Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0018-0008
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-07-27T04:00Z

INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
FOR
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
REGULATION
(
RENEWAL)

July
8,
2005
EPA
ICR
Number
0988.09
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
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1.1
TITLE
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1.2
SHORT
CHARACTERIZATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2.1
NEED
AND
AUTHORITY
FOR
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2.2
USE
AND
USERS
OF
INFORMATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
3.
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3.1
NON­
DUPLICATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
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
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
4.1
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
RESPONDENTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
4.2
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
4.3
RESPONDENT
ACTIVITIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
5.1
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
5.2
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY
AND
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
5.3
COLLECTION
SCHEDULE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
6.1
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
6.2
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
COSTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
6.3
ESTIMATING
AGENCY
BURDEN
AND
COST
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
6.4
TOTAL
BURDEN
AND
COSTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
6.5
REASONS
FOR
CHANGE
IN
BURDEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
6.6
BURDEN
STATEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
1The
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.

1
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
revises
the
existing
estimates
of
burden
and
costs
to
States
and
Indian
Tribes
presented
in
the
ICR
entitled
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
EPA
ICR
Number
0988.08,
OMB
Control
Number
2040­
0049),
which
expires
on
August
31,
2005.

1.2
SHORT
CHARACTERIZATION
Water
quality
standards
are
provisions
of
State1,
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
in
the
table
on
the
next
page.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
2
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.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
2
Tribes
that
have
received
EPA
authorization
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program
under
40
CFR
131.8.

3
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
Tribes2
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
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
3The
"
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.

4
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.
Section
101
of
the
Great
Lakes
Critical
Programs
Act
of
1990
amends
Section
118
of
the
CWA.
It
directs
EPA
to
publish
water
quality
guidance
for
the
Great
Lakes
system.
3
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
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
5
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
USE
AND
USERS
OF
INFORMATION
(
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
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
4A
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.

6
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
Tribes4
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:
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
7
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,
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
8
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
March
22,
2005
at
70
FR
14462.
The
comment
period
expired
on
May
23,
2005.
No
comments
were
received
by
EPA
during
the
comment
period.
A
copy
of
the
Federal
Register
Notice
soliciting
public
comments
was
submitted
to
OMB
on
March
22,
2005.

3.3
CONSULTATIONS
When
EPA
revised
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
WQS)
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
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
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
9
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
to
specifically
protect
wildlife),
antidegradation
policies,
and
implementation
procedures
using
an
ecosystem
approach
for
waters
of
the
Great
Lakes
Basin
within
the
States
of
Illinois,
Indiana,
Michigan,
Minnesota,
New
York,
Pennsylvania,
Ohio
and
Wisconsin,
including
waters
within
the
jurisdiction
of
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
coregulators
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
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.

The
burden
estimated
in
this
ICR
is
also
consistent
with
other
recent
studies
conducted
by
States
and
EPA
concerning
the
level
of
State
resources
devoted
to
water
quality
programs.

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.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
10
(
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
A
review
of
the
information
collection
guidelines
in
5
CFR
1320.5(
d)(
2)
indicates
the
EPA's
Water
Quality
Standards
(
WQS)
Regulation
may
be
inconsistent
with
paragraph
(
f)
because
it
may
require
keeping
records
for
more
than
3
years.
The
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
requires
that
existing
uses
be
maintained,
and
defines
"
existing
uses"
to
be
any
uses
that
have
existed
on
or
after
November
28,
1975,
which
is
the
date
that
the
first
regulation
for
water
quality
standards
was
promulgated
by
EPA.
In
order
to
be
able
to
implement
this
provision,
States
and
Tribes
will
need
to
maintain
information
that
would
enable
them
to
know
the
"
existing
uses."
In
those
situations,
the
records
maintained
may
include
monitoring
data
and
data
summaries
to
demonstrate
continued
compliance
with
EPA's
requirements.
EPA
provides
a
computerized
system,
STORET,
which
States
and
Tribes
may
use
that
minimizes
the
burden
to
maintain
records.

These
regulatory
requirements
are
based
on
EPA's
interpretation
of
the
statutory
mandate
that
water
quality
standards
"...
protect
the
public
health
or
welfare,
enhance
the
water
quality
of
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
11
water
and
serve
the
purposes
of
this
Act."
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1313(
c)(
2)).
The
loss
of
existing
beneficial
uses
would
be
inconsistent
with
this
mandate.

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.

3.7
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
1995
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
and
appropriate
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:
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
12
"(
1)
establishing
differing
compliance
or
reporting
requirements
or
timetables
that
take
into
account
the
resources
available
to
those
who
are
to
respond;
"(
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
smaller
staff
and
resources.

The
Small
Business
Administrations'
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
point
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;
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
13
(
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
governments
with
POTWs.
The
Agency
has
instituted
several
efforts
to
minimize
the
impact
on
businesses
as
a
whole,
and
on
small
businesses,
specifically.

EPA
holds
regular
meetings
that
serve
as
opportunities
for
small
businesses
to
communicate
concerns
about
paperwork
burden
issues
directly
with
senior
Agency
officials.
For
example,
EPA's
Small
Business
Division
facilitates
semi­
annual
meetings
between
the
EPA
Deputy
Administrator,
senior
management,
and
industry
to
give
small
business
representatives
the
opportunity
to
meet
with
high­
level
EPA
managers
and
give
the
Agency
the
opportunity
to
hear
first­
hand
the
concerns
of
small
businesses.

The
most
recent
meetings
are
described
briefly
below.

(
i)
At
a
September
14,
2001,
meeting,
Deputy
Administrator
Linda
J.
Fisher
hosted
discussions
on
EPA's
regulatory
review
and
SBREFA
processes,
New
Source
Review
reform,
MACT
rules,
the
TRI
Lead
rule,
MP&
M
and
Arsenic
rules,
TMDLs,
and
waste
requirements
for
wipers
and
shop
towels.

(
ii)
At
a
May
10,
2002,
meeting,
Deputy
Administrator
Linda
J.
Fisher
updated
small
business
representatives
on
effluent
guidelines
for
the
metal
products
and
machinery
industry
and
the
ongoing
work
on
revising
the
Small
Business
Strategy,
and
heard
feedback
on
the
TRI
Lead
rule
and
EPA's
Innovation
Strategy.

(
iii)
At
a
June
9,
2003,
meeting,
Deputy
Administrator
Linda
J.
Fisher
listened
to
industry
representatives
views
and
answered
questions
on
EPA's
partnership
efforts,
compliance
assistance
tools
and
incentives,
and
new
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
initiatives.

(
iv)
On
March
30,
2004,
Deputy
Administrator
Stephen
Johnson's
message
was
presented
on
collaboration,
market
incentives,
and
innovative
technologies,
and
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
14
also
featured
a
panel
discussion
on
burden
reduction
(
TRI,
RCRA,
SBPRA)
followed
by
updates
on
small
business
related
initiatives.

In
addition
to
these
regular
high­
level
meetings
with
small
business
representatives,
former
Administrator
Christine
Todd
Whitman
hosted
EPA's
first
National
Summit
on
Small
Business
and
the
Environment
on
March
13,
2003.
This
Summit
brought
together
key
government
and
small
business
leaders
to
focus
on
the
revised
Small
Business
Strategy
and
demonstrate
EPA's
commitment
to
helping
small
businesses
and
the
environment,
promote
strong
support
of
State
Small
Business
Assistance
Programs,
and
stress
the
importance
of
partnerships
among
all
stakeholders.

Also,
a
Small
Business
Forum
was
held
on
October
6,
2004
to
follow
up
on
the
completion
of
the
Small
Business
Strategy
and
the
recently­
completed
Strategy
Implementation
Plan
developed
by
a
cross­
Agency
workgroup.
Deputy
Administrator
Stephen
Johnson
hosted
this
meeting
that
also
featured
panel
discussions
on
E­
Government,
early
involvement
of
small
businesses
rulemaking,
and
planning
for
the
second
EPA
Small
Business
Summit
expected
to
be
held
in
Spring,
2005.

Outreach
to
small
businesses
was
an
important
theme
throughout
the
Small
Business
Strategy.
A
key
recommendation
in
the
Implementation
Plan
is
to
expand
interactions
"
with
small
business
sectors
to
ensure
early
small
business
involvement
in
development
of
rules,
policies
and
programs
and
to
improve
and
simplify
access
to
and
exchange
of
information."

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.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
5
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.

6
The
30
authorized
Tribes
are
identified
on
EPA's
web
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
waterscience.

7Mole
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).

15
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4.1
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
RESPONDENTS
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
86
jurisdictions
 
56
States
(
and
Territories)
5,
and
the
30
Indian
Tribes
that
have
received
EPA
authorization
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program
as
of
June
2005.6
The
respondents
affected
by
this
collection
activity
are
in
NAICS
code
92411
"
Administration
of
Air
and
Water
Resources
and
Solid
Waste
Management,"
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
June
2005,
57
Tribes
have
submitted
TAS
applications,
of
which
the
30
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."

(
C)
Dispute
Resolution
Requests.
Any
of
the
30
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."

(
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.
7
These
respondents
are
in
NAICS
code
92411
"
Administration
of
Air
and
Water
Resources
and
Solid
Waste
Management."
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
16
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.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
17
States
and
authorized
Tribes
may
choose
to
provide
additional
information
to
help
clarify
the
submissions,
and
enable
EPA
to
better
understand
the
standards
and
how
they
are
implemented.

(
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
mut
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
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
8Remedial
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.

18
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
actions8
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.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
9Removing
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,
humancaused
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.

19
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.
9
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
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
20
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
spend
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
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
21
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
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
22
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
n
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.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
23
(
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
COLLECTION
SCHEDULE
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
24
(
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
30
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
86
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
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
25
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
=
(
86
jurisdictions)
*
(
2,500
hours)
=
215,000
hours.

(
B)
Tribal
Program
Applications.
Tribal
burden:
EPA
assumes
that
five
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
assume
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
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
10This
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.

11General
Schedule
rate,
effective
January
2005,
assuming
locality
rates
for
Washington
DC
area.

26
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.
10
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
$
56,371;
this
is
equivalent
to
the
salary
of
a
GS­
9,
Step
10
Federal
employee.
11
At
2,080
labor
hours
per
year,
the
hourly
rate
is
$
27.10.
Overhead
cost
for
Federal
and
State
employees
are
expected
to
be
60
percent,
or
$
16.26
per
hour,
yielding
a
total
hourly
rate
of
$
43.36.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
12BLS,
Table
9,
Employer
costs
per
hour,
private
industry
workers,
December
2004.

27

Contractor
labor
rates
(
hired
by
dischargers)
were
estimated
using
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
estimate
for
a
"
professional
and
related"
speciality
of
$
41.52
per
hour.
12
Assuming
a
67
percent
overhead
and
profit
rate,
the
total
private
sector
hourly
rate
is
$
75.02.

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
$
35,452;
the
hourly
rate
is
$
17.04.
Assumed
overhead
costs
add
an
additional
50
percent
to
these
costs.
Thus,
the
average
cost
of
a
POTW
worker
is
$
53,178
per
year,
or
$
25.57
per
hour.

(
A)
Standards
Adoption
and
Revisions.
State
or
Tribal
costs:
Total
annual
cost
per
jurisdiction
=
(
2,500
hours/
year)
/
($
43.36/
hour)
=
$
108,400.
Total
annual
cost
=
(
86
jurisdictions)
*
($
108,400/
jurisdiction)
=
$
9,322,400
(
B)
Tribal
Program
Applications.
Tribal
costs:
Cost
per
application
=
(
40
hours/
application)
*
($
43.36/
hour)
=
$
1,734.
Total
annual
cost
=
(
5
Tribes)
*
($
1,734/
application)
=
$
8,670.

(
C)
Dispute
Resolution
Requests.
State
or
Tribal
costs:
Cost
per
dispute
resolution
request
=
(
80
hours/
request)
*
($
43.36/
hour)
=
$
3,469.
Total
annual
cost
=
(
1
request)
*
($
3,468/
request)
=
$
3,469.

(
D1)
Great
Lakes
Bioassay
Tests.
Discharger
costs:
Contractor
costs
=
(
34,204
hours)
*
($
69.34/
hour)
=
$
2,371,705.
Discharger
oversight
employee
costs
=
(
760
hours)
*
($
25.57/
hour)
=
$
19,433.
Total
discharger
bioassay
costs
=
$
2,371,705
+
$
19,433
=
$
2,391,138.
State
or
tribal
costs:
Review
of
water
quality
criteria
=
(
2,714
hours)
*
($
43.36/
hour)
=
$
117,679.
Total
costs:
$
2,391,138
+
$
117,679
=
$
2,508,817.

(
D2)
Great
Lakes
Antidegradation
Demonstrations.
Discharger
costs:
Antidegradation
demonstrations
=
(
1,350
hours)
*
($
25.57/
hour)
=
$
34,520.
State
or
Tribal
costs:
Review
of
antidegradation
demonstrations
=
(
432
hours)
*
($
43.36/
hour)
=
$
18,732.
Total
costs:
$
34,520
+
$
18,732
=
$
53,252.

(
D3)
Great
Lakes
Regulatory
Relief
Requests.
Discharger
costs:
(
5,182
hours)
*
($
25.57/
hour)
=
$
132,504.
State
or
Tribal
costs:
Review
of
regulatory
relief
requests
=
(
792
hours)
*
($
43.36/
hour)
=
$
34,341.
Total
costs:
$
132,504
+
$
34,341
=
$
166,845.

The
overall
labor
costs
for
State,
Tribal,
and
discharger
respondents
are
summarized
in
Table
6.4.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
28
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
$
62,886
per
year.
At
2,080
labor
hours
per
year,
the
hourly
rate
is
$
30.23.
Overhead
costs
for
Federal
employees
are
expected
to
be
60
percent,
or
$
18.14
per
hour,
yielding
a
total
hourly
rate
of
$
48.37.

(
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
=
(
86
submissions)
*
(
168
hours/
submission)
=
14,440
hours.
Labor
cost
=
(
14,440
hours)
*
($
48.37/
hour)
=
$
698,463.

(
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)
*
($
48.37/
hour)
=
$
38,696.

(
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)
*
($
48.37/
hour)
=
$
967.

(
D)
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance.
EPA
estimates
it
will
require
approximately
400
hours
and
at
$
48.37/
hour
cost
$
19,348
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
($
698,463)
+
(
38,696)
+
($
967)
+
($
19,348)
=
$
757,474.

There
are
in
this
ICR
no
Capital
Expense
and
no
O&
M
costs.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
29
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
86
215,000
$
9,322,400
­
­
­
86
215,000
$
9,322,400
(
B)
Tribal
Program
Applications
5
200
$
8,670
­
­
­
5
200
$
8,670
(
C)
Dispute
Resolution
Requests
1
80
$
3,469
­
­
­
1
80
$
3,469
(
D1)
Great
Lakes
Bioassay
Tests
14
2,714
$
117,679
14
34,964a
$
2,391,138
28
37,678
$
2,508,817
(
D2)
Great
Lakes
Antidegradation
Demonstrations
54
432
$
18,732
54
1,350
$
34,520
108
1,782
$
53,252
(
D3)
Great
Lakes
Regulatory
Relief
Requests
18
792
$
34,341
18
5,182
$
132,504
36
5,974
$
166,845
Total
178
219,218
$
9,505,291
86
41,496
$
2,558,162
264
260,714
$
12,063,453
a
Combination
of
34,204
contractors
at
$
69.34
per
hour
and
760
POTW
supervisors
at
$
25.57
per
hour.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
30
6.5
REASONS
FOR
CHANGE
IN
BURDEN
This
ICR
supersedes
the
ICR
developed
in
2002
for
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation.
The
respondent
burden
has
increased
21,938
hours
due
to
an
additional
10
Tribes
receiving
approval
to
administer
water
quality
standards
programs
since
2002
(
an
additional
25,000
hours),
offset
in
part
by
a
reduction
of
3,062
hours
for
reduced
numbers
of
expected
Great
Lakes
antidegradation
demonstrations
and
regulatory
relief
requests.

6.6
BURDEN
STATEMENT
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
988
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.
OW­
2003­
0018,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
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
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
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
(
OW­
2003­
0018)
and
OMB
Control
Number
(
2040­
0049)
in
any
correspondence.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
Renewal)
ICR
31
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).