EPA Publication No. 820F12017 1

WHAT IS A NEW OR REVISED WATER QUALITY STANDARD UNDER CWA 303(C)(3)?

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

OCTOBER 2012

DISCLAIMER

These Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) do not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, 

states, or the regulated community, nor do they confer legal rights or impose legal obligations upon 

any member of the public. The CWA provisions and EPA regulations described in this document 

contain legally binding requirements. These FAQs do not constitute a regulation, nor do they change 

or substitute for any CWA provision or EPA regulations. 

The general description provided here may not apply to a particular situation based upon the 

circumstances. Interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the substance of 

these FAQs and the appropriateness of their application to a particular situation. EPA retains the 

discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in these 

FAQs where appropriate. These FAQs are a living document and may be revised periodically without 

public notice. EPA welcomes public input on these FAQs at any time.

1. Why is EPA issuing these FAQs?

Determining which provisions constitute new or revised water quality standards (WQS) that EPA 

has the authority and duty to approve or disapprove under the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 

303(c)(3) has increasingly become an issue as state and tribal1 water programs are becoming more

integrated with implementation policies and processes.

To date, EPA has evaluated each situation on a case-by-case basis. These FAQs consolidate 

EPA’s plain language interpretation (informed by the CWA, EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 

CFR part 131, and relevant case law) of what constitutes a new or revised WQS that the Agency has 

the CWA section 303(c)(3) authority and duty to approve or disapprove. 

2. How is evaluating whether a provision is a new or revised WQS different from determining 

whether a state or tribe’s new or revised WQS are approvable?

There are two decisions EPA must make before approving or disapproving a state or tribe’s new 

or revised WQS. First, EPA must determine whether the provision constitutes a new or revised WQS 

that EPA has the CWA section 303(c)(3) authority and duty to approve or disapprove. If it does, EPA 

must then determine whether the provision is approvable. This FAQ document only addresses EPA’s 

position with regard to the first decision2

.

 1 “Tribal” and “tribes” refers to tribes authorized for treatment in the same manner as a state (TAS) under section 

518(e) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for purposes of CWA section 303(c) water quality standards (WQS). 2 These FAQs in no way affect EPA’s authority to approve or disapprove a state or tribe’s continuing planning 

process (CPP) under CWA 303(e).
EPA Publication No. 820F12017 2

3. What is the basis for the information in these FAQs? 

EPA’s understanding of what constitutes a new or revised WQS under CWA section 303(c)(3) 

derives from the CWA itself, EPA’s implementing regulations, and case law. The CWA requires EPA 

to approve or disapprove new or revised WQS and specifies that state WQS must consist of 

designated uses and criteria to protect such uses. In the 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress 

recognized that antidegradation is a part of water quality standards (see section 303(d)(4)(B)).

EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR § 131.3(i) provides that WQS "are provisions of State or Federal law”

that consist of designated uses and water quality criteria. EPA’s regulations at § 131.5 provide 

specificity as to what EPA’s review under section 303(c) of the Act involves, at § 131.6 the minimum 

requirements for WQS submissions, and at § 131.13 that general policies states choose to include in 

their WQS are subject to EPA review and approval. 40 CFR §§ 131.5(a)(5), 131.6(d), and 131.12 

further reinforce that antidegradation requirements are WQS.

In addition, case law relating to what constitutes a new or revised WQS has been established in

(1) the Supreme Court’s 1994 decision in PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dept of 

Ecology, 511 U.S.700 (1994), which acknowledged that antidegradation requirements are part of 

WQS, and (2) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2004 decision, Florida Public 

Interest Research Group Citizen Lobby, Inc., et al. v. EPA, 386 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2004), and 

subsequent EPA action on the Florida Impaired Waters Rule (IWR). The Court’s decision in the 

Florida IWR case established that EPA has a mandatory duty to approve or disapprove a new or 

revised WQS even if the state did not submit such new or revised WQS to EPA for review. Thus,

EPA’s position is that its authority and duty to evaluate whether a provision is a new or revised WQS

is not dependent upon whether the provision was submitted to EPA for review. In addition, in its

decision following a 2004 remand in the IWR litigation, EPA determined that specific water quality 

criteria provisions in the IWR were new or revised WQS because they were legally binding provisions 

that define, change, or establish magnitude, duration or frequency of water quality criteria. EPA’s 

current practice is to consider all the salient points from the CWA, regulations, and case law when 

evaluating whether a provision is a new or revised WQS. 

4. What does EPA consider when evaluating whether a specific provision constitutes a new or 

revised WQS? 

EPA considers four questions when evaluating whether a provision constitutes a new or revised 

WQS. If ALL four questions are answered ”yes,” then the provision would likely constitute a new or 

revised WQS that EPA has the authority and duty to approve or disapprove under CWA section 

303(c)(3). If any of the four questions are answered “no,” then the provision would likely not be a 

new or revised WQS that EPA has the authority and duty to approve or disapprove under CWA 

section 303(c)(3). 

1. Is it a legally binding provision adopted or established pursuant to state or tribal law? This 

consideration stems from the use of the terms “adopt,” “law,” “regulations”, and “promulgate”

in CWA section 303(a)-(c), and from EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.3(i), which specify that 
EPA Publication No. 820F12017 3

WQS "are provisions of state or federal law."3 EPA considers documents incorporated by 

reference into state or tribal law to be legally binding provisions adopted or established 

pursuant to state or tribal law4

.

AND

2. Does the provision address designated uses, water quality criteria (narrative or numeric) to 

protect designated uses, and/or antidegradation requirements for waters of the United States?

The CWA, EPA’s implementing regulation, and case law have broadly established three core 

components of WQS - designated uses, water quality criteria, and antidegradation 

requirements. Therefore, this consideration explicitly specifies that for a provision to be a WQS, 

it must include or address at least one of these three core components.

AND

3. Does the provision express or establish the desired condition (e.g., uses, criteria) or instream 

level of protection (e.g., antidegradation requirements) for waters of the United States 

immediately or mandate how it will be expressed or established for such waters in the future?

This consideration recognizes that if a provision meets the above two considerations and 

expresses the desired condition or level of protection for waters of the United States, it may be

a new or revised WQS that EPA has the authority and duty to approve or disapprove under CWA 

section 303(c)(3), regardless of whether that expression applies immediately or will be applied 

in the future. EPA action on provisions that may not apply immediately will ensure that EPA is 

able to provide input as early as possible in the state’s or tribe’s WQS development process,

thus enabling the states, tribes, and EPA to carry out their functions under the CWA in the most 

efficient, expedient manner possible. 

AND

4. Does the provision establish a new WQS or revise an existing WQS? While a provision may 

meet the first three considerations, the EPA's authority and duty to review and approve or 

disapprove such provisions under section 303(c)(3) are limited to those WQS that are new or 

revised. A provision that establishes a new5 WQS or has the effect of changing an existing WQS

would meet this consideration. In contrast, a provision that simply implements a WQS without 

revising it would not constitute a new or revised standard. 

5. Does EPA consider general policies under 40 CFR § 131.13 to be WQS?

EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR § 131.13 provides that states and tribes may, at their discretion, 

“include in their state standards, policies generally affecting their application and implementation, 

such as mixing zones, low flows and variances.” 40 CFR § 131.13 also states that “Such policies are 

subject to EPA review and approval.” EPA has the CWA section 303(c)(3) authority and duty to 

approve or disapprove general policies such as mixing zones as long as those policies themselves 

constitute new or revised WQS based on the four considerations above. 

 3 These FAQs deal with what constitutes new or revised WQS adopted by states or authorized tribes. It does not 

discuss whether or how provisions of federal law may constitute WQS. If EPA promulgates federal WQS for state 

or tribal waters, EPA adheres to the same four considerations in promulgating such new or revised WQS. 4 A provision in a document incorporated by reference must meet all 4 considerations to be a new or revised WQS. 

5 A provision that EPA has never approved as a WQS would be considered “new.” It must also meet the other 

three considerations to be a new or revised WQS.
EPA Publication No. 820F12017 4

6. Does EPA have the authority and duty to approve or disapprove non-substantive revisions to 

WQS?

EPA considers non-substantive edits to existing WQS to constitute new or revised WQS that EPA 

has the authority and duty to approve or disapprove under CWA section 303(c)(3). While such 

revisions do not substantively change the meaning or intent of the existing WQS, EPA believes that it 

is reasonable to treat such non-substantive changes in this manner to ensure public transparency as 

to which provisions are effective for purposes of the CWA. EPA notes that the scope of its action in 

reviewing and approving or disapproving such non-substantive changes would extend only as far as 

the actual non-substantive changes themselves. In other words, EPA’s action on non-substantive 

changes to previously approved WQS would not constitute an action on the underlying previously 

approved WQS. Any challenge to EPA’s prior approval of the underlying WQS would be subject to 

any applicable statute of limitations and prior judicial decisions.

7. Does EPA have any CWA authority over provisions that do not constitute new or revised WQS?

In cases where the Agency believes that an existing state or tribal WQS (i.e., a provision that 

meets the first three considerations but is not new or revised) is inconsistent with the CWA, or that 

the existing WQS lack what is necessary to be consistent with the CWA, the Administrator may 

determine "that a revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements" of the CWA 

under CWA section 303(c)(4)(B). An Administrator's determination triggers a duty on the part of EPA 

to propose and promulgate such WQS unless the state or tribe adopts and EPA approves WQS 

addressing EPA’s determination. 

In addition, the CWA and its regulations grant EPA authority over state and tribal 

implementation of WQS through its oversight or implementation of the NPDES and 303(d)/TMDL 

programs. For example, revisions to NPDES state/tribal programs are subject to EPA approval under 

40 C.F.R. § 123.62, and EPA may object to state/tribal draft or proposed NPDES permits for point 

source discharges if the limits in those permits would not achieve applicable WQS. Similarly, EPA 

may add waters to a state’s or tribe’s list of water quality-limited waters if the state/tribe did not 

assess waters in a manner consistent with the applicable WQS.

State and tribal law may include provisions that do not meet the four considerations described 

in these FAQs, such as those guiding implementation of their CWA programs (e.g., NPDES or CWA 

section 303(d) assessment provisions). If such provisions do not meet the four considerations, and 

therefore EPA does not approve or disapprove them under Section 303(c)(3), the status of such 

provisions would be determined under the applicable requirements of the other CWA programs the 

provisions are intended to implement.