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 (AK1,

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 rulemaking95 (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

(NY5)

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 (KS8)

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 (NY9)

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 hours
Water 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 (AK10)

125 – 150

(WA11)

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 (AK12) 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 (NY13)

30 (IN14)

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)