July 2015 EPA 820

- S

- 15

- 002


### Summary of WQS Regulatory Revisions Final Rule

Designated Uses

Final Revision: Am ends § 131.10(g) to prov ide that
where a state/tribe removes or revises a use specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) or a subcategory of such a

use that is not attainable, the highest attainable use (HAU) shall be adopted in its place

.

HAU is defined as “ t he modified aquatic life, wildlife,
or recreation use that is both closest to the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act and attainable,
based on the e valuation of the factor(s) in § 131.10(g) that preclude(s) attainment of the use and any other information or analyses that were used to evaluate attainability. There is no req uired highest attainable
use where the State demonstrates the relevant use specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act and sub

categories of such a use are not attainable. ”

The final rule also amends § 131.10(g)

, § 131.10(j), and § 131.10(k) to clarify when a use attainability analysis (UAA) is and is not needed. The final rule defines the

term “ non

- 101(a)(2) use ” and amends § 131.10(a) to clarify that for such uses while a UAA is not required, the state/tribe must submit documentatio n justifying
how its consideration of the use and value of water for those uses listed in §131.10(a) appropriately supports
the state /tribal action

.

Goal: Provide clear requirements and ensures appropriate WQS are in place to help restore and
maintain rob ust aquatic ecosystems and promote resilience to emerging water quality stressors. 

### Administrator’s Determination

Final Revision: A mends §131.22(b) to add a requirement that an Administrator’s Determination must be signed by the
Administrator (or duly authorized delegate)
and include a statement that the document
is an Administrator’s determination for purposes of section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Act.

Goal : Allow EPA and states/tribes to communicate directly and specifically on areas where WQS imp rovements should be
considered and establish a more transparent process for t he Administrator to announce
determination s made under section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Act. 

### Triennial Reviews

Final Revision: Amends §131.20(a) to clarify t he “applicable water quality standards” that must be reviewed triennially. The final rule also requires that if a state or tribe chooses not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated
criteria recommendat ions under CWA section 304(a), they must explain their decision when reporting the results of their triennial review to EPA under CWA section 303(c)(1) and 40 CFR

131. 20(c).

Goal: Ensure public transparency and clarif y existing requirements, so that state s and tribes update WQS when necessary and consider the
latest science as reflected in the CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations

. EPA finalized updates to the federal water quality standards (WQS) regulation at 40
CFR Part 131 that interprets part of the Clean Water Act (CWA) . The updates result
in a better

- defined pathway for states, territories, and authorized tribes to improve water quality and protect high quality waters through enhancements in the regulation’s eff ectiveness, WQS transparency, and opportunities for meaningful public engagement at the state, territorial, tribal and local levels

.

EPA initially proposed revisions to the WQS regulation on September 4, 2013.

The basic structure of the water quality standards regulation (40 CFR part 131) was last revised in November 1983. EPA added tribal provisions in 1991, “ Alaska rule” provisions in 2000, and BEACH Act rule provisions in 2004.

The requirements have provided a strong foundation for water quality

- based controls, including water quality assessme nts, impaired waters lists and total maximum daily loads

, under C WA sec tion 303(d), as well as for water quality

- based effluent limits in discharge permits under CWA section 402.July 2015 EPA 820

- S

- 15

- 002


### Summary of WQS Regulatory Revisions Final Rule

The final rule also includes other changes to
correct mistakes and inconsistencies in Part

131.

For more information and to access supplemental documents and the docket for this rulemaking, see EPA’s WQS website at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance /wqs_index.cfm

. 

### WQS Variances

Final Revision: A dds § 131.14 to provide a comprehensive regulat ory structure for and explicitly authorize the use of WQS variances. The
final ru le clarifies:

(1) t hat a WQS variance is a water quality standard subject to EPA review and approval or disapproval.

(2) h ow WQS variances re late to other CWA programs and specifies the information that the

state /tribe must adopt in any WQS variance, and/or the water body or water body segments to which the WQS variance applies, and a quantifiable expression of the highest attainable condition.

(3) t hat states/tribes must submit to EPA supporting documentation that demonstrates why the WQS variance is needed and justifies the term and interim requirements.

(4) t hat states/tribes must reevaluate WQS variances longer than five years on an established schedule with public involvement.

Goal: Promote the appropriate use of WQS

variances when applicable WQS are not attainable in
the near

- term but may be attainable in the future

, and provide regulatory certainty to states, tribes, the regulated community, stakeholders, and the public in making progress toward attaining designated uses and criteria that protec t such uses

. A ntidegradation

Final Revision: Amends provisions of §131.12 to specify that states/tribes:

(1) may identify high quality waters on either
a parameter

- by

- parameter approach

, or on a waterbody

- by

- waterbody approach that
does not exclude water bodies from Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does
not exceed levels ne cessary to support all of
the CWA section 101(a)(2) use s . W hen using
the water body approach, s tates/tribes must involve the public in any decisions pertaining
to when to pr ovide Tier 2 protection, and the
factors considered in such decisions

. (2) must evaluate a range of practicable alternatives that would preven t or lessen the degradation associated with the proposed activity. When the analysis of alternatives identifies one or more practicable alternatives, the state/tribe must only find that the lowering is necessary if one of those
alt ernatives is selected for implementation. (3) must provide an opportunity for public involvement during the development and any subsequent revisions of antidegradation implementation methods (whether or not those methods are adopted int o rule), and to make the methods available to the public.

Goal: Promote public transparency and enhance antidegradation implementation through clearer requirements and expectations. 

### Provisions Authorizing the Use of Permit

- Based Compliance Schedules

F inal Revision: A dd s § 131.15 to clarify that a permitting authority may only issue compliance
schedules for water quality

- based effluent limitations in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits if the state or tribe
has authorized the use of such compliance
schedules in their WQS or implementing regulations

. The final rule requires that such
author izing provisions must be approved by

EPA as WQS under CWA section 303(c).

Goal : C learly articulate in regulation what must
be done for states and tribes to be able to utilize permit compliance schedules, consistent
with the CWA and the EPA A dministrator ’s
decision in In the Matter of Star

- Kist Caribe,

Inc ., and ensure public transparency on state/tribal decisions to allow permit compliance schedules.