# CHAPTER 2 Issue Category: Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Pages 2- 1449 – 2- 1450

Response to Public Comments
Water Quality Standard s 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 2-1449Chapter 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