CHAPTER 2 

Issue Category: Statutory and Executive 

Order Reviews 

Pages 2-1449 – 2-1450

Response to Public Comments

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions

August 2015

40 CFR Part 131

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606

This document is part of a larger document.
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

13 - STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

13.A - STATUTORY & EXEC ORDER REVIEWS 

Comment ID 0168-A1.001.003 

Author Name: Walker Roger 

Organization: Regulatory Environmental Group for Missouri 

B. Administrative Procedures Act (APA). 

EPA's failure to provide copies of comment letters in the docket constitutes non-compliance with APA. The September 

4, 2013, proposed WQS rulemaking assigned docket identification number EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606, which is the same 

docket ID No. used by EPA three years ago for the July 30, 2010 stakeholder input - revisions to water quality 

standards regulation Federal Register. As such, all previous comments should have been provided to the public in an 

appropriate reference format. In addition, no public comments were made available from EPA's 1998 Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (63 FR 36742, July 7, 1998) in which EPA by their own account received over 3,200 

specific written comments from over 150 comment letters. REGFORM searched for comments from the 1998 ANPRM 

and in eight hours was not able to locate a single previous comment. The public should not be required to make a 

formal request to the Docket for information that could easily be referenced by EPA. 

It is hypocritical that EPA uses the word "transparent" in the rulemaking yet fails to be transparent itself. Such tactics 

make it appear that EPA has purposely not included previous public comments in their possession in order to minimize 

stakeholder input and public comments to this proposed rulemaking. 

Recommendation: Withdraw the proposed rule and resubmit with appropriate access to all previous comments. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

13.a 

2.d 

Comment ID 0222-A1.001.006 

Author Name: Modeer David 

Organization: Western Urban Water Coalition 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1449
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Compliance under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq.) and Impacts on Local Governments. EPA 

indicates that "small entities," including local governments, will not face any requirements under the proposal. Preamble 

at VI.C. This statement requires clarification. These entities are potentially impacted by the HAU requirement, 

antidegradation changes, 401 certification decisions, and variance procedures. They construct and operate water and 

wastewater facilities which need to obtain necessary permits and approvals directly related to the interpretation and 

implementation of the referenced regulatory requirements. If such a result is not intended, the final rule should provide 

clarification to that effect. If, or on the other hand, these requirements would apply, EPA should consider the impacts on 

local governments of complying with the Proposed Rule and prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as required by law. 

5 U.S.C. § 603. 

Compliance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism (August 4, 1999), and Impacts on State Law. EPA indicates that 

under E.O. 13132, the proposal does not create any significant burdens for the states. Preamble at VI.E. However, it is 

either the state or the project proponent, including small entities, who will have to pay for the Use Attainability Analysis 

(UAA), the data behind the variance requests concerned. EPA also indicates that the Proposed Rule will not "preempt 

state law." Id. Yet EPA's changes to use designations, antidegradation review procedures, and variance policies will 

most likely require states, tribes and local governments to modify their laws to comply with these proposed new 

requirements. As a result, EPA is required to consult with these governmental entities under the Federalism Executive 

Order. If there will be no changes to non-federal government responsibilities under the requirements of the Proposed 

Rule, EPA should better explain why that is the case in the Final Rule. 

In the Preamble, EPA documents its past consultations under E.O. 13132 in August and September 2010. We are 

concerned that these consultations did not result in a greater understanding on EPA's part of the burdens the Proposed 

Rule will have on states, tribes and local governments. EPA also stated that it considers the opportunity to comment on 

the Proposed Rule to be additional consultation. As part of this consultation, WUWC, as a representative of municipal 

western urban water utilities, offers to meet with EPA to discuss the burdens that the Proposed Rule will have upon 

regulated entities. Please contact us at the information provided at the end of the letter for that purpose. 

Response 

For response to this comment, see the following response essay(s): 

13.a 

12.a 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1450