Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0356-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-10-21T04:00Z

Information Collection Request

	for

	WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REGULATION

	(RENEWAL)

	

	

	August 29, 2008

	EPA ICR Number 0988.10

	OMB Control Number 2040-0049

	

	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

	Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology

	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

	Washington, D.C.  20460

	TABLE OF CONTENTS 

	Page

 TOC \f 

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	1

1.1 Title of the Information Collection	1

1.2 Short Characterization/Abstract	1

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	3

2.1 Need and Authority for the Collection	3

2.2 Practical Utility/Users of the Data	5

3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER 

	COLLECTION CRITERIA	7

3.1 Non-duplication	7

3.2 Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB	8

3.3 Consultations	8

3.4 Effects of Less Frequent Collection	9

3.5 General Guidelines	10

3.6 Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions	11

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED	12

4.1 Respondents/NAICS Codes	12

4.2 Information Requested	13

4.3 Respondent Activities	16

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED(AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY,
AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	19

5.1 Agency Activities	19

5.2 Collection Methodology and Management	20

5.3 Small Entity Flexibility	21

5.4 Collection Schedule	23

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION	24

6.1 Estimating Respondent Burden	24

6.2 Estimating Respondent Costs	26

6.3 Estimating Agency Burden and Cost	27

6.4 Total Burden and Costs	29

6.5 Reasons for Change in Burden	30

6.6 Burden Statement	30

 

Attachment A.  Average Cost for State/Tribal Review Process	311. 
IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1.1 	Title of the Information Collection

The title of this Information Collection Request (ICR) is Water Quality
Standards Regulation (Renewal).  This ICR updates the previous estimates
of burden and costs to States and Indian Tribes presented in the ICR
entitled Water Quality Standards Regulation (EPA ICR Number 0988.09, OMB
Control Number 2040-0049), which expires on November 30, 2008.

1.2 	Short Characterization/Abstract

Water quality standards are provisions of State, Tribal, or Federal law
which consist of designated uses for waters of the United States, water
quality criteria to protect those uses, and an antidegradation policy. 
Water quality standards are established to protect public health or
welfare, protect and enhance the quality of water, and serve the
purposes of the Clean Water Act.  Such standards serve the dual purposes
of establishing the water quality goals for water bodies, and serving as
a regulatory basis for establishing water quality-based treatment
controls and strategies beyond technology-based treatment required by
sections 301 and 306 of the Act.

The Water Quality Standards Regulation establishes the framework for
States and authorized Tribes to adopt standards, for EPA to review and
approve or disapprove them, and for implementation of regulatory
controls to take place.  The Regulation consists of 40 CFR part 131, and
portions of part 132 related to water quality standards, including 40
CFR 132.3, Appendixes A, B, C, D, E, and Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix
F.  The regulation includes requirements for information collection to
enable EPA, States, and Tribes to implement the regulation.  This ICR is
for information collection required by the Water Quality Standards
Regulation. 

The Regulation includes the information collection activities shown in
Table 1.1.



Table 1.1: Overview of information collected

	

	Information Collected	

Sections of Water Quality Standards Regulation

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions	

New and revised water quality standards, results of triennial reviews,
and supporting information submitted to EPA for review and approval.	

40 CFR part 131, especially sections 131.6, 131.20-131.22

(B) Tribal Program Applications	

Tribal applications to be treated in the same manner as a state (TAS) to
administer water quality standards programs  	

40 CFR 131.8

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests	

Tribal or state requests for dispute resolution	

40 CFR 131.7

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance: 

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests	

Bioassay tests and other studies to support development of water quality
criteria for the Great Lakes system	

40 CFR part 132, especially sections 132.1, 132.2, 132.3, 132.5, and
Appendixes A, B, C, and D

	

Studies and demonstrations required by the antidegradation policy for
the Great Lakes system*	

40 CFR part 132, especially sections 132.1,132.2, 132.4, 132.5, and
Appendix E

	

Requests for regulatory relief (e.g., variances) from water quality
standards for the Great Lakes system*	

40 CFR part 132, especially sections 132.1, 132.2, 132.4, 132.5, and
Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix F

*Items D1, D2 and D3 involve both water quality standards burden and
NPDES burden.  This ICR covers only the water quality standards burden. 
A separate ICR, EPA ICR Number 1639.04, OMB Control Number 2040-0180,
covers the NPDES burden.

2. 		NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2.1 	Need and Authority for the Collection

(A) Standards Adoption and Revision. Since the passage of the Water
Quality Act in 1965, the States have been required by Federal law to
establish water quality standards.  These requirements were expanded by
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act (CWA), in
1972.  Section 303(c) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1313(c), governs the water
quality standards program.  Section 303(c) requires States and
authorized Tribes to review and revise their water quality standards at
least once every three years, and to submit to EPA the results and
revisions resulting from the reviews.  EPA then reviews each State or
Tribal submission for approval or disapproval.  

These requirements are encompassed in 40 CFR part 131 of the Water
Quality Standards Regulation.  Section 131.20 establishes the
requirement for State or Tribal review and revision of water quality
standards.  Section 131.6 establishes the minimum requirements for a
water quality standards submission (See section 4.2 below).  Section
131.5 prescribes EPA’s review of State and Tribal submission.  The
review criteria are: (a) whether the State or Tribe has adopted uses
which are consistent with the requirements of the Act; (b) whether the
State or Tribe has adopted criteria to protect the designated water
uses; (c) whether the State or Tribe has followed its legal procedures
for revising or adopting standards; (d) whether the water quality
standards which do not include uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of
the Act are based on appropriate technical and scientific data and
analyses; and (e) whether the submission meets the minimum elements from
section 131.6.  This information collection will ensure EPA has the
needed information to review standards and make approvals or
disapprovals.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  In 1987, through the Water Quality Act
(P. L. 100-4), Congress made substantial additions to the CWA.  The
Water Quality Act added Section 518(e) which requires EPA to promulgate
regulations specifying how Indian Tribes would qualify to administer the
CWA Section 303 water quality standards program.  EPA published such
regulations in 1991 in section 131.8 of the Water Quality Standards
Regulation.  The revisions do not require Tribes to apply for
administering the water quality standards programs.  However, where
Tribes desire to be authorized to administer the water quality standards
program, some information collection is necessary in order for EPA to
fulfill the Agency’s responsibilities under CWA Section 518(e) in a
reasonable and timely manner.

The statute and Regulation specify four criteria for an Indian Tribe to
qualify to administer a water quality standards program (40 CFR 131.8):
The Tribe must be Federally recognized, the Tribe must have a governing
body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers, the water
quality standards program must be administered for water resources
within the borders of an Indian reservation or legal equivalent, and the
Tribe must be reasonably expected to be capable of carrying out the
functions of an effective water quality standards program under the Act.
 Section 131.8(b) specifies the information a Tribe must submit in order
for EPA to review and approve the application.  (See section 4.2 below.)

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  The 1987 amendments to the CWA also
included specific requirements in Section 518(e)(3) for EPA to establish
a mechanism for resolution of disputes which arise between States and
Tribes over water quality standards on common water bodies.  EPA
published such regulations in 1991 in section 131.7 of the Water Quality
Standards Regulation.  The revisions do not require Tribes or States to
request EPA assistance in resolving State/Tribal disputes.  However,
where a Tribe or State desires a formal EPA dispute resolution action,
some information collection is necessary in order for EPA to fulfill the
Agency's responsibilities under CWA Section 518(e) in a reasonable and
timely manner.

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance.  The Great Lakes Critical
Programs Act of 1990 amended Section 118 of the CWA. It directed EPA to
publish water quality guidance for the Great Lakes system. EPA published
this guidance in March 1995, which is codified at 40 CFR part 132. The
Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria, implementation
procedures, and antidegradation provisions for the Great Lakes system. 
The Great Lakes water quality standards components included in this ICR
are:

(1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests.  States or dischargers may choose to
undertake bioassays or other studies that States may use to develop
water quality criteria or values to protect waters of the Great Lakes
system.  For this ICR, EPA assumed that dischargers would perform the
tests.  If States perform the tests, the overall burden might be less. 
The bioassay tests are discretionary activities.  If a State or
discharger chooses to undertake them, they must produce data consistent
with the requirements of the Great Lakes Guidance.  See 40 CFR 132,
Appendixes A, B, C, and D.

(2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations.  Dischargers may
undertake activities in the course of their operations that would be
subject to the antidegradation requirements of the Guidance.  For
example, an expansion of a manufacturing facility might produce
increased loadings of bioaccumulative chemicals of concern that result
in a significant lowering of water quality.  In these situations, the
facilities must conduct studies and demonstrations to ensure compliance
with the Guidance and implementing State requirements.  See 40 CFR part
132, Appendix E.

(3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests.  Dischargers may choose to
apply for regulatory relief (e.g., modifications to water quality
criteria, or discharge variances from water quality standards) from
provisions implementing the Guidance.  The requests for such relief are
discretionary activities.  If discharger chooses to make such a request,
it must perform additional monitoring or special studies, etc., to
support the request.  See Procedures 1 and 2 of 40 CFR part 132,
Appendix F.

2.2 	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

(A) Standards Adoptions and Revisions.  EPA uses the new and revised
water quality standards and supporting information submitted by States
and authorized Tribes to carry out its responsibility under the CWA to
approve or disapprove the standards.  

Section 131.5 of the Regulation prescribes EPA's review of State and
Tribal submission.  The review criteria are: (a) whether the State or
Tribe has adopted uses which are consistent with the requirements of the
Act, (b) whether the State or Tribe has adopted criteria to protect the
designated water uses, (c) whether the State or Tribe has followed its
legal procedures for revising or adopting standards, (d) whether the
water quality standards which do not include uses specified in Section
101(a)(2) of the Act are based on appropriate technical and scientific
data and analyses, and (e) whether the submission meets the minimum
elements from section 131.6 (see section 4.2 below). 

Once EPA approves the standards, they become effective for all purposes
under the Act.  EPA makes the full text of all water quality standards
available on its web site, http://www.epa.gov/waterscience, to assist
the public, States, Tribes, dischargers, and other stakeholders. EPA,
States, and Tribes use the standards as the foundation for water quality
protection under the CWA. Standards establish the water quality goals
for specific water bodies, and provide the regulatory basis for the
establishment of water quality-based treatment controls and strategies
beyond technology-based levels of treatment.

In particular, water quality standards serve as the basis for EPA,
States, and authorized Tribes to determine which waters are not in
attainment under section 303(d) of the CWA, for establishing total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for non-attainment waters under section
303(d), for water quality-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits
for point source dischargers (including publicly-owned treatment works
and industrial facilities) under sections 301(b)(1)(C) and 402 of the
Act, and for certifications under section 401. They also help Federal,
State, Tribal, and local governments develop water quality management
plans and objectives, and plan for and protect water supplies.

If these information collection activities were not carried out,
explicit requirements of the CWA would be violated, TMDLs could not be
developed where needed, and Federal or State permit writers would be
unable to establish permit limits to protect water quality where
technology-based controls are not adequate.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  EPA uses the information supplied by
interested Tribes to determine whether they qualify to administer water
quality standards programs under the CWA.  EPA must assess the Tribe’s
applications to determine whether they meet the requirements specified
in section 518(e) of the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40
CFR 131.8.  If these information collection activities were not carried
out, interested and otherwise qualified Tribes would be unable to
implement a key program under the CWA.  This would not be consistent
with the CWA or Federal Indian policy.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  EPA uses the information supplied in
the requests to initiate its role of attempting to resolve disputes
arising from differing water quality standards on common bodies of
water.  If this information collection activity were not carried out,
interested States and Tribes would be unable to resolve such disputes as
envisioned in the CWA.  

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests.  Great Lakes States and Tribes will use
the results of bioassay tests conducted by dischargers to help develop
or revise water quality criteria and values to protect aquatic life in
the Great Lakes system.  Such testing can result in more scientifically
accurate criteria, or criteria more suited to specific water bodies.

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations.  Great Lakes States and
Tribes will use the information supplied by dischargers to make
“antidegradation decisions” under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Guidance.  These decisions determine whether the activity the discharger
is about to undertake will be allowed, even though it may lower water
quality.  

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests.  Great Lakes States and
Tribes will use the information supplied by dischargers to decide
whether to grant the regulatory relief requests (e.g., water quality
variances, or modifications of water quality criteria).  This
information may be used to ensure compliance with provisions consistent
with the Guidance and to re-evaluate existing permit conditions and
monitoring requirements.



3. 	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3.1 	Non-Duplication

(A) Standards Adoption and Revision.  State and Tribal water quality
standards reviews and revisions are a unique component of the water
quality management process, with States and authorized Tribes having the
exclusive responsibility to adopt, certify, and submit standards, and
EPA having the exclusive authority to review and approve/disapprove the
standards.  However, in developing and analyzing the standards, the
States and Tribes use existing data and information from other programs
wherever possible.  Some key programs which provide data and other
information on sources of pollution, characteristics of pollutant
discharges, ambient water quality conditions, cause-and-effect
relationships, etc., include:

The NPDES permitting program, including information from “NPDES
Permits and the Sewage Sludge Management Permits” (OMB No. 2040-0086);
“NPDES Modification and Variance Requests” (OMB No. 2040-0068);
“NPDES and Sewage Sludge Monitoring Reports” (OMB No. 2040-0004);
and, the Permit Compliance System (PCS) which is an automated database
of discharger data. 

The ambient water monitoring and water quality management programs,
including:  National Water Quality Inventory Reports (CWA sections
305(b), 303(d), 314(a), and 106(e)); OMB Control No. 2040-0071; and, the
STORET (short for STOrage and RETrieval) automated database of ambient
water quality data (contains much of the ambient water quality data
gathered by the States, EPA, and other Federal agencies) other
discharger or ambient water quality data the States voluntarily collect
(much of these data are included in STORET).

Respondents collect additional data in support of water quality
standards reviews only to fill gaps where existing information is
lacking. Historically, States typically design and conduct water quality
studies with multiple objectives in mind (e.g., general water quality
assessment, use attainability, site-specific criteria development,
wasteload allocation).  EPA works with the States and Tribes to minimize
any duplication of data collection efforts.

EPA considered alternative data sources for the water quality standards
program.  The data needed for this program are found primarily in State
and Tribal water quality management and planning programs and generally
cannot be purchased or otherwise obtained from private sources. 
Further, the adoption and submission of water quality standards can only
be accomplished by States and authorized Tribes.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  Under EPA’s regulations, a Tribe
must submit a separate TAS (Treatment in Same Manner as a State)
application for each program it wishes to administer.  To avoid
requiring Tribes to submit duplicate information, the Water Quality
Standards Regulation specifies that a Tribe need only provide the
required information which has not been submitted in a previous
application.  For example, in evaluating whether a Tribe qualifies to
administer water quality standards, EPA does not require a Tribe to
resubmit information from its previously-approved section 106 TAS
application.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  Because each dispute over water
quality standards will be unique, and the information required to be
submitted pertains solely to the dispute, it is very unlikely that
Tribes or States will be required to re-submit information which was
previously provided to EPA. 

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance.  EPA has examined all the
reporting requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR parts 122, 123,
124, 125, 403, 501, and 503.  The Agency also has consulted the
following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicate
information is available elsewhere: EPA(s Information Systems Inventory,
EPA(s Inventory of Information Collection Requests, Federal Information
Locator System, Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule (53 CFR
51698), and EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory.  Examination of these
databases revealed no duplicate requirements.

3.2 	Public Notice Required Prior to Icr Submission to Omb

In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA solicited
comments for a 60-day period prior to submission of the ICR to OMB.
Comments were requested in the Federal Register on June 2, 2008 at 73 FR
31477.  The comment period expired on August 1, 2008.  No comments were
received by EPA during the comment period.  

3.3 	Consultations

When EPA revised the Water Quality Standards Regulation in 1983, EPA
made a substantial effort to involve the public. The process began in
1978 with the publication of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM). The ANPRM resulted in comments from 110 individuals, public
agencies, organizations, and interest groups. EPA developed ideas for
revisions to the existing regulation from the comments. EPA also began a
dialogue with States and with the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA). The States and ASIWPCA
continued their involvement until publication of the proposed rule
through discussions with EPA and review of drafts of the proposed rule.
None of the State comments complained about reporting requirements in
the then existing rule or in the proposal. The final rule was published
in November 1983.

Additionally, EPA published an ANPRM for the WQS Regulation in 1998 to
begin a structured public dialogue with States, Tribes, dischargers, and
other interested parties on whether and what changes, if any, are needed
in the water quality standards program to improve the effectiveness of
water quality standards.  EPA also held meetings to assist stakeholders
in reviewing and developing their positions/comments on the ANPRM.  The
information received from written comments and from the public meetings
has been useful to EPA in managing the standards program, and has helped
EPA develop guidance, and provide assistance to States and Tribal
standards programs.   

The final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (Guidance)
was published in the Federal Register on March 23, 1995, (60 FR 15366). 
It is the result of a six-year effort begun by the eight Great Lakes
States and EPA in 1989 to develop more consistent water quality
standards in the Great Lakes Basin.  To stay abreast of public
expectations for the final Guidance, EPA met with State, Local, and
Tribal government officials, financial officials and co-regulators, the
regulated community and environmental interests to listen and openly
discuss their concerns.  During the post-proposal process, EPA
participated in more than 40 such meetings with over 1,000 stakeholder
representatives.  The comments and issues raised by the various
stakeholders were considered in EPA’s option selection process and
regulatory impact analysis for developing the final Guidance.

The final Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria (including
for the first time criteria specifically to protect wildlife),
antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures using an
ecosystem approach for waters of the Great Lakes Basin. This includes
waters within the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, and waters within the
jurisdiction of several Indian Tribes.  All eight of the Great Lakes
States have adopted criteria, methodologies, policies, and procedures
consistent with the final Guidance that were approved by EPA, and are
currently implementing these requirements in their State.

In 2001 through 2003, EPA conducted an outreach to stakeholders and
State co-regulators to revisit the essential role of water quality
standards and criteria in restoring and maintaining water quality.  EPA
held over 50 listening sessions with over 350 people in 2001, and
received written comments in 2002 from over 65 stakeholders.  The review
resulted in the publication of the Strategy for Water Quality Standards
and Criteria in August 2003 by EPA’s Office of Science and Technology
(OST).  See   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/strategy" 
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/strategy  /index.html.  As
stated in the Strategy, “This strategy does not include a priority
strategic action to revise the national water quality standards
regulation to address any implementation issues.  OST believes that a
revised regulation would not be the best way to address most of the
issues raised during listening sessions.”  The listening sessions
revealed no concerns about reporting burden, no expressed needs for
reduced reporting burden, and no suggestions for changes to regulatory
requirements regarding information collection.

3.4 	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

(A) Standards Adoption and Revision.  The information collection
schedule is pursuant to the mandates of Section 303(c) of the CWA for
the States and Tribes to review their water quality standards once every
three years and thus is not adjustable by the EPA.  Additionally, if
water quality standards were reviewed less frequently, they would be
more likely to be based on out-of-date information regarding existing
stream uses, attainability of designated uses, pollutants of concern,
and appropriate water quality criteria values.  A triennial review cycle
ensures that the latest scientific and other information are reflected
in the standards.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  Application by Indian Tribes to
administer the water quality standards program is a one-time collection
of information per respondent, initiated voluntarily by interested
Tribes.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  Requests for dispute resolution will
be a one-time collection of information per respondent, initiated
voluntarily by a Tribe or State interested in EPA(s assistance.

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests.  Permitted facilities may initiate
bioassay tests to support development of water quality criteria
voluntarily at any time.  Because the Guidance does not require such
testing, EPA has no discretion to reduce reporting frequency.  EPA
operates a GLI Clearinghouse of previously-collected information in
order to help avoid redundant data collection efforts.

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations.  Permitted facilities
may undertake activities in the course of their operations that would be
subject to the antidegradation requirements of the Guidance.  EPA has no
control over the frequency of such activities.  In these situations, the
facilities conduct studies and demonstrations to ensure compliance with
the Guidance and implementing State requirements.

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests.  Regulatory relief requests
will generally be associated with the reissuance of NPDES permits. 
Permitted facilities must reapply for NPDES permits before their
existing permits expire, generally once every five years.  The CWA
prohibits issuance of NPDES permits with terms longer than five years. 
Less frequent permit applications would not provide the permitting
authority with sufficiently current data to establish effective
limitations or conditions when issuing permits.  Since permittees will
decide whether or not to apply for regulatory relief (e.g.,
modifications to water quality criteria or discharge variances from
water quality standards) from provisions implementing the Guidance, and
since pursuing relief is generally a one-time effort for the permittee,
EPA has no discretion to allow less frequent information collection.

3.5 	General Guidelines

EPA reviewed this ICR’s compliance with OMB’s information collection
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). EPA found that one element of record
keeping under the Water Quality Standards Regulation may fall under
1320.5(d)(2)(iv), which prohibits agencies from requiring record
retention longer than three years unless necessary to satisfy statutory
requirements or other substantial need. In this ICR, such longer-term
record retention could occur in some situations because the Regulation
prohibit the removal of any waterbody uses that have been actually
attained on or after November 28, 1975, when revising designated uses
adopted into water quality standards. In order to be able to implement
this provision, States and Tribes need a way of knowing or estimating
“existing uses” of water bodies as far back as 1975. To do so, State
and Tribes may use any available information from other sources, or may
choose to retain some of their own information – for example, water
quality monitoring data, biological surveys, or anecdotal evidence of
human recreational water usage – for more than three years. 

EPA believes there is a substantial need for this historical
information.  The regulatory prohibition to removing “existing uses”
is based on EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act’s statutory
objective “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and to set water
quality standards that “... protect the public health or welfare,
enhance the water quality of water and serve the purposes [including the
objective] of this Act” (33 U.S.C. 1251(a), 1313(c)(2)). The loss of
existing uses would be inconsistent with this mandate. 

States and Tribes may choose to use an EPA information management
system, STORET, described at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/storet/about.html" 
http://www.epa.gov/storet/about.html , which can minimize the burden to
retain their own historical records.

3.6 	Confidentiality And Sensitive Questions

(A) Standards Adoptions and Revisions.  State and Tribal submissions
under this ICR will contain no confidential or sensitive information.  

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  Tribal program applications under this
ICR will contain no confidential or sensitive information.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  State and Tribal dispute resolution
requests under this ICR will contain no confidential or sensitive
information.

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests.  Bioassay testing under this ICR will
contain no confidential or sensitive information.

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations.  It is possible that
such demonstrations may contain confidential business information.  If
this is the case, the respondent may request that such information be
treated as confidential.  All confidential data will be handled in
accordance with 40 CFR (122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and EPA's Security Manual
Part III, chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976.  However, CWA Section 308(b)
specifically states that effluent data may not be treated as
confidential.

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests.  It is possible that
variance requests may contain confidential business information.  If
this is the case, the respondent may request that such information be
treated as confidential.  All confidential data will be handled in
accordance with 40 CFR (122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and EPA's Security Manual
Part III, chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976.  However, CWA Section 308(b)
specifically states that effluent data may not be treated as
confidential.

4. 	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4.1 	Respondents/Naics Codes

The following describes the “universe” of potential respondents. 
The actual numbers estimated to submit information annually are
described in section 6.

(A) Standards Adoption and Revision.  The Water Quality Standards
Regulation requires reporting at least once every three years from 99
jurisdictions ( 56 States (and Territories), and the 43 Indian Tribes
that have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality
standards program as of April 2008f  The respondents affected by this
collection activity are in NAICS code 92411 “Administration of Air and
Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs,” formerly SIC
code #9511.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  Any federally recognized Tribe with a
reservation could potentially apply to administer a water quality
standards program.  EPA estimates that there are 337 such Tribes.  As of
April 2008, 57 Tribes have submitted TAS applications, of which the 43
Tribes mentioned above have been approved.  The respondents affected by
this collection activity are in NAICS code 92411 “Administration of
Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs.” 

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  Any of the 43 Indian Tribes above, or
the States that share common water bodies with these Tribes, may submit
dispute resolution requests.  The respondents affected by this
collection activity are in NAICS code 92411 “Administration of Air and
Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs.”

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance.  The respondents potentially
affected by this collection activity include eight Great Lakes States,
four Great Lakes Tribes, and 2,710 facilities permitted to discharge to
waters of the Great Lakes system.  

The Great Lakes States and Tribes are the States of Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and
four tribes currently authorized to administer water quality standards
programs for waters of the Great Lakes system. These respondents are in
NAICS code 92411 “Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid
Waste Management Programs.”

NPDES permits are required any time there is a point source discharge of
pollutants to waters of the United States, regardless of the type of
discharger.  Consequently, all point source dischargers must apply for
an NPDES permit.  Based on a review of lists that the Great Lakes States
generated and of permits issued since March 1991 for discharges to
waters of the Great Lakes system, EPA determined that 516 major and
2,194 minor point sources could potentially choose to conduct bioassay
tests, be subject to antidegradation demonstrations, or choose to apply
for regulatory relief, under the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. 
The respondents affected by this collection activity are in the
following NAICS codes:  Mining (except oil and gas) (212), Food
manufacturing (311), Paper manufacturing (322), Chemical manufacturing
(325), Petroleum refineries (32411), Primary metal manufacturing (331),
Fabricated metal product manufacturing (332), Machinery manufacturing
(333), Computer and electronic product manufacturing (334), Electrical
equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing (335), Transportation
equipment manufacturing (336), Electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution (2211), and Sewage treatment facilities (22132).

	

4.2 	Information Requested

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions.   Section 131.20 of the Water
Quality Standards Regulation requires States and authorized Tribes to
review their water quality standards at least once every three years and
submit the results of the review, along with any new or revised
standards, to EPA for approval.  States and Tribes may choose to adopt
new or revised standards more frequently.  Section 131.6 of the Water
Quality Standards Regulation establishes the following minimum
requirements for a water quality standards submission: 

(1) use designations consistent with Section 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of
the Act, 

(2) methods used and analyses conducted to support water quality
standards revisions, 

(3) water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses, 

(4) an antidegradation policy consistent with 40 CFR 131.12, 

(5) certification by the State Attorney General or other appropriate
State or Tribal legal authority that the water quality standards were
duly adopted pursuant to State or Tribal law, and

(6) general information which will aid the EPA in determining the
adequacy of the scientific basis of the standards which do not include
the uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act as well as
information on general policies applicable to State standards which may
affect their application and implementation.

States and authorized Tribes may choose to provide additional
information from time to time concerning draft, proposed, or adopted
standards to enable EPA to better understand the standards and how they
are implemented.  Such information may include brief descriptions of
selected standards provisions or program practices.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  Section 131.8(b) of the Regulation
specifies the information a Tribe must provide in its program
application.  Specifically, an interested Tribe must submit:

(1) a statement that the Tribe is recognized by the Secretary of the
Interior, 

(2) a descriptive statement demonstrating that the Tribal governing body
is currently carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers
over a defined area, 

(3) a descriptive statement of the Indian Tribe’s authority to
regulate water quality, and an identification of the surface waters for
which the Tribe proposes to establish water quality standards, 

(4) a narrative statement describing the capability of the Indian Tribe
to administer an effective water quality standards program, and 

(5) any additional documentation required by the Regional Administrator
to support the application.  

Approvals for Tribes to administer standards programs are valid unless
rescinded.  Therefore, an interested Tribe normally needs to apply only
once.  Where a Tribe has previously qualified for “treatment in the
same manner as a state” under another program, the Tribe need only
provide the required information which has not been submitted in a
previous application.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  Section 131.7 of the Regulation
specifies that a Tribe or State interested in having EPA initiate a
formal dispute resolution action must submit a written request to EPA. 
Information that a State or Tribe must submit with the request includes:

(1) a statement of the alleged unreasonable consequences that have
arisen due to the differing water quality standards; 

(2) a description of the actions which have been taken to resolve the
dispute without EPA involvement; and, 

(3) an identification of the State/Tribal water quality standards
provision which has resulted in the unreasonable consequences, and a
statement of the relief sought. 

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests.  Section 132.3 of the Regulation
specifies that Great Lakes States and Tribes must adopt certain water
quality criteria published by EPA, or criteria that they develop using
methodologies published by EPA.  Dischargers may choose to conduct
bioassay tests or other studies to assist the States or Tribes in
developing such criteria.  Any bioassay tests or other studies must
conform to the methodologies in Appendixes A, B, C, and D of part 132. 

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations.  Appendix E to part 132
of the Regulation specifies that any entity seeking to lower water
quality in a high quality water of the Great Lakes system, or proposing
a new or increased discharge to Outstanding International Resource
Waters (OIRWs) of the Lake Superior Basin, must submit an
antidegradation demonstration to the NPDES permitting authority
(normally the State or EPA).  The Regulation specifies that the
demonstration include:

(1) a pollution prevention alternatives analysis, 

(2) an alternative or enhanced treatment analysis, and

(3) an important social or economic development analysis.

Appendix E also contains additional requirements where OIRWs or certain
remedial actions are involved. .  

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests.  Appendix F to part 132 of
the Regulation specifies at least two ways that the Great Lakes water
quality standards adopted pursuant to part 132 may be modified to
provide regulatory relief: site-specific modifications to criteria and
values (Procedure 1), and variances from water quality standards
(Procedure 2).  

Dischargers seeking site-specific water quality criteria modifications
would need to provide data to the State or Tribe in accordance the
methodologies in Appendixes A, B, C, and D to part 132.  

Point-source dischargers seeking variances from water quality standards
would need to submit an application to the State or Tribe that includes
information demonstrating that attaining the standards is not feasible
based on one or more of six specified factors, including natural
conditions, human-caused conditions that cannot be remedied, certain
hydrologic modifications, or controls that would result in substantial
and widespread economic and social impact.

4.3 	Respondent Activities

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions.  EPA, in coordination with
selected States, identified the following activities to supply
information for standards adoption and revision.  Respondent burden
estimates in section 6.1 were developed through a survey of a sample of
States using the factors described below.

(	Review of instructions, guidance and regulations: Includes time
reviewing documents necessary for the State/Tribe to revise its
standards.  Burden hours may vary, depending on staff knowledge and
turnover rates.  (Note that time spent in the field, laboratory and
office performing and documenting special water quality-monitoring
studies or surveys in connection with the Water Quality Standards
Program is considered under other categories.)

 

(	Identify issues and plan activities: Includes identifying the
standards issues to be addressed, ordering the standards issues based on
EPA and State or Tribal priorities and policies, and planning the
activities to be performed.  Also includes gathering and analyzing
existing water quality data and waterbody use information as needed. 
Planned activities may include developing site-specific criteria
modifications, and conducting use attainability analyses.

(	Use attainability analysis studies conducted to support a possible
change in use designation: The Regulation in section 131.10 requires
conducting use attainability analyses (UAAs) when a State or Tribe wants
to remove a designated use that is not an existing use.  UAAs are
structured scientific assessments of the factors affecting attainment of
a use, including physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors
specified in section 131.10(g) of the Regulation.  EPA has published a
series of technical guidance documents concerning UAAs.  The actual
experiences of States were the primary basis of this portion of the
burden estimate. Burden estimates include a mix of “Simple” cases,
involving small water segments, segments where only minor augmentation
of physical, chemical and/or biological data are needed, or where simple
corrections are needed to correct earlier use classifications; and
"Complex" cases generally involving multiple dischargers, larger water
segments, and fewer existing physical, chemical, or biological data. 
Complex cases may involve performing a waterbody survey to help pinpoint
the water quality problems and determine present uses, uses impaired,
and the reasons the uses are impaired.  For purposes of this burden
calculation, it was assumed that the States would devote some
supplementary review time to significant or controversial UAAs.

(	Site-specific criteria development studies conducted using acceptable
methodologies for specific segments, basins, or States: The Regulation
allows States and Tribes to adopt site-specific criteria to reflect
local conditions.  Site-specific modifications can ensure that the
criteria are neither more nor less stringent than necessary to protect
the designated use.  EPA has published technical guidance for deriving
site-specific criteria and has tested the guidance at field sites.  The
actual experiences of States were the primary basis of this portion of
the burden estimate.  Burden estimates include a mix of "Simple" cases,
reflective of relatively easy studies where a single or possibly two
dischargers are present, discharging few pollutants, and no appreciable
nonpoint source impacts exist; and “Complex” cases involving a water
segment with several discharges and numerous pollutants, including
nonpoint source impacts.

(	Prepare revised water quality standards package for submission:
Includes determining changes to be made to the existing standards,
preparing and reviewing the revised standards package, adopting the
revised standards according to the State’s/Tribe’s internal
administrative procedures and EPA’s public participation requirements,
conducting a public hearing, and submitting the revised standards to EPA
for approval.  Also includes the time State or Tribal agency staff
spends in consultation with the State legislature and legislative
committees or Tribal Council, respectively.

(	Certification by the State Attorney General or other appropriate legal
authority that Water Quality Standards were duly adopted according to
State law: Any time a State or Tribe adopts or revises water quality
standards, the State/Tribal Attorney General or other appropriate legal
authority must certify that the change was adopted according to the
unique provisions of State law.  This certification is in the form of a
letter to the EPA Regional Administrator.  This certification is
necessary because State and Tribal water quality standards may result in
enforceable requirements in NPDES permits or other controls.  Before
approving State or Tribal water quality standards, EPA must be assured
of their legal validity.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  Includes the activities directly
associated with assembling, writing and submitting a TAS application. 
This includes reading the regulatory requirements and obtaining any
necessary background understanding, assembling the categories of
information in section 4.2 above, writing any application materials
needed, obtaining reviews and approvals of Tribal environmental
officials, and obtaining approval by the Tribe’s governing body, if
necessary.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  Includes the activities directly
associated with assembling, writing and submitting a request.  This
includes reading the regulatory requirements and obtaining any necessary
background understanding, assembling the categories of information in
section 4.2 above, writing the request itself, and obtaining reviews and
approvals of State or Tribal environmental officials.

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance.  Respondent activities may
include the following:

(	Preparing Basic Information: Includes reading and reviewing regulatory
application requirements, gathering general information, typing or
filling out forms, drafting letters, reviewing applications or other
materials, and mailing completed submissions.

(	Generating Detailed Information: Information may include data on
production levels, data on effluent characteristics, pollutant
minimization programs, financial estimates, engineering data,
socioeconomic data, or other information required by permitting
authorities.

(	Sampling and Analyzing Discharges:  This may involve pollutant
analyses, biological toxicity testing, predicting in-stream impacts,
field monitoring, bioconcentration testing, or other scientific
analyses.

(	Maintaining Records: All NPDES permittees must keep records of the
data used to complete their applications and to demonstrate their
compliance for at least three years.  First-time applicants may need to
develop a record keeping system, enter data, train personnel, and file
information.  For existing facilities, record keeping entails collecting
and filing raw data.

5. 	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED(AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5.1 	Agency Activities

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions.  States and Tribes are required to
review and, as appropriate, revise their water quality standards at
least once every three years.  The results of such review and revision
must be submitted by the States and Tribes to EPA.  EPA reviews the
States’ or Tribes’ water quality standards for consistency with the
CWA.  If the water quality standards are inconsistent with the Act, EPA
must promulgate replacement Federal standards.  

EPA conducts a full range of activities to manage the water quality
standards program. Activities related to, but not included in, this ICR
include the transmission of policy and guidance to the States and
Tribes; development of recommended scientific water quality criteria;
assisting States and Tribes in interpretation and implementation of
regulations, policies and initiatives; and the coordination of
activities related to standards with other CWA programs, with other
federal agencies, and for interstate and international waters. See EPA(s
website, http://www.epa.gov/waterscience for more information.

For this ICR, EPA activities associated with water quality standards
review include: 

(	Assembling relevant information to make the EPA review of submitted
standards.

(	Reviewing standards revisions for consistency with the CWA, with
downstream State’s or Tribe’s water quality standards, and with any
standards for international waters.  

(	Preparing and sending a letter to the State or Tribe conveying EPA(s
approval or disapproval decision(s).

(	Making findings that Federal water quality standards are necessary.

(	Proposing and promulgating Federal replacement standards where
State’s or Tribe(s standards are disapproved or where Federal
standards are otherwise necessary.

(	Proposing and finalizing the withdrawal of Federal standards when a
State or Tribe corrects its standards.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  After a Tribe submits an application
to administer a water quality standards program, EPA will review the
application and use the submitted information to determine if the Tribe
meets the statutory criteria under CWA Section 518(e) to administer the
water quality standards program information submission requirements.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  After a Tribe or State submits a
written dispute resolution request to EPA, EPA reviews the submitted
information to determine if initiation of a formal EPA dispute
resolution action is justified under CWA Section 518(e).

(D1) Great Lakes bioassay tests.  EPA reviews and approves or
disapproves any water quality standards adoptions or revisions that
result from States or Tribes incorporating the results of bioassay tests
into water quality criteria.

(D2) Great Lakes antidegradation demonstrations.  EPA reviews and
approves State and Tribal antidegradation policies.  However, EPA does
not have a direct role in reviewing and approving activities that could
lower water quality as these policies are implemented.  In some cases,
depending on the facility involved, EPA may issue an NPDES permit or
review a State- or Tribe-issued permit.  This ICR covers the water
quality standards portion of any such EPA reviews.  A separate ICR, EPA
ICR Number 1639.04, OMB Control Number 2040-0180, covers the NPDES
burden.

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests.  To the extent that a
regulatory relief request results in a change in standards, such as a
site-specific criteria modification, or a water quality standards
variance, EPA must review and approve the standards change for it to
become effective.    This ICR covers the water quality standards portion
of any such EPA reviews.  A separate ICR, EPA ICR Number 1639.04, OMB
Control Number 2040-0180, covers the NPDES burden.

5.2 	Collection Methodology and Management

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions.  States and Tribes submit their
revised water quality standards to their EPA Regional office, who have
been delegated the responsibility to review the submissions for
consistency with the Water Quality Standards Regulation, and approve or
disapprove the standards.  The Water Quality Standards staff in the
Regional offices work closely with their respective States and Tribes on
water quality standards issues, including the review of both draft and
final submissions of water quality standards.  EPA(s national water
quality program provides support to the Regional offices in the review
of these submissions.    EPA approved State/Tribal standards can be
accessed at http://www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase/.  EPA promulgated standards
for States/Tribes are located at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  Interested Tribes submit their TAS
applications to their EPA Regional office, who have been delegated the
responsibility to review the applications for consistency with the Water
Quality Standards Regulation, and approve or disapprove the
applications.  Regional Office staff work closely with the Tribes in
this process.  EPA(s national water quality program provides support to
the Regional offices in the review of these submissions/requests. 

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  Interested States or Tribes submit
their dispute resolution requests to their EPA Regional office, who have
been delegated the responsibility to review the applications for
consistency with the Water Quality Standards Regulation, and approve or
disapprove the requests. 

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance.  For Great Lakes information,
EPA maintains some application data in the Agency’s PCS and STORET
databases.  This technology reduces the burden to EPA Headquarters for
gathering and analyzing national permit and water quality data.  Because
each information collection activity associated with implementation of
the Guidance will contain unique information, and because permittees
submit applications only once every five years at the most, improved
information technology may not be effective in further reducing
respondent burden.

5.3 	Small Entity Flexibility

The 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) incorporated the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) into it. The RFA requires that the EPA prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that has a “significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” As part of
the certification requirement, the Agency must show that the collection:

“reduces to the extent practicable the burden on persons who shall
provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to
small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601(6)), the use of such techniques as:

“(1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables

“(2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance
and reporting requirements; or 

“(3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or
any part thereof:”

	

	The requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA) of 1996 must also be considered. Special consideration of
small entities is required because such individuals generally cannot
devote staff resources to follow regulatory developments and often are
less likely to have their interests represented by lobbyists and
associations. In addition, smaller entities may be less able to bear the
burden of an information collection because of their small staff and
resources.

	The Small Business Administration’s size eligibility provisions and
standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. The RFA also provides some
guidance for defining a small entity. Section 601 of the RFA defines a
“small entity” to include “small business,” “small
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” These terms
are defined as follows:

	

A “Small Business” is defined as any business that is independently
owned and operated and not dominant in its field as defined by the Small
Business Administration (SBA) regulations under Section 3 of the Small
Business Act.

A “Small Organization” is defined as any not-for-profit enterprise
that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field
(e.g., private hospitals and educational institutions).

A “Small Governmental Jurisdiction” is defined as governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts with a population of less than 50,000. The definition
of a small governmental jurisdiction may also include Indian Tribes, in
keeping with the President’s Federal Indian Policy.

	EPA may also develop regulation-specific definitions of small entities
when the above definitions are not appropriate. Appendix D of the EPA
Guidelines for Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as revised
April 1992) suggests that categories of affected entities be defined
based on size and type (size is generally based on number of employees,
annual revenues, assets, or population size). The quantitative cutoff
point for defining small entities should be selected based on the
following criteria (as provided in the EPA Guidelines):

	(a) 	The pint at which the economic impact appears to rise or fall
substantially (e.g., higher costs);

	(b)	The point in the range of size segments that most closely
approximates SBA’s definitions;

	(c)	The point at which the regulation effectively includes a large
number of regulated entities without covering a large portion of the
pollution problem;

	(d)	The presence of significantly different requirements or impacts
below specific size, population, production, geographic, or other
factors.

	If an Economic Analysis (EA) has been prepared in conjunction with the
ICR, it should

provide a definition of a small entity as affected under the rulemaking
that can be used for the

information collection. The EA might also provide an estimate of the
information costs for small

entities. Otherwise, the ICR should define a “small entity” as
discussed above, and calculate the burden to such entities for the
information collection.

	The water quality standards programs will have no primary impact on
small businesses as the primary impact will be on State and Tribal
government. There may be a secondary impact on permitted facilities,
including businesses, federal government entities, and local government
with POTWs. The Agency has instituted several efforts to minimize the
impact on businesses as a whole, and on small businesses, specifically.

	EPA’s Small Business Division (SBD) maintains a website and a
telephone hotline that small businesses can access with their questions
about complying with environmental requirements. Small businesses are
assisted by programs in the States, so partnerships between EPA and the
States are essential. The Agency, pursuant to CAA section 507, has
developed an extensive network with State Compliance Advisory Panels,
Small Business Ombudsmen and Small Business Assistance Providers.  SBD
hosts an annual conference which provides an opportunity for State small
business assistance providers, Compliance Advisory Panel members, trade
association representatives, EPA and other federal agencies staff to
learn and share information about helping the small business community.
This event is key in helping States better coordinate their small
business assistance delivery mechanisms. The EPA Small Business
Ombudsman also periodically reports to Congress on the activities and
progress of the State and territory Small Business Assistance Programs.

5.4 	Collection Schedule

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions.  The CWA requires States and
authorized Tribes to review their water quality standards at least once
every three years and provide the results to EPA.  In practice, some
States and Tribes choose to submit revised standards for portions of
their waters more frequently.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  There are no scheduling requirements
for Indian Tribes to apply for authorization to administer the water
quality standards program.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  There are no scheduling requirements
for States or Indian Tribes to request EPA dispute resolution.

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests.  There are no scheduling requirements
for States, Tribes, or dischargers to initiate bioassay tests.  

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations.  Such demonstrations
are necessary under the Regulation when an entity proposes an activity
that would lower water quality in a high quality water.

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests.  Regulatory relief requests
are generally associated with the NPDES permit renewal cycle.  The CWA
requires permittees to reapply for permits at least every five years.
Information collection associated with regulatory relief requests will
occur only when a permittee decides to seek such relief.  EPA presumes
that the few relief requests expected will continue to take place at
time of permit reissuance.

6. 	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6.1 	Estimating Respondent Burden

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions.  State or Tribal burden: The CWA
and EPA’s Water Quality Standards Regulation requires a water quality
standards review and associated information collection at least once
every three years from 50 States, the District of Columbia, 5
commonwealths and territories, and the 43 Indian Tribes that currently
have received EPA authorization to administer the water quality
standards program.  Because of the different start dates and operational
practices of these 99 jurisdictions since the CWA was enacted in 1972,
EPA believes the annual national burden will be approximately the same
for each of the next three years covered by this request.

For the purposes of reviewing the reporting requirements placed on
States and Tribes by the Water Quality Standards Regulation, EPA
Headquarters discussed the requirements and estimated reporting burdens
with the voluntary assistance of eleven States.  The States were
selected to represent various geographical areas, differing levels of
water quality management activities, and differing approaches to
controlling priority toxic pollutants.  Because of differing practices
regarding the three-year requirement in the CWA, the States were asked
to quantify the reporting and recordkeeping burden on an annualized
basis. Because of the limited time available to develop them, these
estimates are considered "rough."  For this reason, the lowest and
highest estimates for each burden item were not considered in the
calculation for the average burden per State per year (that is, a
modified mean was used).

The average burden per State/Tribe review per year was estimated to be
2,500 hours (see Attachment A).  The total annual burden hours = (99
jurisdictions) * (2,500 hours) =  247,500 hours.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  Tribal burden: EPA assumes that 5
Tribes will apply to administer the water quality standards program per
year.  This assumption is based upon an upper estimate of the actual
pace of Tribal submission of applications for the water quality
standards program.  EPA further assumed that these Tribes would supply
only standards program-specific information that was not provided in
previous applications.  For example, EPA assumes that at least 75% of
all Tribes applying for treatment as a State for purposes of water
quality standards will have already applied for authorization to
administer one of the other SDWA or CWA programs.  Based on these
assumptions, EPA estimates that each Tribal application will require an
average of 40 hours to complete.  The total annual burden hours = (5
Tribes) * (40 hours/application) = 200 hours.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  State or Tribal burden: When a Tribe
or State desires EPA to initiate a formal dispute resolution action, the
Tribe or State is required to submit a written request to EPA.  EPA
estimates that at most three Tribes/States will request a formal dispute
resolution action over a three year period (one request per year).  To
date, there have been no such formal requests since the regulation went
into effect in 1991.  The estimated hour burden to a Tribe or State to
develop a dispute resolution request is 80 hours.  The total annual
burden hours = (1 application) * (80 hours/application) = 80 hours.

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests.  Discharger burden: EPA assumes that
dischargers will conduct bioassays to support the development of water
quality criteria for 3 human health and 11 aquatic life criteria each
year.  This results in 14 discharge responses per year.  EPA has
determined that these bioassays would take dischargers 34,204 hours to
conduct and 760 hours to oversee.  The total annual burden hours for
dischargers = 34,204 + 760 = 34,964 hours.  

State or Tribal burden:  EPA assumed that the 14 studies to support the
development of water quality criteria would be submitted to the States
or Tribes for review, resulting in 14 State or Tribal responses.  EPA
estimated the State/Tribal application burden associated with review and
data collection to support the development of water quality criteria to
be 2,714 hours.

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations.  Discharger burden: An
antidegradation demonstration must show that the permittee has evaluated
options to reduce the extent of the need to lower water quality.  In
general, an antidegradation demonstration consists of first performing a
pollution prevention alternatives analysis to identify prudent and
feasible alternatives.  If no pollution prevention alternatives are
deemed prudent and feasible, then the permittee must identify
alternative or enhanced treatment techniques.  Finally, a permittee must
demonstrate that the lowering of water quality is necessary to ensure
social and economic development.  EPA estimates that each
antidegradation demonstration would take 50 hours to complete.  EPA
anticipates that 54 demonstration submissions will occur per year. 
Therefore the permittee burden associated with antidegradation
demonstrations = (54 demonstrations) * (50 hours) = 2,700 hours.  This
burden estimate is split equally between standards and permits. The
burden estimate for this ICR is therefore 2,700 / 2 = 1,350 hours.

State or Tribal burden: EPA determined that it would take a State about
two work days (16 hours) to review an antidegradation demonstration. 
Assuming 54 antidegradation policy demonstrations will be submitted
annually, the State/Tribal review burden = (54 demonstrations) * (16
hours) = 864 hours.  This burden estimate is split equally between
standards and permits.10 The burden estimate for this ICR is therefore
864 / 2 = 432 hours.

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests.  Discharger burden: To be
granted relief from provisions adopted consistent with the Great Lakes
Guidance, a permittee will need to perform additional monitoring or
special studies, etc., to support its request.  EPA estimates that 18
permittees per year will prepare requests for regulatory relief which
will take a total of 10,364 hours to complete.  This burden estimate is
split equally between standards and permits.10 The burden estimate for
this ICR is therefore 10,364 / 2 = 5,182 hours.  

State or Tribal burden: EPA estimated the State or Tribal burden
associated with the 18 requests for regulatory regulation relief to be
approximately 1,584 hours.  This burden estimate is split equally
between standards and permits.10 The burden estimate for this ICR is
therefore 1,584 / 2 = 792 hours.

	

The overall burden hours for State, Tribal, and discharger respondents
are summarized in Table 6.4.

6.2 	Estimating Respondent Costs 

The above burden estimates have been converted to dollar cost estimates
using the following assumptions:

(	State or Tribal employee costs were estimated an average annual salary
of $62,546; this is equivalent to the salary of a GS-9, Step 10 Federal
employee.  At 2,080 labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $30.07. 
Overhead cost for Federal and State employees are expected to be 60
percent, or $18.04 per hour, yielding a total hourly rate of $48.11.

(	Contractor labor rates (hired by dischargers) were estimated using the
Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate for a (professional and related(
speciality of $44.64 per hour.  Assuming a 67 percent overhead and
profit rate, the total private sector hourly rate is $74.55.

(	Discharger labor rates (for oversight of contractor work) were
estimated assuming POTW employees working at the equivalent of a GS-7,
Step 1 Federal employee.11  The annual salary of this worker is $39,330;
the hourly rate is $18.91.  Assumed overhead costs add an additional 50
percent to these costs.  Thus, the average cost of a POTW worker is
$58,995 per year, or $28.36 per hour.

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions.  State or Tribal costs: Total
annual cost per jurisdiction = (2,500 hours/year) / ($48.11/hour) =
$120,275.  Total annual cost = (99 jurisdictions) *
($120,275/jurisdiction) = $11,907,225.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.  Tribal costs:  Cost per application =
(40 hours/application) * ($48.11/hour) = $1,924.  Total annual cost = (5
Tribes) * ($1,924/application) = $9,620.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  State or Tribal costs: Cost per
dispute resolution request = (80 hours/request) * ($48.11/hour) =
$3,849.  Total annual cost = (1 request) *  ($3,849/request) = $3,849.

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests.  Discharger costs: Contractor costs =
(34,204 hours) * ($74.55/hour) = $2,549,908.  Discharger oversight
employee costs = (760 hours) * ($28.36/hour) = $21,554.  Total
discharger bioassay costs = $2,549,908 + $21,554 = $2,571,462.  State or
tribal costs: Review of water quality criteria = (2,714 hours) *
($48.11/hour) = $130,571.  Total costs:  $2,571,462 + $130,571=
$2,702,033.

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations.  Discharger costs:
Antidegradation demonstrations = (1,350 hours) * ($28.36/hour) =
$38,286.  State or Tribal costs: Review of antidegradation
demonstrations = (432 hours) * ($48.11/hour) = $20,784.  Total costs:
$38,286 + $20,784 = $59,070.

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests.  Discharger costs: (5,182
hours) *  ($28.36/hour) = $146,962.  State or Tribal costs: Review of
regulatory relief requests = (792 hours) * ($48.11/hour) = $38,103. 
Total costs:  $146,962 + $38,103 = $185,065.

The overall labor costs for State, Tribal, and discharger respondents
are summarized in Table 6.4.

6.3 	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

Annual burden and costs to the Federal government are detailed below. 
EPA employee costs were estimated assuming a GS-12 Step 1 Federal
employee earning $69,764 per year.  At 2,080 labor hours per year, the
hourly rate is $33.54.  Overhead costs for Federal employees are
expected to be 60 percent, or $20.12 per hour, yielding a total hourly
rate of $53.66.  

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions.  EPA estimates that each review of
a State or Tribal water quality standards submission will require 168
hours.  Total burden = (99 submissions) * (146 hours/submission) =
14,440 hours.  Labor cost = (14,440 hours) * ($53.66/hour) = $774,850.

(B) Tribal Program Applications.    EPA estimates that each review of a
Tribal program application will require 160 hours.  Total burden = (5
applications) * (160 hours/application) = 800 hours.  Labor cost = (800
hours) * ($ 53.66/hour) = $42,928.

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests.  EPA estimates that each review of a
State or Tribal request will require 20 hours.  Total burden = (1
request) * (20 hours/request) = 20 hours.  Labor cost = (20 hours) *
($53.66/hour) = $1,073.

(D) Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance.  EPA estimates it will require
approximately 400 hours and at $53.66/hour cost $21,464 to set up and
maintain the water quality database to serve as the Information
Clearinghouse.  EPA estimated little additional Federal government
burden or cost because all the Great Lakes States are delegated NPDES
permitting authorities.

The overall burden hours for the Federal government are (14,440) + (800)
+ (20) + (400) = 15,660.  The overall labor costs for the Federal
government are ($774,850) + ($42,928) + ($1,073) + ($21,464) =$840,316.	

There are in this ICR no Capital Expense and no O&M costs.

6.4 	TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS tc \l2 "6.4 TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS 

	

States and Tribes	

Dischargers	

Total

	

No. of

Responses	

Burden

Hours	

Labor

Costs	

No. of Responses	

Burden

Hours	

Labor

Costs	

No. of

Responses	

Burden

Hours	

Labor

Costs

(A) Standards Adoption and Revisions	

99	

 247,500	

$11,907,225	

-	

-	

-	

99	

 247,500	

  $11,907,225

(B) Tribal Program Applications	

5	

200	

 $9,620	

-	

-	

-	

5	

200	

 $9,620

(C) Dispute Resolution Requests	

1	

80	

 $3,849	

-	

-	

-	

1	

80	

 $3,849

(D1) Great Lakes Bioassay Tests	

14	

2,714	

 $130,571	

14	

34,964a	

 $2,571,462	

28	

37,678	

 $2,702,033

(D2) Great Lakes Antidegradation Demonstrations	

54	

432	

 $20,784	

54	

1,350	

 $38,286	

108	

1,782	

 $59,070

(D3) Great Lakes Regulatory Relief Requests	

18	

792	

 $38,103	

18	

5,182	

 $146,962	

36	

5,974	

 $185,065

Total	

191	

 251,718	

$12,110,152	

86	

 41,496	

 $2,756,710	

277	

 293,214	

 $14,866,862

a Combination of 34,204 contractors at  $74.55 per hour and 760 POTW
supervisors at  $28.36 per hour.

6.5 	Reasons for Change in Burden

This ICR supersedes the ICR developed in 2005 for the Water Quality
Standards Regulation.  The respondent burden has increased 32,500 hours
due to an additional 13 Tribes receiving approval to administer water
quality standards programs since 2005.

6.6 	Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 1,060 hours per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part
9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0356, which is available for public viewing at the Water
Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202)
566-2426.  An electronic version of the public docket is available
online for viewing at http://www.regulations.gov.  Use
http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  Once
in the system, select ‘search,” then key in the docket ID number
identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. 
Please include the EPA Docket ID (EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0356) and OMB Control
Number (2040-0049) in any correspondence. 



ATTACHMENT A

 Average Cost for State/Tribal Review Process

State								Burden Hours

Arizona								2,987

Arkansas								4,100		

Connecticut								    283

Florida									3,990	

Missouri								     81

Nebraska								   860

New York								7,375

North Dakota								   310

Ohio									6,800

Oklahoma								   287

Pennsylvania								2,900

Average 

(eliminating the lowest and highest burden hour estimates)		2,501.9

Rounded to 			2,500

NOTE: Because of differing practices regarding the triennial review
requirement in the CWA, the States were asked to quantify the reporting
and recordkeeping burden on an annualized basis.  These estimates are
considered “rough.”  For this reason, the lowest and highest
estimates for each burden item were not considered in the calculation
for the average burden per State per year (that is, a modified mean was
used).

The Regulation defines the term “State” to mean the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and specific Territories including Guam, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

 Tribes that have received EPA authorization to administer the water
quality standards program under 40 CFR 131.8. EPA maintains a current
list of such Tribes at
http://epa.gov/waterscience/tribes/approvtable.htm.

The (Great Lakes system( means all the streams, rivers, lakes, and other
bodies of water within the drainage basin of the Great Lakes within the
United States.

A Great Lakes Tribe is a Tribe which is located in whole or in part in
the Great Lakes system, and which EPA has authorized to administer a
water quality standards program.

 For the purposes of the CWA, States include the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.  

 The 43 Tribes are those that have received EPA authorization to
administer the water quality standards program under 40 CFR 131.8. EPA
maintains a current list of such Tribes at   HYPERLINK
"http://epa.gov/waterscience/tribes/approvtable.htm" 
http://epa.gov/waterscience/tribes/approvtable.htm . For this ICR, EPA
assumes that all 43 will be adopting or revising standards every three
years, even though only 33 of the 43 Tribes have adopted EPA-approved
initial standards to date.

Mole Lake Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Sokaogon
Chippewa Community (WI); Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa (MN); Grand
Portage Band of Chippewa (MN); and St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians
(NY).

Remedial actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), corrective actions under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or similar actions under
other Federal or State laws.

Removing a designated use requires information demonstrating that the
use is not existing, and that attaining the use is not feasible based on
one or more of six specified factors, including natural conditions,
human-caused conditions that cannot be remedied, certain hydrologic
modifications, or controls that would result in substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.  These are similar to the factors
for variances for the Great Lakes system described above.

This ICR covers only the water quality standards burden.  A separate
ICR, EPA ICR Number 1639.04, OMB Control Number 2040-0180, covers the
NPDES permitting burden.

General Schedule rate, effective January 2008, assuming locality rates
for Washington DC area.

BLS, Table 9, Employer costs per hour, private industry workers, March
2008.

Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) ICR

  PAGE  20