

WQS program. In addition, EPA provides substantial funding to tribes through the Indian 

General Assistance Program (GAP) and tribal allocations of CWA section 106 Water Pollution 

Control Program grants that tribes can use to develop WQS capabilities and administer WQS 

programs.

For tribal program applications, EPA established a “simplification rule” in 1994 (59 FR 

64339) to make it easier for tribes to obtain EPA approval to assume the role Congress 

envisioned for them under certain environmental statutes, including the CWA. This rule enabled 

tribal applications to be combined with other administrative steps, simplified certain showings 

that a tribe needs to make, simplified jurisdictional analyses, and gave more flexibility to 

determining whether a tribe has program capability. Each of these steps serves to minimize 

needed information to be collected. 

For standards adoption and revision, although the CWA establishes minimum federal 

WQS requirements for all states and tribes without regard for their size, EPA has made it as easy 

as possible for tribes to conform to the requirements. In addition to the guidance, training, and 
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

24

technical assistance mentioned above, the WQS program provides opportunities for tribes with 

EPA-approved WQS to share their technical expertise with other tribes considering developing 

standards. Such peer-to-peer training is a major feature of all WQS training targeted to tribes. 

EPA Regional Offices work closely with tribes to provide model standards or standards from 

adjacent jurisdictions for them to consider and draw from. Also, because the land areas of all but 

a handful of tribes with WQS are smaller than the state of Rhode Island and are generally

confined to one watershed or ecosystem, their standards can usually be much simpler and shorter 

than state standards. 

The dispute resolution mechanism established in the WQS regulation (40 CFR 131.7) 

was designed to reflect the unique characteristics of tribes. If a tribe wishes to initiate a request 

for EPA to resolve a dispute, it need only provide several “concise” statements and only such 

data as needed to support the request. 

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act and 

EPA’s Great Lakes regulation do not specify different antidegradation or regulatory relief 

requirements for small entities. Conducting bioassay testing, undertaking an action that would 

trigger the antidegradation policy, and initiating a request for regulatory relief are generally 

voluntary. A small business that decides to expand operations in a way that triggers 

antidegradation provisions, or that decides to conduct bioassay testing or request a variance from 

effluent limitations, does so on the basis of its assessment that the benefits of doing so outweigh 

the burdens. The time and effort required to prepare a small facility’s antidegradation 

demonstration or variance request might be less than that required to develop similar information 

for a larger, more complex facility.

5.4 COLLECTION SCHEDULE

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. The CWA requires states and authorized tribes 

to review their water quality standards at least once every three years and provide the results to 

EPA. In practice, some states and tribes choose to submit revised standards for portions of their 

waters more frequently.

(B) Tribal Program Applications. There are no scheduling requirements for Indian 

tribes to apply for authorization to administer the water quality standards program.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. There are no scheduling requirements for states or 

Indian tribes to request EPA dispute resolution.

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. There are no scheduling requirements for states, 

tribes, or dischargers to initiate bioassay tests. 

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Such demonstrations are 

necessary under the Regulation when an entity proposes an activity that would lower water 

quality in a high quality water.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

25

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Regulatory relief requests are generally 

associated with the NPDES permit renewal cycle. The CWA requires permittees to reapply for 

permits at least every five years. Information collection associated with regulatory relief requests 

will occur only when a permittee decides to seek such relief. EPA presumes that the few relief 

requests expected will continue to take place at time of permit reissuance.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

26

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6.1 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. State or tribal burden: The CWA and EPA’s 

Water Quality Standards Regulation requires a water quality standards review and associated 

information collection at least once every three years from 50 states, the District of Columbia, 5 

commonwealths and territories, and Indian tribes that have adopted EPA-approved water quality 

standards (40 as of May 2015). Because of the different start dates and operational practices of 

these 96 jurisdictions since the CWA was enacted in 1972, EPA believes the annual national 

burden will be approximately the same for each of the next three years covered by this request.

For the purposes of reviewing the reporting requirements placed on states and tribes by

the Water Quality Standards Regulation, EPA Headquarters previously discussed the 

requirements and estimated reporting burdens with the voluntary assistance of eleven (11) states. 

The states were selected to represent various geographical areas, differing levels of water quality

management activities, and differing approaches to controlling priority toxic pollutants. Because 

of differing practices regarding the three-year requirement in the CWA, the states were asked to 

quantify the reporting and recordkeeping burden on an annualized basis. Because of the limited 

time available to develop them, these estimates are considered "rough." For this reason, the 

lowest and highest estimates for each burden item were not considered in the calculation for the 

average burden per state per year (that is, a modified mean was used).

The average burden per state/tribe review per year was estimated to be 2,500 hours (see 

Attachment A). The total annual burden hours = (96 jurisdictions) * (2,500 hours) = 

240,000 hours.

(B) Tribal Program Applications. Tribal burden: EPA assumes that 3 tribes will apply

to administer the water quality standards program per year. This assumption is based upon an 

upper estimate of the actual pace of tribal submission of applications for the water quality

standards program. EPA further assumed that these tribes would supply only standards programspecific information that was not provided in previous applications. For example, EPA assumes 

that at least 75% of all tribes applying for treatment as a state for purposes of water quality

standards will have already applied for authorization to administer one of the other SDWA or 

CWA programs. Based on these assumptions, EPA estimates that each tribal application will 

require an average of 40 hours to complete. The total annual burden hours = (3 tribes) * (40 

hours/application) = 120 hours.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. State or Tribal burden: When a tribe or state desires 

EPA to initiate a formal dispute resolution action, the tribe or state is required to submit a written 

request to EPA. EPA estimates that at most three tribes/states will request a formal dispute 

resolution action over a three year period (one request per year). To date, there have been no 

such formal requests since the regulation went into effect in 1991. The estimated hour burden to 

a tribe or state to develop a dispute resolution request is 80 hours. The total annual burden hours 

= (1 application) * (80 hours/application) = 80 hours.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

27

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. Discharger burden: EPA assumes that dischargers 

will conduct bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria for 3 human health 

and 11 aquatic life criteria each year. This results in 14 discharge responses per year. EPA has 

determined that these bioassays would take dischargers 34,204 hours to conduct and 760 hours to 

oversee. The total annual burden hours for dischargers = 34,204 + 760 = 34,964 hours. 

State or Tribal burden: EPA assumed that the 14 studies to support the development of 

water quality criteria would be submitted to the states or tribes for review, resulting in 14 state or 

tribal responses. EPA estimated the state/tribal application burden associated with review and 

data collection to support the development of water quality criteria to be 2,714 hours.

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Discharger burden: Dischargers 

to the Great Lakes system must provide a demonstration to the state or tribe to justify increasing 

permit limits for discharges to high water quality areas that would increase pollutant loadings or 

adversely affect those waters. In general, an antidegradation demonstration consists of first 

performing a pollution prevention alternatives analysis to identify prudent and feasible 

alternatives. If no pollution prevention alternatives are deemed prudent and feasible, then the 

permittee must identify alternative or enhanced treatment techniques. Finally, a permittee must 

demonstrate that the lowering of water quality is necessary to accommodate important social and 

economic development. 

Based on the NPDES ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0004, EPA ICR No. 0229.20), EPA 

expects that 5 percent of the 2,323 dischargers to the Great Lakes system (approximately 116)

will discharge bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs). EPA conservatively assumes that 

all the permittees that discharge BCCs will request an increase in permit limits and be required to 

perform an antidegradation demonstration. EPA assumes that one-fifth of these permittees (23) 

will prepare and submit an antidegradation demonstration each year and estimates that 22.2 

hours is required for the discharger to prepare a demonstration for BCCs.9The antidegradation 

demonstration includes both water quality standards elements and NPDES permitting elements. 

Therefore, EPA has split this activity equally between this draft ICR and the NPDES Program 

ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0004, EPA ICR No. 0229.20) and assumes 50 percent of the 22.2 

hours (11.1 hours) will be needed for the WQS-related work on an antidegradation 

demonstration. This results in a total annual burden of 11.1 hours/permitee X 23 permitees = 255

hours for BCC dischargers for this draft ICR.

On the basis of past experience, EPA expects that another 5 percent of the permittees 

(approximately 116) are likely to request an increase in permit limits for non-BCCs. EPA 

assumes that one-fifth of these respondents (23) will prepare and submit an antidegradation 

demonstration each year, and estimates that 14.8 hours is required to prepare the demonstration

for non-BCCs.10 EPA has split this activity equally between this draft ICR and the NPDES 

Program ICR and assumes 50 percent of the 14.8 hours (7.4 hours) will be needed for the WQS-

 

9 Demonstration burden reported in the original Great Lakes ICR (60 hours) was reduced by 63 percent for the first 

renewal. See record of communications between EPA and OMB. 

10 Demonstration burden reported in the original Great Lakes ICR (40 hours) was reduced by 63 percent for the first 

renewal. See record of communications between EPA and OMB.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

28

related work. This results in a total annual burden of 7.4 hours/permitee X 23 permitees = 170

hours for non-BCC dischargers for this draft ICR

State or Tribal Burden. EPA estimates that it would take a Great Lakes state or tribe 

about 16 hours to review an antidegradation demonstration. EPA also determined that one-fifth 

of BCC and non-BCC antidegradation demonstrations, or 46, would be reviewed annually. EPA 

has split this activity equally between this draft ICR and the NPDES Program ICR and assumes 

50 percent of the 16 hours (8 hours) will be needed for the WQS-related work to review an 

antidegradation demonstration. This results in a total burden of 368 hours for Great Lakes states 

and tribes for this draft ICR.

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Discharger burden: To be granted relief 

from provisions adopted consistent with the Great Lakes Guidance, a permittee will need to 

perform additional work such as monitoring or special studies to support its request. EPA 

estimates that 18 permittees per year will prepare requests for regulatory relief. EPA estimates 

that each request will entail a burden of 835.3 hours for a discharger. The request includes both 

water quality standards elements and NPDES permitting elements. Therefore, EPA has split this 

activity equally between this draft ICR and the NPDES Program ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-

0004, EPA ICR No. 0229.20) and assumes 50 percent of the 835.3 hours (417.67 hours) will be 

needed for the WQS-related work on regulatory relief requests. This results in a total burden of 

417.67 hours/permittee x 18 permittees = 7,518 hours for dischargers for this draft ICR.

State or Tribal burden: To process each of the 18 regulatory relief requests, EPA 

estimates that a Great Lakes state or tribe will require 88 hours: 4 hours to review the request for 

completion, including any contact with the permittee for additional information; 4 hours for 

public notice and comment (assuming conservatively that this process is independent of regular 

permit public notice); and 80 hours to analyze the regulatory relief request, decide if it is 

justified, justify the decision, and prepare a permit modification if necessary. EPA has split this 

activity equally between this draft ICR and the NPDES Program ICR and assumes 50 percent of 

the 88 hours (44 hours) will be needed for the WQS-related work to review an antidegradation 

demonstration. This results in a total burden of 44 hours/permittee x 18 permittees = 792 hours

for Great Lakes states and tribes for this draft ICR.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,419 (56 states and territories, 40 tribes; 2,323 Great 

Lakes dischargers).

The overall burden hours for state, tribal, and discharger respondents is 286,981 hours, 

and is summarized in Table 6.4.

6.2 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS

The above burden estimates have been converted to dollar cost estimates using the 

following assumptions:
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

29

- State or tribal employee costs were estimated an average annual salary of 

$55,116; this is equivalent to the salary of a GS-9, Step 10 federal employee.11 At 

2,080 labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $26.41. Overhead cost for federal

and state employees are expected to be 60 percent, or $15.85 per hour, yielding a 

total hourly rate of $42.26.

- Contractor labor rates (hired by dischargers) were estimated using the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics estimate for a professional and related specialty of $49.50 per 

hour.12 Assuming a 67 percent overhead and profit rate, the total private sector 

hourly rate is $82.67.

- Discharger labor rates (for oversight of contractor work) were estimated assuming 

POTW employees working at the equivalent of a GS-7, Step 1 federal

employee.11 The annual salary of this worker is $34,662, the hourly rate is $16.61. 

Assumed overhead costs add an additional 50 percent to these costs. Thus, the 

average cost of a POTW worker is $51,993 per year, or $24.92 per hour.

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. State or Tribal costs: Total annual cost = (96 

jurisdictions * 2,500 hours/year = 240,000 hours) * ($42.26/hour) = $10,142,400.

(B) Tribal Program Applications. Tribal costs: Total annual costs = (3 tribes * 40 

hours/application = 120 hours/year) * ($42.26/hour) = $5,070.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. State or Tribal costs: Cost per dispute resolution 

request = (1 request * 80 hours/year = 80 hours) * ($42.26/hour) = $3,381. Total annual cost = (1 

request) * ($3,381/request) = $3,381.

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests. Discharger costs: Contractor costs = (34,204 hours) * 

($82.67/hour) = $2,827,645. Discharger oversight employee costs = (760 hours) * ($24.92/hour) 

= $18,939. Total discharger bioassay costs = $2,827,645 + $18,939 = $2,846,584. State or tribal 

costs: Review of water quality criteria = (2,714 hours) * ($42.26) = $114,694. Total costs: 

$2,846,584 + $114,694 = $2,961,278.

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations. Discharger costs: 

Antidegradation demonstrations = (425 hours) * ($24.92/hour) = $10,591. State or Tribal costs: 

Review of antidegradation demonstrations = (368 hours) * ($42.26/hour) = $15,552. Total costs: 

$10,591 + $15,552 = $26,143.

 

11General Schedule rate, effective January 2015, assuming base pay rate with no locality adjustment. 

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2015/GS_h.pdf

12BLS, Table 9, Employer costs per hour, private industry workers, March 2015, 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

30

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests. Discharger costs: (7,518 hours) * 

($24.92/hour) = $187,349. State or Tribal costs: Review of regulatory relief requests = (792 

hours) * ($42.26 hour) = $33,470. Total costs: $187,349 + $33,470 = $220,818.

The overall labor costs for state, tribal, and discharger respondents are summarized in 

Table 6.4.

6.3 ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST

Annual burden and costs to the federal government are detailed below. EPA employee 

costs were estimated assuming a GS-12 Step 1 federal employee earning $61,486 per year. At 

2,080 labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $29.56. Overhead costs for federal employees are 

expected to be 60 percent, or $17.74 per hour, yielding a total hourly rate of $47.30. 

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions. EPA estimates that each review of a state or 

tribal water quality standards submission will require 168 hours. Assuming that each state or 

tribe will submit one draft or final package of new or revised water quality standards every year, 

the total annual burden = (96 submissions) * (168 hours/submission) = 16,128 hours. Labor cost 

= (16,128 hours) * ($47.30/hour) = $762,805.

(B) Tribal Program Applications. EPA estimates that each review of a tribal program 

application will require 160 hours. Total burden = (3 applications) * (160 hours/application) = 

480 hours. Labor cost = (480 hours) * ($47.30/hour) = $22,703.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests. EPA estimates that each review of a state or tribal 

request will require 20 hours. Total burden = (1 request) * (20 hours/request) = 20 hours. Labor 

cost = (20 hours) * ($47.30/hour) = $946.

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. EPA estimates it will require approximately

80 hours at $47.30/hour plus $400 for web hosting for a total of $4,184 to maintain the water 

quality database to serve as the Information Clearinghouse. EPA estimated little additional 

federal government burden or cost because all the Great Lakes states are delegated NPDES 

permitting authorities. 

The overall burden hours for the federal government are (16,128) + (480) + (20) + (80) = 

17,008. The overall labor costs for the federal government are ($762,805) + ($22,703) + ($946) 

+ ($4,184) = $790,637.

There are no Capital Expenses and no O&M costs in this draft ICR.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

31

6.4 TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS 

States and Tribes Dischargers Total

No. of 

Responses

Burden 

Hours

Labor Costs No. of 

Responses

Burden 

Hours

Labor Costs No. of 

Responses

Burden 

Hours

Labor Costs

(A) Standards 

Adoption and 

Revisions

 96 240,000 $10,142,400 - - - 96 240,000 $10,142,400

(B) Tribal Program 

Applications

3 120 $5,070 - - - 3 120 $5,170

(C) Dispute 

Resolution Requests

1 80 $3,381 - - - 1 80 $3,381

(D1) Great Lakes 

Bioassay Tests

14 2,714 $114,694 14 34,964a$2,846,584 28 37,678 $2,961,278

(D2) Great Lakes 

Antidegradation 

Demonstrations

46 368 $15,552 46 425 $10,591 92 793 $26,143

(D3) Great Lakes 

Regulatory Relief 

Requests

18 792 $33,470 18 7,518 $187,349 36 8,310 $220,818

Total 178 244,074 $10,314,566 78 42,907 $3,044,523 256 286,981 $13,359,089

a Combination of 34,204 contractor hours at $82.67 per hour and 760 POTW supervisor hours at $24.92 per hour.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

32

6.5 REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN

This draft ICR supersedes the ICR developed in 2011 and approved by OMB in 2012 for the 

Water Quality Standards Regulation. The respondent burden increased by 10,000 hours to reflect 

EPA’s approval of water quality standards for four additional tribes.

6.6 BURDEN STATEMENT

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

is estimated to average 1,121 hours per response13. This overall burden entails an average of 

2,402 hours per response for states and tribes to implement the national water quality standards 

regulation at 40 CFR part 131, and 50 hours per response for Great Lakes states and tribes and 

550 hours per response for Great Lakes system dischargers to implement the Water Quality 

Guidance for the Great Lakes System at 40 CFR part 132. Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 

information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; 

develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 

instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and 

transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently

valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 

CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

See the accompanying Federal Register notice for instructions to provide comments on 

the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection 

techniques.

 

13 Burden per response is estimated by dividing the number of burden hours and dividing by the number of 

responses provided in the table in Section 6.4.
Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

33

ATTACHMENT A

Average Cost for State/Tribal Review Process

State Burden Hours

Arizona 2,987

Arkansas 4,100

Connecticut 283

Florida 3,990

Missouri 81

Nebraska 860

New York 7,375

North Dakota 310

Ohio 6,800

Oklahoma 287

Pennsylvania 2,900

Average (eliminating the lowest and highest burden hour estimates) 2,501.9

Rounded to 2,500

NOTE: Because of differing practices regarding the triennial review requirement in the CWA, 

the states were asked to quantify the reporting and recordkeeping burden on an annualized basis.

These estimates are considered “rough.” For this reason, the lowest and highest estimates for 

each burden item were not considered in the calculation for the average burden per state per year 

(that is, a modified mean was used).