Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions – Revised Burden Estimates Proposed rule Feedback

received Final rule

(draft) Comment

Miscellaneous Hourly wage rate $49/hour None $49/hour Based on federal databases. Rule-makings Hours required for an entity to perform one rule-making 100 – 500 500-1000 (AK 1

, KS, WA2 , WY, OK3 , and VA4) 2000 (NY) 1000 (IN) 500 - 1000 Based on feedback and best professional judgement.

Number of entities that will need to do a onetime rulemaking 95 (50 states, 5 territories, 39 tribes, and DC) None 96 (50 states, 5 territories, 40 tribes, and DC) Coeur d’Alene Tribe's WQS were approved in

June 2014.

Triennial Review Hours required for one entity to develop and document why the entity is not adopting a new or revised 304(a) criteria recommendation for parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations Not used. 1000-3000 (NY 5 ) 50 – 100 (IN) 40 (OK) 80 (WY) 80 – 100 (NY) 10 - 50 Based on feedback and best professional judgement.

Number of new 304(a) criteria per year Not used. Did not ask. 9 371 over 42 years = 9 per year.

Number of entities that could not adopt at least some 304(a) recommendations Not used. Did not ask. 96 (50 states, 5 territories, 40 tribes, and DC) Based on the fact that all entities are responsible

for adopting WQS.

1 1000 hours for single rule-making (unlikely to do in combination with triennial review). Conservative estimate.

2 High end more likely.

3 500 hour if in combination with a triennial review (“the usual way”).

4 150 – 200 hours if in combination with a triennial review.

5 Entire triennial review.Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions – Revised Burden Estimates Proposed rule Feedback

received Final rule

(draft) Comment

Fraction of new or revised 304(a) criteria recommendations that entities on average will not adopt and must provide an explanation. Not used. Did not ask 50% Based on best professional judgement.

HAU Number of entity that do not identify the highest attainable use when performing UAAs 8 Number of States with simple (1 or 2) aquatic life use categories. (AK). 15 (8/50 states, so 8 + ((5 territories + 40 tribes + DC)  8  50) = 15). Adding estimate of states for which we do not have information rather than assuming that if we don’t know, they don’t count.

Hours required for one entity to develop one UAA if not identifying the highest attainable

use. 100 - 500 500-1000 (AK) 600 (VA) 500 (OK6) 500 - 1000 Based on feedback and best professional judgement.

Additional hours for one entity to identify the highest attainable use for one UAA 30 – 150 250-500 (AK) 150 - 300 30% of UAA that does not identify HAU. Based on feedback and best professional judgement. Number of UAAs per entity per year 1 <1 (NY, IN, OK) 3 (WY) 0 (WA7 ) 1 Based on feedback and best professional judgement.

Antidegradation Years between revisions of antidegradation methods Not used. Did not ask. 10 Best professional judgement.

6 Permittee usually does most of the work.

7 Have not yet successfully completed a UAA.Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions – Revised Burden Estimates Proposed rule Feedback

received Final rule

(draft) Comment

Number of entities that will need to conduct a public process when developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods. 84 (39 states, 5 territories, 39 tribes, and DC) None. 43 For proposal, the number of entities the EPA counted as not having antidegradation implementation methods adopted into legally binding WQS. For final, also take into account more specific information about antidegradation implementation methods to know if revision will be necessary (decreases count) and also use that information to estimate entities where EPA does not have information by using ratios of entities with information (increases count). Number of hours needed for one entity to perform/evaluate one Tier 2 review (that does not perform/evaluate alternatives analysis) 100 - 150 100-500 (AK) 160 (IN) 350 – 650 (KS 8 ) Thousands (OK) 100 - 300 Based on feedback and best professional judgement.

Additional hours needed for one entity to perform/evaluate alternatives analysis for one Tier 2 review. 30 - 45 60 – 90 (IN) 30 - 90 30% of hours needed to perform one review that does not already identify alternatives. Based on feedback and best professional judgement. Burden hours required for one entity to provide public involvement in developing antidegradation methods or making decisions about which waters to give tier 2 protection. Not used 100 (NY) 500 (AK) 125 (NY 9 ) 500 (IN) 150 - 300 30% of a rulemaking = 150 to 300 hours. Based on feedback and best professional judgement.

Number of NPDES permits from entities that do not use the waterbody method in a way that is consistent with the rule and may need to perform more antidegradation reviews (used to estimate number of antidegradation reviews per year). 9,578 (7 states and tribes) None 25,780 (based on 19 states, 5 territories, 40 tribes, and DC) For proposed rule, available information

identified 4 entities using the water body method in a way that was inconsistent with the rule. Estimated 3 additional entities by calculating the ratio of dischargers in those 4 entities to the national total, multiplying by the average number of NPDES permits in each entity. For final rule, obtained additional information for 15 entities and estimating entities without information using ratio of entities with information.

8 EPA’s estimate okay for State portion. 250 – 500 hours for permittees portion.

9 25% of 500 hoursWater Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions – Revised Burden Estimates Proposed rule Feedback

received Final rule

(draft) Comment

Fraction of the additional water bodies an entity decides must now receive Tier 2 protection (rather than providing a public process to continue not providing Tier 2 protection) relative to the total number of additional water bodies that now qualify for Tier 2 protection under the rule. 100% Did not ask 50% Proposal assumed all entities using the waterbody method will decide to grant Tier 2 protection to applicable waters Final rule accounts for the possibility that some entities will continue not providing Tier 2 by performing a public process that fulfills requirements of the rule. Can range from 0% – 100%, so split the difference. Number of NPDES permits from entities that do not do alternatives analyses consistent with the rule. 12,402 (17 states, 4 territories, 34 tribes, and DC) None. 23,036 (based on 19 states, 5 territories, 40 tribes, and DC) Updated information on entities that do not

perform alternatives analyses. Note: identified different states, not just 2 more.

Fraction of NPDES permits that require an antidegradation review 6% None. 2% For proposal used average of MODNR (2008) 2% and IADNR (2008) average 6 – 10%. For final, use average of MODNR (2008) 2% and updated IADNR (2014) (2%). Variances Hours currently needed for one entity to develop and document one variance. 125 – 150 250-500 (AK 10) 125 – 150 (WA 11 ) 125 - 300 Based on feedback and best professional judgement.

Additional hours needed for one entity to include the additional submission information required in the proposed regulation (assuming the entity does not already supply this information). 40 – 45 (30% of 125 – 150) 125-500 (AK 12) 31.25 – 75 25% hours needed to develop and document one variance based on feedback and best professional judgement.

Average number of variances per entity per
year 3 10 – 20 (NY 13 ) 30 (IN 14) 10 Based on feedback and best professional judgement.

10 If done through permit process (without WQS rulemaking).

11 EPA estimate okay for individual variance, but more if waterbody variance (similar to UAA).

12 Some states would be doing variances for the first time

13 Mainly for mercury.

14 Best guess.Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions – Revised Burden Estimates Proposed rule Feedback

received Final rule

(draft) Comment

Number of entities that currently do not fulfill all variance submission requirements specified in the proposed rule. 22 None 96 Proposal did not have variance accountability provisions. Vast majority of entities are unlikely to currently be consistent with all the accountability provisions in the final rule.Hours needed to perform an “active” reevaluation of a single variance. Not used. 125 – 150 (AK) 23 – 56 15% of time required to submit a complete variance. Based on feedback and best professional judgement. Number of entities that will need to submit variance reevaluations Not used None 96 All entities (50 states, 5 territories, 40 tribes, and DC)