### I **NFORMATION** 

### C **OLLECTION** 

### R**EQUEST FOR**  

### WATER **QUALITY STANDARDS**  **REGULATION**

**(RENEWAL)**

DRAFT May , 2015

EPA I CR 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 I CR 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 T HE INFORMATION REQUESTED** 
................................ . 14 4.1 Respondents/NAI CS Codes

................................ ................................ ......................... 14 4.2 Information Requested

................................ ................................ ................................ . 15 4.3 Respondent Activities

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 5. **THE INFORMATION COLLECTED B**  **AGENCY 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 Proces** s ................................ ............... 33Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

3 **1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION**  **1.1 T**  **ITLE OF THE I**  **NFORMATION C**  **OLLECTION** 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 state s and Indian trib es presented in the ICR entitled Wate r Quality Standards Regulation (EPA ICR Number 0988. 11 , OMB Control Number 2040

- 0049), that expires on December 31, 2015
. **1.2 S**  **HORT C**  **HARACTERIZATION /A**  **BSTRACT** Water quality

standards are provisions of state 1 , trib al, 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 strateg ies beyond technology

- based treatment required by sections 301 and 306 of the Act. The Water Quality Standards Regulation establishes the framework for state s and authorized trib es 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 Proc edures 1 and 2 of Appendix F. The regulation includes requirements for information collection to enable EPA, state s, and trib es to implement the regulation. This draft ICR is for information collection required b y 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 final izing to 40 CF R Part 13 1
. (See OMB control #2040

- 0286, EPA I CR 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 Colum bia, 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 In formation 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 sy stem 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 b y the antidegradation policy

for the Great Lakes s ys tem* 40 CFR part 132, especia lly 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 s ys tem* 40 CFR part 132, especially sections 132.1, 132.2, 132.4, 132.5, and Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix F

* Item s D1, D2 and D3 involve both water quality standards burden and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy stem (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**  **N EED AND**  **A UTHORITY FOR THE**  **C OLLECTION**  (A) **Standards Adoption and Revision.** Since the passage of the Water Quality Act in 1965, the state s have been required b y 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 state s and authorized trib es 2 to review and revise their water quality

standards at least once every three ye ars, and to submit to EPA the results and revisions resulting from the reviews. EPA then reviews each state or trib al 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 trib al review and revision of water quality s tandards. Section 131.6 establishes the minimum requirements for a water quality standards submission. Section 131.5 prescribes EPA’s review of state and trib al submission. The review criteria are: (a) whether the state or trib e has adopted uses which are consistent with the requirements of the Act; (b) whether the state or trib e has adopted criteria to protect the designated water uses; (c) whether the state or trib e has followed its legal procedures for revising or adopting standards; (d) whether the wate r 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 anal ys es; and (e) whether the submission meets the minimum elements from section 131.6. This information coll ection will ensure EPA has the needed information to review standards and make approvals or disapprovals. (B) **Tribal Program Applications .**  In1987, through the Water Quality Act (P. L . 100
- 4), Congress made substantial additions to the CWA. The Water Qual ity Act added section 518(e) which requires EPA to promulgate regulations specifying how Indian trib es 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 trib es to apply for administering the water quality standards programs. However, where trib es 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 timel y manner. The statute and Regulation specify four criteria for an Indian trib e to qualify to administer a water quality

standards program (40 CFR 131.8): The trib e must be federal ly recognized, the trib e must have a governing body carryi ng out substantial governmental duties and powers, the water quality standards program must be a dministered for water resources within the borders of an Indian reservation or legal equivalent, and the trib e must be reasonabl y expected to be capable

2 Tribes that have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality standard s program under 40 CFR 131.8. EPA maintains a current list of such tribes at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/approvtable.cfmWater Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

6 of carrying out the functions of an effective water quality standards program under the Act. Section 13 1.8(b) specifies the information a trib e 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 state s and trib es 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 re visions do not require trib es or state s to request EPA assistance in resolving state/trib al disputes. However, where a trib e or state desires a formal EPA dispute resolution action, some information collection is necessary in order for EPA to fulfill the A gency'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 fo r the Great Lakes s ys tem. 3 EPA 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 s ys tem. The Great Lakes water quality standards components included in this draft IC R are: (1) **Great Lakes Bioassay Tests**

. S tate s or dischargers may choose to undertake bioassay s or other studies that state s may use to develop water quality criteria or values to prote ct waters of the Great Lakes s ys tem. For this draft ICR, EPA assumed that dischargers would perform the tests. I f state s 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 bioaccumulat ive 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, Ap pendix 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 P**  **RACTICAL U**  **TILITY /U**  **SERS OF THE D**  **ATA** (A) **Standards Adoptions and Revisions**  **.** EPA uses the new and revised water quality standards and supporting information submitted by state s and authorized trib es to carry out its responsibility

under the CWA to approve or disapprove the standards. Section 131.5 of the Regulation pr escribes EPA's review of state and trib al submissions. The review criteria are: (a) whether the state or trib e has adopted uses which are consistent with the requirements of the Act; (b) whether the state or trib e has adopted criteria to protect the design ated water uses; (c) whether the state or trib e 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 techn ical and scientific data and anal ys es; 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, state s, trib es, dischargers, and other stakeholders. EPA, state s, and trib es 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, wate r quality standards serve as the basis for EPA, state s, and authorized trib es 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 Sy stem (NPDES ) permits for point source dischargers (including publicly

- owned treatment works and industrial facilities) under sections 301(b)(1)(C) and 402 of the A ct, and for certifications under section 401. They also help federal , state , trib al, 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, TMDL s 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 trib es to determine whether they qualify to administer water quality standards programs under the CWA. EPA must asse ss the trib e’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 trib es 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 atte mpting to resolve disputes arising from differing water quality standards on common bodies of water. If this information collection activity were not carried out, interested state s and trib es would be unable to resolve such disputes as envisioned in the CWA. (D1) **Great Lakes Bioassay Tests .**  Great Lakes state s and trib es 4 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 s ystem. Such testing can result in more scientifically

accurate criteria, or criteria more suited to specific water bodies. (D2) **Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations .**  Great Lakes state s and trib es will use the information supplied by dischargers to make “antidegradatio n 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 state s and trib es 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 co mpliance 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 wh ich 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**  **N ON**  **- D**  **UPLICATION** (A) **Standards Adoption and Revision .**  State and trib al water quality standards reviews and revisions are a unique component of the water quality management process, with state s and authorized trib es having the exclusive responsibility to adopt, certify , and submit standards, and EPA having th e exclusive authority to review and approve/disapprove the standards. However, in developing and analyzing the standards, the state s and trib es 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 Sewa ge 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 Sy stem (PCS), an automated database of discharg er 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 state s voluntarily collect. Historically , state s typically design and conduct water quality studies with multiple objectiv es in mind (e.g., general water quality assessment, use attainability anal ys is, site

- specific criteria development, wasteload allocation anal ys is). EPA works with the state s and trib es 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 primaril y i n state and trib al water quality management and planning programs and generall y cannot be purchased or otherwise obtained from private sources. Further, the adoption and submission of water quality standards are governmental functions that can onl y be accomplished by state s and authorized trib es. (B) **Tribal Program Applications .**  Under EPA’s regulations, a trib e must submit a separate TAS (Treatment in a Manner Similar to a State) application for each program it wishes to administer. To avoid requiring trib es to submit duplicate information, the Water Quality Standards Regulation specifies that a trib e need only provide the required inform ation which has not been submitted in a previous application. For example, in evaluating whether a trib e qualifies to administer water quality standards, EPA does not require a trib e to resubmit information from its previously

- approved TAS application unde r 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 trib es or state s 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 e lsewhere: EPA’s Information Sy stems Inventory , EPA’s Inventory of Information Collection Requests, Federal Information Locator Sy stem, Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule (53 CFR 51698), and EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory . Examination of these databa ses revealed no duplicate requirements. **3.2 P**  **UBLIC N**  **OTICE R** **EQUIRED P**  **RIOR TO ICR**  **S UBMISSION TO**  **OMB** In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA is soliciting comments for a 60
- day period on this draft IC R. See the accompanying Federal Register notice for instructions to provide comments.
**3.3 C**  **ONSULTATIONS** 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 state s and with the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA). The state s 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 Regulat ion in 1998 to begin a structured public dialogue with state s, trib es, dischargers, and other interested parties on whether and what changes, if an y, 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 state s and trib es. 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 maintain ing 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 theWater Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

11 Strategy for W

ater 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 stakeho lders 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 b y a draft I CR. EPA will prepare a final I CR 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 final ized and implemented before making changes to the burden estimates for the WQS program as a whole. The new rule w as proposed in FY14 and is expected to be finalized in FY15 . It will consolidate WQS regulations discussion. The final Water Quality

Guidanc e for the Great Lakes Sy stem (Guidance) was published in the Federal Register on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15366). Itis the result of a six

- year effort begun b y the eight Great Lakes state s 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 , l ocal, and trib al government officials, financial officials and co

- regulators, the regulated community and environmental interests to listen and open ly 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 b y the various stakeholders were considered in EPA ’ s option selection process and regulatory impact analy sis for developing the final Guidance. The final Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria (including for the first time criteria specificall y to protect wildlife), antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures using an ecosy stem approach for waters of the Great Lakes Basin . This includes waters within the state s of I llinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, and waters within the jurisdiction of several Indian trib es. All eight of the Great Lakes state s have adopted criteria, methodologies, policies, and procedures consistent with the final Guidance that were approved b y EPA, and are currentl y implementing these requirements in their state
. **3.4 E**  **FFECTS OF L**  **ES S**  **F REQUENT**  **C OLLECTION**  (A) **Standards Adoption and Revision .**  The information collection schedule is pursuant to the mandates of Section 303(c) of the CWA for the state s and trib es to review their waterWater Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

12 quality standards once every

three years and thus is no t 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 a ppropriate 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 trib es to administer the water quality stand ards program is a one

- time collection of information per respondent, initiated voluntarily

by interested trib es. (C) **Dispute Resolution Requests .**  Requests for dispute resolution will be a one

- time collection of information per respondent, initiated volunt arily by a trib e 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 suc h 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 generall y be associated with the reissuance of NPDES permits. Permitted fa cilities must reappl y for NPDES permits before their existing permits expire, generall y once every five years. The CWA prohibits issuance of NPDES permits with terms longer than five ye ars. 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 variance s 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 G** **ENERAL G** **UIDELINES** 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 ye ars unless necessary to satisfy statutory requirements or other substantial need. In this draft IC R, such longer

- term record retention could occur in some situations because the Regulation prohibit s the removal of an y waterbody uses that have been actuall y attained on or after November 28, 1975 , when revising designated uses adopted intoWater Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

13 water quality standards. In order to be able to implement this provision, state s and trib es need a way of knowing or es timating “existing uses” of water bodies as far back as 1975. To do so, state and trib es may

use an y available information from other sources, or may choose to retain some of their own information

– for example, water quality monitoring data, biological survey s, 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, phy sical, 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 trib es may

choose to use an EPA information management s ys tem, STORET, desc ribed at http://www.epa.gov/storet , which can minimize the burden to retain their own historical records of water quality

. **3.6 C**  **ONFIDENTIALITY A** **ND S**  **ENSITIVE Q**  **UESTIONS** (A) **Standards Adoptions and Revisions .**  State and trib al 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) **Disput e Resolution Requests**  **.** State and trib al 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 sensitiv e information. (D2) **Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations .**  Itis 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 co nfidential 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 .**  Itis 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 h andled 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

1 4 **4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE**  **INFORMATION REQUESTED 4.1**  **R ESPONDENTS**  **/ NAICS**  **C ODES**  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 state s and terri tories, and the 40 Indian trib es with EPA

- approved standards as of May 2015
. 5 The respondents affected b y this collection activity are in NAI CS code 92411 “Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs,” formerl y S IC code #9511. (B) **Tribal Program Applications .**  Any of over 300 federally recognized trib e s with a reservation could potentially a ppl y to administer a water quality standards program. As of May 2015 , 64 such trib es have such applications, of which 49 trib es have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality standards program. The respondents affected by this collection activity are in NAI CS code 92411 “Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs.” (C) **Disput e Resolution Requests**  **.** An y of the 40 Indian trib es with EPA

- approved water quality standards, or the state s that share common water bodies with these trib es, may submit dispute resolution requests. The respondents affected by this collection activity

are i n 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 state s, four Great Lakes trib es, and 2,323 facilities permitted to discharge to waters of the Great Lakes sy stem. The Great Lakes state s and trib es are the state s of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and four tribes currentl y authorized to administer water quality

standards programs for waters of the Great Lakes sy stem. 6 These 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 th at 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

.

6 Mole 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 appl y for an NPDES permit. Any of the 2,323 point sources with permits to discharge to the Great Lakes sy stem 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 b y this collection activi ty 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 manufacturi ng (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 dis tribution (2211), and Sewage treatment facilities (22132). **4.2 I**  **NFORMATION R** **EQUESTED** (A) **Standards Adoption and Revisions .**  Section 131.20 of the Water Quality Standards Regulation requires state s and authorized trib es 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 trib es may choose to adopt new or revised standards more frequently . S ection 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 analy s es 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 b y the state attorney general or other app ropriate state or trib al legal authority

that the water quality standards were duly adopted pursuant to state or trib al law, and (6) general information which will aid the EPA in determining the adequacy of the scientific basis of the standards which do n ot 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 trib es may choose to provide additional inf ormation 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 trib e must provide in its program application. Specificall y, an interested trib e must submit: (1) a statement that the trib e is recognized b y the Secretary of the Interior,

(2) a descriptive statement demonstrating that the trib al governing body is currentl y carryi ng out substantial governmental duties and powers over a defined area, (3) a descriptive statement of the Indian trib e’s authority to regulate water quality , and an identification of the surface waters for which the trib e proposes to establish water quality standards, (4) a narrative statement describing the capability of the Indian trib e to administer an effective water quality standards progr am, and (5) an y additional documentation required b y the Regional Administrator to support the application. Approvals for trib es to administer standards programs are valid unless rescinded. Therefore, an interested trib e normall y needs to apply onl y once. Where a trib e has previousl y qualified for “treatment in the same manner as a state” under another program, the trib e 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 trib e or state interested in having EPA initiate a formal dispute resolution action must submit a written request to EPA. Information that a state or trib e 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 i nvolvement; and, (3) an identification of the state/trib al 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 spe cifies that Great Lakes state s and trib es 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 state s or trib es 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 th at any entity seeking to lower water quality in a high quality water of the Great Lakes s ys tem, or proposing a new or increased discharge to Outstanding International Resource Waters (OIRWs) of the Lake Superior Basin, must submit an antidegradation demons tration to the NPDES permitting authority (normally the state or EPA). The Regulation specifies that the demonstration include:

(1) a pollution prevention alternatives anal ys is, (2) an alternative or enhanced treatment anal ys is, and (3) an important so cial or economic development anal ys is. Appendix E also contains additional requirements where OIRWs or certain remedial actions 7 are involved. (D3) **Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests .**  Appendix F to part 132 of the Regulation specifies at least two way s 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 trib e 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 trib e that includes information demonstrating that attaining the standards is not feasible based on one or more of six specified fac tors, 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 action s under other federal or state laws.Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

18 **4.3 R** **ESPONDENT A**  **CTIVITIES** (A) **Standards Adoption and Revisions**  **.** EPA, in coordination with selected state s, 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 stat e s using the factors described below.

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

for the state/trib e to revise its standards. Burden hours may vary , depending on staff knowledge and turnover rates. (Not e that time spent in the field, laboratory

and office performing and documenting special water quality

- monitoring studies or survey s in connection with the Water Quality Standards Program is considered under other categories.)

- Identify issues and plan activities : In cludes identifyingthe standards issues to be addressed, ordering the standards issues based on EPA and state or trib al priorities and policies, and planning the activities to be performed. Also includes gathering and anal yz ing existing water quality data and waterbody use information as needed. Planned activities may include developing site

- specific criteria modifications, and conducting use attainability analy ses.

- Use attainability analysis studies conducted to support a possible change in use designation : The Regulation in section 131.10 requires conducting use attainability

anal ys es (UAAs) when a state or trib e wants to remove a designated use that is not an existing use. UAAs are structured scientific assessments of the factors affectin g attainment of a use, including physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors specified in section 131.10(g) of the Regulation. 8 EPA has published a series of technical guidance documents concerning UAAs. The actual experiences of state s were the p rimary 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 phy sical, chemical and/or biological data are needed, or where simple correctio ns are needed to correct earlier use classifications; and "Complex" cases generall y involving multiple dischargers, larger water segments, and fewer existing phys ical, 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 state s would devote some supplementary review time to significant o r 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, human

c aused 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 state s and trib es 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 a ctual experiences of state s 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/trib e’s internal administrative procedures and EPA’s public participation re quirements, conducting a public hearing, and submitting the revised standards to EPA for approval. Also includes the time state or trib al agency staff spends in consultation with the state legislature and legislative committees or trib al c ouncil, respectiv el y.

- Certification by the state attorney general or other appropriate legal authority that W ater Quality Standards were duly adopted according to state law : Any time a state or trib e adopts or revises water quality standards, the state/trib al attorney g eneral 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 s tate and trib al water quality standards may result in enforceable requirements in NPDES permits or other controls. Before approving state or trib al water quality standards, EPA must be assured of their legal validity. (B) **Tribal Program Applications .**  In cludes 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 sect ion 4.2 above, writing any application materials needed, obtaining reviews and approvals of trib al environmental officials, and obtaining approval b y the trib e’s governing body , if necessary

. (C) **Dispute Resolution Requests .**  Includes the activities direct ly associated with assembling, writing and submitting a request. This includes reading the regulatory requirements and obtaining an y necessary background understanding, assembling the categories of information in section 4.2 above, writing the request itse lf, and obtaining reviews and approvals of state or trib al 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 applicat ion requirements, gathering general information, ty ping or filling out forms, drafting letters, reviewing applications or other materials, and mailing completed submissions.

- Generating Detailed Information : Information may include data on production lev els, 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 analy ses, biological toxicity

testing, predicting in

- stream impacts, field monitoring, bioconcentration testing, or other scientific anal ys es.

- Maintaining Records : All NPDES permittees must keep records of the data used to complete their applications and t o demonstrate their compliance for at least three ye ars. First

- time applicants may need to develop a record keeping sy stem, 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**  **A GENCY**  **A CTIVITIES**  (A) **Standards Adoption and Revisions .**  States and trib es 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 state s and trib es to EPA. EPA reviews the state s’ or trib es’ water quality standards for consistency with the CWA. I f 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 re lated to, but not included in, this draft IC R include the transmission of policy and guidance to the state s and trib es; development of recommended scientific water quality criteria; assisting state s and trib es 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 IC R, EPA activities associated with water quality standards review include the following.

- Assembling relevant information to conduct the EPA review of submitted standards.

- Reviewin g standards revisions for consistency with the CWA, with downstream state ’s or trib e’s water quality standards, and with any

standards for international waters.

- Preparing and sending a letter to the state or trib e conveying EPA’s approval or disapprova l decision(s).

- Making findings that federal water quality standards are necessary

.

- Proposing and promulgating federal replacement standards where state ’s or trib es standards are disapproved or where federal standards are otherwise necessary

.

- Propo sing and finalizing the withdrawal of federal standards when a state or trib e corrects its standards. (B) **Tribal Program Applications .**  After a trib e submits an application to administer a water quality standards program, EPA will review the application and use the submitted information to determine if the trib e meets the statutory criteria under CWA section 518(e) to administer the water quality stan dards program information submission requirements.Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

22 (C) **Dispute Resolution Requests .**  After a trib e 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 state s or trib es incorporating the results of bioassay

tests into water quality

criteria. (D2) **Great Lakes antidegradation demonstrations .**  EPA reviews and approves state and trib al antidegradation policies. However, EPA does not have a direct role in reviewing and approving activities that could lower water quality a s these policies are implemented. In some cases, depending on the facility involved, EPA may

issue an NPDES permit or review a state - or trib e - issued permit. This draft ICR covers the water quality standards portion of any

such EPA reviews. A separate ICR, EPA I CR 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 IC R covers the water quality standards port ion of an y s uch EPA reviews. A separate ICR, EPA I CR Number 1639.04, OMB Control Number 2040

- 0180, covers the NPDES burden. **5.2 C**  **OLLECTION M**  **ETHODOLOGY AND M** **ANAGEMENT** (A) **Standards Adoption and Revisions .**  States and trib es submit their revised water qual ity 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 closel y with their respective state s and trib es 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 Regio nal offices in the review of these submissions. EPA approved state/trib al standards can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase/ . EPA promulgated standards for state s/trib es are located at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/

.Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

23 (B) **Tribal Program Applications .**  Interested trib es 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 closel y with the trib es 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 state s or trib es 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 , I CI S
-NPD ES, and STORET databases. This technology

reduces the burden to EPA Headquarters for gathering and anal yz ing 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 ye ars at the most, improved information technology may not be effective in further reducing respondent burden. **5.3 S**  **MALL E**  **NTITY F**  **LEXIBILITY** For man y reasons discussed below, EPA believes the reporting requirements discussed in this draft IC R 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 trib es require special considerations considering the ir 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 trib es to help build their capacity to apply for and administe r the WQS program. In addition, EPA provides substantial funding to trib es through the Indian General Assistance Program (GAP) and trib al allocations of CWA section 106 Water Pollution Control Program grants that trib es can use to develop WQS capabilities and administer WQS programs. For trib al program applications, EPA established a “simplification rule” in 1994 (59 FR 64339) to make it easier for trib es to obtain EPA approval to assume the role Congress envisioned for them under certain environmental statutes, including the CWA. This rule enabled trib al applications to be combined with other administrative steps, simplified certain showings that a trib e needs to make, simplified jurisdictional anal ys es, and gave more flexibility to determining whether a trib e 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 eas y as possible for tribes to conform to the requirements. In addition to the guidance, training, andWater Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

24 technical assistance mentioned above, the WQS program provides opportunities for tribes with EPA
- approved WQS to share their tec hnical expertise with other trib es considering developing standards. Such peer

- to - peer training is a major feature of all WQS training targeted to trib es. EPA Regional Offices work closel y with tribes to provide model standards or standards from adjacent j urisdictions 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 ecos ys tem, their standards can usually be much s impler 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 sm all entities. Conducting bioassay testing, undertaking an action that would trigger the antidegradation policy , and initiating a request for regulatory relief are generall y voluntary . A small business that decides to expand operations in a way that trigger s 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 C**  **OLLECTION S**  **CHEDULE** (A) **Standards Adoption and Revisions .**  The CWA requires state s and authorized trib es to review their water quality standards at least once every three years and provide the results to EPA. In practice, some state s and trib es choose to submit revised standards for portions of their waters more frequently

. (B) **Tribal Program Applications**  **.** There are no scheduling requirements for Indian trib es to apply

for authorization to administer the water quality standards program. (C) **Dispute Resolution Requests .**  There are no scheduling requirements for state s or Indian trib es to request EPA dispute resolution. (D1) **Great Lakes Bioassay Tests .**  There are no scheduling requirements for state s, trib es, 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 generall y associated with the NPDES permit renewal cycle. The CWA requires permittees to reappl y 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 f ew 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 E**  **STIMATING R** **ESPONDENT B**  **URDEN** (A) **Standards Adoption and Revisions .**  State or trib al 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 state s, the District of Columbia, 5 commonwealths and territories, and Indian trib es 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 b y this request. For the purposes of reviewing the reporting requirements placed on state s and trib es by the Water Quality

Standards Regulation, EPA Headquarters previously discussed the requirem ents and estimated reporting burdens with the voluntary assistance of eleven (11) state s. The state s were selected to represent various geographical areas, differing levels of water quality management activities, and differing approaches to controlling pri ority toxic pollutants. Because of differing practices regarding the three

- ye ar requirement in the CWA, the state s 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/trib e review per ye ar 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 trib es will apply to administer the water quality standards program per year. This assumption is based upon an upper estimate of the actual pace of trib al submission of applications for the water quality standards program. EPA further assumed that these trib es would supply only standards program

specific information that was not provided in previous applications. For example, EPA assumes that at least 75% of all trib es applying for treatment as a state for purposes of water quality standards will have already a pplied for authorization to administer one of the other SDWA or CWA programs. Based on these assumptions, EPA estimates that each trib al application will require an average of 40 hours to complete. The total annual burden hours = (3 trib es) * (40 hours/app lication) = **120 hours**
. (C) **Dispute Resolution Requests .**  State or Tribal burden : When a trib e or state desires EPA to initiate a formal dispute resolution action, the trib e or state is required to submit a written request to EPA. EPA estimates that at most three trib es/ state s will request a formal dispute resolution action over a three ye ar period (one request per ye ar). To date, there have been no such formal requests since the regulation went into effect in 1991. The estimated hour burden to a trib e or st ate 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 bioassay s 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 state s or trib es for review, resulting in 14 state or trib al responses. EPA estimated the state/trib al 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 s ys tem must provide a demonstration to the state or trib e to justify increasing permit limits for discharges to high water quality areas that would increase pollutant loadings or adversel y affect those waters. In general, an antidegradation demonstration consists of first performing a pollution prevention alternatives analy sis to identify prudent and feasible alternatives. If no pollution prevention alternatives are deemed prudent and feasib le, 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 I CR (OMB Control No. 2040

- 0004, EPA I CR No. 0229.20 ) , EPA expects that 5 percent of the 2,323 dischargers to the Great Lakes s ys tem (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 ye ar and estimates that 22.2 hours is required for the discharger to prepare a demonstration for BCCs. 9 The antidegradation demonstration includes both water quality standards elements and NPDES permitting elements. Therefore, EPA has split this activity equall y b etween this draft ICR and the NPDES Program ICR ( OMB Control No. 2040

- 0004, EPA I CR 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 annu al 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 ye ar, and estimates that 14.8 hours is required to prepare the demonstration for non

- BCCs. 10 EPA has split this activity equall y between this draft IC R and the NPDES Program IC R and assumes 50 percent of the 14.8 hours (7.4 hours) will be needed for the WQS

-

9 Demonstration b urden reported in the original Great Lakes ICR (60 hours) was reduced by 6 3 percent for the first renewal. See record of communications between EPA and OMB. 10 Demonstration b urden 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 IC R State or Tribal Burden. EPA estimates that it would take a Great Lakes state or trib e 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 IC R and the NPDES Program I CR 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 **3 6**  **8 hours**  for Great Lakes state s and trib es 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 ye ar 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 be tween this draft IC R and the NPDES Program I CR ( OMB Control No. 2040

- 0004, EPA I CR 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 o f 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 trib e will require 88 hours: 4 hours to revi ew the request for completion, including any contact with the permittee for additional information; 4 hours for public notice and comment (assuming conservatively that th is process is independent of regular permit public notice); and 80 hours to anal yz e th e 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 IC R and the NPDES Program IC R 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 = 7 **92 hours** for Great Lakes state s and trib es for this draft ICR. Estimated Number of Respondents: 2 , 419 (56 state s and terri tories, 40 trib es; 2,323 Great Lakes dischargers)

. The overall burden hours for state , trib al, and discharger respondents is 286,981 hours, and is summarized in Table 6.4. **6.2 E**  **STIMATING R** **ESPONDENT C**  **OSTS** The above burden estimates have been converted to dollar cost estimates using the following assumptions:Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

29 - State or trib al 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 ye ar, the hourl y rate is $ 26.41 . Overhead cost for federal and state employees are expected to be 60 percent, or $ 15.85 per hour, yi elding a total hourly

rate of $ 42.26
.

- Contractor labor rates (hired b y 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 an d 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 wor

ker 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) = $3,3 81 . Total annual cost = (1 request) * ($3,3 8 1 /request) = **$3,3 8**  **1**
. (D1) **Great Lakes Bioassay Tests .**  Discharger costs : Contractor costs = (34,204 hours) * ($ 82.67 /hour) = $2, 827, 645 . Discharger oversight employee costs = (760 hours) * ($24. 92 /hour) = $18, 93 9 . Total discharger bioassay costs = $2, 827, 645 + $18, 93 9 = $2, 846, 584
. State or tribal costs : Revie w of water quality criteria = (2,714 hours) * ($ 42.26 ) = $11 4,694
. Total costs : $2, 846, 584 + $11 4 , 6 94 = **$2, 961,**  **278 .**  (D2) **Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations .**  Discharger costs : Antidegradation demonstrations = (425 hours) * ($24. 92 /hour) = $10, 5 91
. State or Tribal costs : Review of antidegradation demonstrations = (368 hours) * ($ 42.26 /hour) = $15, 55 2
. Total costs : $10, 5 91 + $15, 55 2 = **$ 2**  **6,1 43** 
.

11 General Schedule rate, effective January 2015, assuming base pay rate with no locality adjustment. http://www.opm.gov/policy

- data

- oversight/pay

- leave/salaries

- wa ges/salary

- tables/pdf/2015/GS_h.pdf

12 BLS, Table 9, Employer costs per hour, private industry workers, March 2015, http://www.bls.gov/ne ws.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) = $18 7,3 49
. State or Tribal costs : Review of regulatory relief requests = (792 hours) * ($ 42.26 hour) = $3 3,4 70
. Total costs : $18 7 ,3 49 + $3 3,470 = **$ 2**  **20,81 8** 
. The overall labor costs for state , trib al, and discharger respondents are summarized in Table 6.4. **6.3 E**  **STIMATING A**  **GENCY B**  **URDEN AND C**  **OST** 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 $6 1,486 per ye ar. At 2,080 labor hours per ye ar, the hourl y rate is $2 9.56 . Overhead costs for federal employees are expected to be 60 percent, or $17. 74 per hour, yi elding a total hourl y rate of $4 7.30
. (A) **Standards Adoption and Revisions .**  EPA estimates that each review of a state or trib al water quality

standards submission will require 168 hours. Assuming that each state or trib e will submit one draft or final package of new or revised water quality standards every

year, the total annual burden = ( 96 submiss ions) * (168 hours/submission) = **16,128 hours**  . L abor cost = ( 16,128 hours) * ($ 47.30 /hour) = **$ 762,805** 
. (B) **Tribal Program Applications .**  EPA estimates that each review of a trib al program application will require 160 hours . Total burden = (3 applications) * (160 hours/application) = **480 hours** . L abor cost = (480 hours) * ($ 47.30 /hour) = **$22, 703** 
. (C) **Dispute Resolution Requests .**  EPA estimates that each review of a state or trib al request will require 20 hours. Total burden = (1 request) * (20 hours/request) = **20 hours** . L abor cost = (20 hours) * ($ 47.30 /hour) = **$9 46** 
. (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 **$4,1 84**  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 state s are delegated NPDES permitting authorities. The overall burden hours f or the federal government are ( 16,128 ) + (480) + (20) + (80) = **17,008.** The overall labor costs for the federal government are ($7 62,805 ) + ($22, 703 ) + ($9 46 ) + ($4,1 84 ) = **$ 7**  **90,637**
. There are no Capital Expenses and no O&M costs in this draft IC R.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 $3,3 81
- - - 1 80 $3,3 81 (D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests 14 2,714 $11 4,694 14 34,964 a $2, 846,584 28 37,678 $2, 961,278 (D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations 46 368 $15, 552 46 425 $10, 591 92 793 $2 6,143
(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests 18 792 $ 33,470 18 7,518 $18 7,349 36 8,310 $ 220,818

Total 17 8 244,074 $ 10,314,566 78 42,907 $ 3,044,523 25 6 2 86,981 $1 3,359,089

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 R** **EASONS FOR C**  **HANGE IN B**  **URDEN** This draft ICR supersedes the I CR 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 B**  **URDEN S**  **TATEMENT** The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,121 hours per response 13

. This overall burden entails an average of 2,402 hours per response for state s and trib es to implement the national water quality standards regulation at 40 CFR part 131, and 50 hours per response for Great Lakes state s and trib es and 550 hours per response for Great Lakes s ys tem dischargers to implement the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes Sy stem 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 sy stems 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 an y 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 display s a current ly 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 accompan yi ng Federal Register notice for instructions to provide comments on the Agency ’ s need for this inform ation, 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 Arizon a 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 state s 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).