INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
FOR
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
REGULATION
April
2002
EPA
ICR
Number
0988.08
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
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
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
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
4.1
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
RESPONDENTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
4.2
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
4.3
RESPONDENT
ACTIVITIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
5.1
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
5.2
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY
AND
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
5.3
COLLECTION
SCHEDULE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
6.1
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
6.2
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
COSTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
6.3
ESTIMATING
AGENCY
BURDEN
AND
COST
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
6.4
TOTAL
BURDEN
AND
COSTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
6.5
REASONS
FOR
CHANGE
IN
BURDEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
6.6
BURDEN
STATEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
1
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1.1
TITLE
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
The
title
of
this
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
is
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation.
This
ICR
revises
the
existing
estimates
of
burden
and
costs
to
States
and
Indian
Tribes
presented
in
the
ICR
entitled
Information
Collection
Request
for
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
EPA
ICR
Number
0988.07,
OMB
Control
Number
2040­
0049),
which
expires
on
July
31,
2002.
In
an
effort
to
streamline
the
ICR
process,
this
version
of
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
incorporates
the
water
quality
standards
components
of
the
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
Reporting
Requirements
ICR
(
EPA
ICR
Number
1639.04,
OMB
Control
Number
2040­
0180).
At
a
later
date,
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
components
of
the
Great
Lakes
ICR
will
be
incorporated
into
one
or
more
NPDES
ICR(
s).
Thereupon,
the
Great
Lakes
ICR
will
be
withdrawn.

1.2
SHORT
CHARACTERIZATION
Water
quality
standards
are
provisions
of
State,
Tribal,
or
Federal
law
which
consist
of
designated
uses
for
the
waters
of
the
United
States,
water
quality
criteria
for
those
waters
based
on
such
uses,
and
an
antidegradation
policy
to
prevent
the
degradation
of
water
quality.
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
(
CWA).
Such
standards
serve
two
primary
purposes.
First,
they
define
water
quality
goals
for
waterbodies.
Second,
they
serve
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
CWA.
At
a
minimum,
water
quality
standards
must
contain
use
designations
for
waterbodies,
water
quality
criteria
that
protect
the
use
designations,
and
an
antidegradation
policy
that
protects
existing
uses
and
high
quality
waters.

Designated
uses
are
those
water
uses
specified
in
water
quality
standards
for
each
waterbody
or
segment.
These
uses
are
to
be
achieved
and
protected
even
if
they
are
not
presently
being
attained.
The
use
classifications
of
State
and
Tribal
waters
must
take
into
consideration
the
use
and
value
of
the
waters
for
public
water
supplies;
protection
and
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish
and
wildlife;
recreation
in
and
on
the
water;
and
agricultural,
industrial
and
other
purposes
including
navigation.
Waste
transport
is
not
a
valid
designated
use
for
any
water
of
the
United
States.

Water
quality
criteria
are
those
elements
of
water
quality
standards
which
represent
the
quality
of
water
that
supports
a
particular
designated
use.
Criteria
are
expressed
as
constituent
concentrations,
parameter
levels,
or
narrative
statements.
If
criteria
are
met,
the
designated
use
should
be
protected.
Under
CWA
Section
304(
a),
EPA
develops
guidance
on
criteria
for
pollutants
to
aid
the
States
and
Tribes
in
developing
appropriate
criteria.
EPA's
guidance
is
based
on
scientific
information
regarding
the
effect
of
constituent
concentrations
on
aquatic
life
and/
or
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
1
In
1998,
EPA
conducted
an
internal
survey
which
indicated
that
an
average
of
76
water
quality
standards
revisions
are
submitted
to
EPA
annually
for
review
and
approval/
disapproval
and
as
drafts
for
comment
by
the
Regional
offices.

2
human
health.

State
and
Tribal
water
quality
standards
must
also
contain
an
antidegradation
policy
designed
to
maintain
and
protect
existing
uses
and
water
quality,
provide
protection
for
higher
quality
waters,
and
provide
protection
for
Outstanding
National
Resource
Waters
(
ONRWs).
States
and
Tribes
must
also
identify
methods
for
implementing
the
antidegradation
policy.

(
i)
State
and
Tribal
Water
Quality
Standards
Revisions
All
States
and
Indian
Tribes
with
water
quality
standards
are
required
by
the
CWA
to
review
and,
if
necessary,
revise
their
water
quality
standards
every
three
years1.
This
Triennial
review
process
of
reviewing,
revising,
and
adopting
water
quality
standards
entails
several
activities.
All
States
and
twenty
Indian
Tribes
presently
have
water
quality
standards
that
include
designated
uses
for
their
waterbodies
and
criteria
to
protect
those
uses.
Thus,
this
process
involves
fine­
tuning
the
standards
to
reflect
updated
information.
As
part
of
the
standards
review,
State/
Tribal
agencies
identify
and
evaluate
existing
use
designations
for
the
rivers,
streams,
lakes,
coastal
areas,
and
wetlands
within
the
State
or
Tribe
and
the
criteria
to
support
the
uses.
They
then
compare
this
information
to
information
on
existing
water
uses
and
existing
water
quality
based
on
water
quality
monitoring
data,
biological
assessments,
and
other
evaluations.

States
and
Tribes
are
encouraged
to
establish
procedures
to
prioritize
the
identification
and
detailed
review
of
standards
for
specific
waterbodies.
For
example,
waterbodies
receiving
comprehensive
standards
review
could
be
those
where
water
quality­
based
permits
are
scheduled
to
be
issued
or
reissued,
or
where
toxic
pollutants
have
been
identified
or
are
suspected
of
preventing
attainment
of
aquatic
life
uses
or
posing
an
unreasonable
risk
to
human
health.
States
and
Tribes
may
have
additional
reasons
for
examining
a
waterbody
in
detail.

State
and
Tribal
agencies
identify
segments
designated
for
uses
less
stringent
than
the
Section
101(
a)(
2)
goals
and
303(
c)
goals
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
referred
to
as
"
fishable/
swimmable"),
as
well
as
segments
where
the
water
quality
is
not
meeting
the
applicable
water
quality
standards.
They
also
identify
water
quality
issues
raised
by
environmental
organizations,
dischargers,
or
other
parties.
The
State/
Tribal
agency
then
reviews
the
standards
for
these
segments
to
determine
the
appropriateness
and
adequacy
of
use
designations
and
water
quality
criteria.
Where
no
justification
exists
to
support
a
use
designation
less
than
specified
in
the
CWA,
the
State/
Tribe
must
upgrade
the
designated
use.
If
a
designated
use
lower
than
"
fishable/
swimmable"
is
being
considered,
the
State/
Tribe
must
prepare
a
technical
justification
called
a
use
attainability
analysis
(
UAA).
In
order
to
allow
a
lower
use
designation
than
that
specified
in
the
Act,
the
UAA
must
demonstrate
that
attaining
a
higher
use
is
not
feasible
due
to
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
3
(
1)
naturally
occurring
pollutant
concentrations,
(
2)
natural,
ephemeral,
intermittent,
or
low
conditions
or
water
levels,
(
3)
human
caused
conditions
or
sources
of
pollution
that
cannot
be
remedied
or
would
cause
more
environmental
damage
to
correct
than
leave
in
place,
(
4)
dams,
diversions,
or
other
types
of
hydrologic
modifications,
(
5)
physical
conditions
related
to
the
natural
features
of
the
waterbody,
or
(
6)
existence
of
controls
more
stringent
than
those
required
by
Section
301(
b)
and
306
of
the
Act
that
would
result
in
substantial
or
widespread
economic
and
social
impact.
If
a
UAA
was
conducted
during
a
prior
review
cycle,
it
should
be
reviewed
for
continuing
applicability.
In
no
case
may
a
State
or
Tribe
remove
an
existing
use.

The
number
of
UAAs
conducted
varies
considerably
by
State
and
Tribes,
in
part
because
of
differing
water
quality
problems,
numbers
of
segments
with
uses
designated
at
levels
less
than
the
goals
of
the
Act,
and
available
resources
to
conduct
the
analyses.

State
and
Tribal
agencies
should
review
all
of
their
standards
to
ensure
the
appropriate
criteria
are
included
to
meet
the
designated
uses.
Where
toxic
pollutants
have
been
identified
or
are
suspected
of
precluding
a
use
or
posing
an
unreasonable
human
health
risk,
the
State
or
Tribe
should
add
the
appropriate
criteria
to
their
water
quality
standards.
The
criteria
must
cover
a
sufficient
number
of
parameters
and
be
of
adequate
stringency
to
protect
the
designated
uses.
Numeric
criteria
may
be
based
on
EPA
recommendations,
site­
specific
modifications
of
these
recommendations,
or
other
scientifically
defensible
methods.
Section
303(
c)(
2)(
B)
of
the
CWA,
along
with
the
Water
Quality
Act
of
1987,
requires
the
adoption
of
numeric
criteria
for
all
toxic
pollutants
that
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
interfere
with
the
attainment
of
uses.

Based
on
the
triennial
review
of
their
existing
water
quality
standards,
or
on
other
reviews
they
may
conduct
at
any
time,
State
and
Tribal
agencies
make
recommendations
on
any
justified
changes
to
the
water
quality
standards.
The
State
or
Tribe
must
then
provide
an
opportunity
for
at
least
one
public
hearing
for
the
purpose
of
receiving
public
input
on
the
review
and
proposed
revisions
to
the
standards.
Based
on
the
record
developed
according
to
the
State's
or
Tribe's
administrative
procedure
requirements,
the
State
or
Tribe
adopts
those
changes
deemed
justified.

To
comply
with
the
CWA
and
the
implementing
regulations,
the
States
and
Tribes
submit
the
results
of
their
reviews
and
other
supporting
materials
to
the
EPA
for
review.
EPA
review
(
performed
at
the
Regional
office)
ensures
that
the
State
and
Tribal
water
quality
standards
meet
the
requirements
of
the
CWA.
If
the
standards
are
not
consistent
with
the
CWA,
the
Regional
Administrator
will
disapprove
the
standards.
If
the
State/
Tribe
does
not
make
necessary
changes
to
the
standards
within
90
days,
EPA
may
propose
to
promulgate
a
Federal
regulation
to
replace
the
disapproved
standards.

The
nature
of
this
process,
including
site­
specific
analyses
requires
the
production
of
a
unique
document
for
a
specific
purpose.
No
other
State
or
Tribal
document
could
suffice
under
the
statutorily
established
system.

(
ii)
Tribal
Application
for
Administering
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Program
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
4
If
an
Indian
Tribe
seeks
authorization
for
administering
its
own
water
quality
standards
program,
the
Tribe
is
required
to
submit
an
application
containing
sufficient
information
for
EPA
to
determine
if
the
Tribe
is
qualified.
EPA
will
use
the
submitted
information
to
determine
if
the
Tribe
meets
the
statutory
criteria
under
CWA
Section
518(
e)
and
is
qualified
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program.

(
iii)
Requests
for
Dispute
Resolution
Where
a
dispute
arises
between
a
Tribe
and
a
State
over
a
water
quality
standard
on
a
common
waterbody,
and
the
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
will
use
the
submitted
information
to
determine
if
initiation
of
a
formal
EPA
dispute
resolution
action
is
justified
under
CWA
Section
518(
e).

(
iv)
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
This
ICR
includes
the
water
quality
standards
burden
and
costs
associated
with
the
implementation
of
the
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance.
The
Great
Lakes
water
quality
standards
components
included
are
bioassays
to
support
water
quality
criteria,
antidegradation
demonstrations,
and
regulatory
relief
requests.

2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2.1
NEED
AND
AUTHORITY
FOR
THE
COLLECTION
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.
Currently,
CWA
Section
303(
c)
of
the
CWA
(
33
U.
S.
C.
1313(
c))
governs
the
water
quality
standards
program.
Section
303(
c)
requires
the
Tribes
that
have
received
EPA
authorization
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program
and
States
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.
These
Congressionally­
required
triennial
reviews,
together
with
applications
by
Tribes
to
administer
water
quality
standards
programs
described
below,
are
the
basis
for
the
primary
information
collection
activities
of
the
water
quality
standards
regulation.
EPA
then
reviews
each
State
or
Tribal
submission
for
approval
or
disapproval.

For
the
purposes
of
the
CWA,
States
include
the
fifty
(
50)
States,
the
District
of
Columbia,
the
Commonwealth
of
Puerto
Rico,
the
Virgin
Islands,
Guam,
American
Samoa,
and
the
Commonwealth
of
the
Northern
Mariana
Island.
Indian
Tribes
include
those
Tribes
that
EPA
determines
qualify
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program.
As
of
February
7,
2002,
twenty­
three
(
23)
Tribes
have
received
EPA
authorization
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program.
Of
these
twenty­
three
Tribes,
twenty
(
20)
have
had
their
water
quality
standards
approved
by
EPA.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
5
The
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
(
40
CFR
Part
131)
is
the
EPA
regulation
governing
the
implementation
of
the
water
quality
standards
program.
The
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
describes
the
requirements
and
procedures
for
the
States
and
Tribes
to
develop,
review,
and
revise
their
water
quality
standards
and
for
EPA
to
review
and
approve
the
water
quality
standards.
Section
131.6
establishes
the
following
minimum
requirements
for
a
water
quality
standards
submission:
(
a)
use
designations
consistent
with
Section
101(
a)(
2)
and
303(
c)(
2)
of
the
Act,
(
b)
methods
used
and
analyses
conducted
to
support
water
quality
standards
revisions,
(
c)
water
quality
criteria
sufficient
to
protect
the
designated
uses,
(
d)
an
antidegradation
policy
consistent
with
40
CFR
131.12,
(
e)
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
(
f)
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.

EPA's
review
of
State
and
Tribal
submissions
is
implemented
through
Section
131.5
of
the
Regulation.
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
(
above).

In
1987,
through
the
Water
Quality
Act
(
P.
L.
100­
4),
Congress
made
substantial
additions
to
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Directly
affecting
the
standards
program,
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,
and
to
establish
a
mechanism
for
resolution
of
disputes
which
arise
between
States
and
Tribes
over
water
quality
standards
on
common
waterbodies.
EPA
published
such
regulations
in
1991.
Implementation
of
the
regulatory
provisions
includes
EPA
collection
of
information
from
Tribes
for
purposes
of
determining
if
a
Tribe
is
qualified
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program,
and
collection
of
information
to
determine
if
initiation
of
a
formal
EPA
dispute
resolution
action
is
justified.
The
revisions
do
not
require
Tribes
to
apply
for
administering
the
water
quality
standards
program,
nor
do
they
require
Tribes/
States
to
request
EPA
assistance
in
resolving
State/
Tribal
disputes.
However,
where
Tribes
desire
to
be
authorized
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program,
or
where
Tribes/
States
desire
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.

Section
101
of
the
Great
Lakes
Critical
Programs
Act
(
CPA)
amends
Section
118
of
the
CWA
and
directs
EPA
to
publish
water
quality
guidance
for
the
Great
Lakes
system.
Provisions
of
the
Guidance
are
codified
in
40
CFR
Part
132.
The
Guidance
establishes
minimum
water
quality
criteria,
implementation
procedures,
and
antidegradation
provisions
for
the
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
6
system.

2.2
USE
AND
USERS
OF
INFORMATION
(
i)
Water
Quality
Standards
State
and
Tribal
water
quality
standards
are
the
foundation
for
restoring
and
maintaining
the
quality
of
the
Nation's
waters
under
the
CWA.
They
are
used
in
several
ways
including
serving
as
water
quality
goals
for
each
waterbody,
evaluating
water
quality
to
determine
attainment
of
CWA
goals,
helping
Federal,
State,
Tribal,
and
local
governments
develop
water
quality
management
plans
and
objectives,
and
helping
State
and
local
governments
plan
for
and
protect
water
supplies.

Most
importantly,
water
quality
standards
serve
as
the
foundation
for
one
of
the
two
basic
types
of
regulatory
requirements
and
approaches
for
controlling
pollutant
discharges.
The
other
type
of
regulatory
requirement
is
the
technology­
based
controls
approach.
The
water
quality
standards
program
provides
the
regulatory
basis
for
water
quality­
based
treatment
controls
which
must
be
implemented
where
technology­
based
controls
do
not
enable
the
water
quality
standards
to
be
met.

Water
quality
standards
serve
as
the
basis
for
establishing
total
maximum
daily
loads
(
TMDLs)
under
section
303(
d)
of
the
CWA
and
water
quality­
based
permit
limits
for
point
source
dischargers
(
including
publicly­
owned
treatment
works
and
industrial
facilities)
under
sections
301(
b)(
1)(
C)
and
402
of
the
CWA.

If
these
activities
were
not
carried
out,
explicit
requirements
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
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
to
comply
with
water
quality
standards.

(
ii)
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
In
order
to
implement
State,
Tribal,
or
EPA
promulgated
provisions
consistent
with
the
Guidance,
information
on
bioassays
may
be
necessary
to
support
the
development
of
water
quality
criteria,
antidegradation
policy/
demonstrations,
and
regulatory
relief
options
(
e.
g.,
variances
from
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
(
i)
State
and
Tribal
Review
Process
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
7
State
and
Tribal
water
quality
standards
reviews
and
revisions
are
a
unique
component
of
the
water
quality
management
process,
with
EPA
having
the
exclusive
authority
to
review
and
approve/
disapprove
the
standards.
However,
the
States
and
Tribes
primarily
use
existing
data
and
information
from
other
programs
in
analyzing
their
water
quality
standards.
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:

S
The
NPDES
permitting
and
enforcement
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.

S
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.

(
ii)
Tribal
Applications
to
Administer
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Program
To
avoid
requiring
submission
of
duplicate
information,
EPA
will
accept
information
previously
submitted
by
a
Tribe
(
e.
g.,
information
included
in
an
application
for
administering
another
CWA
or
SDWA
program)
in
evaluating
whether
a
Tribe
meets
the
criteria
for
program
authorization.

(
iii)
State/
Tribal
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
(
rather
than
the
Tribe's
qualifications
for
authorization
to
administer
CWA
programs)
it
is
very
unlikely
that
Tribes
will
be
required
to
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
8
re­
submit
information
which
was
previously
provided
when
requesting
an
EPA
dispute
resolution
action.

(
iv)
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
on
February
5,
2002
via
a
Federal
Register
Notice
(
67
FR
5281).
The
comment
period
expired
on
April
8,
2002.
No
comments
were
received
by
EPA
during
the
comment
period.
A
copy
of
the
Federal
Register
Notice
soliciting
public
comments
will
be
submitted
to
OMB.

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
received
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.
EPA's
analysis
of
the
comments
received
on
the
ANPRM
may
lead
to
new
guidance,
policies,
or
potentially
to
a
revision
to
the
water
quality
standards
regulation.

To
facilitate
communications,
EPA
has
continued
to
maintain
routine
contact
and
meet
with
the
States
and
Tribes
regarding
water
quality
standards
activities
and
reviews.
For
example,
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
9
EPA
is
currently
working
with
a
group
of
States
to
develop
a
Water
Quality
Standards
and
Criteria
Strategy
to
help
guide
the
future
direction
of
EPA's
Water
Quality
Criteria
and
Standards
Program.

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
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.

3.4
EFFECTS
OF
LESS
FREQUENT
COLLECTION
(
i)
State
and
Tribal
Review
Process
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
may
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.

(
ii)
Tribal
Applications
to
Administer
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Program
Application
by
Indian
Tribes
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program
is
a
one­
time
collection
of
information
per
respondent.

(
iii)
State/
Tribal
Dispute
Resolution
Requests
Requests
for
dispute
resolution
also
will
be
a
one­
time
collection
of
information
per
respondent.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
10
(
iv)
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
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.,
variances
from
water
quality
criteria)
from
provisions
implementing
the
Guidance,
and
generally
pursuing
relief
is
a
one­
time
effort
for
the
permittee,
less
frequent
information
collection
associated
with
Guidance
regulatory
relief
procedures
is
not
relevant.

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
be
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
and
which
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
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
Permit
applications
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.

No
requested
information
is
of
a
sensitive
nature.

4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4.1
CHARACTERIZATION
OF
RESPONDENTS
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
11
(
i)
State/
Tribal
Review
Process
The
respondents
affected
by
this
collection
activity
are
in
SIC
code
#
9511
­
"
Air
and
Water
Resources
and
Solid
Waste
Management."
The
CWA
and
EPA's
water
quality
standards
regulation
require
reporting
from
76
jurisdictions
 
50
States,
6
commonwealths
and
territories,
and
the
20
Indian
Tribes
that
have
received
EPA
authorization
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program
(
in
accordance
with
Section
518
of
the
Clean
Water
Act).

(
ii)
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
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
States
generated
and
of
permits
issued
since
March
1991,
EPA
determined
that
588
major
and
3,207
minor
point
sources
would
be
affected.
The
respondents
affected
by
this
collection
activity
are
in
the
following
SIC
codes:
Mining
(
10,14),
Food
(
20),
Pulp
and
Paper
(
26),
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
(
281),
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
(
28),
Petroleum
Refining
(
29),
Metal
Manufacturing
(
33),
Metal
Finishing
(
34­
37),
Steam
Electric
(
4911),
and
Publically
Owned
Treatment
Works
(
4952).

4.2
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
(
i)
State
and
Tribal
Review
Process
At
least
once
every
three
years,
States
and
Tribes
are
required
to
submit
to
EPA
for
approval
their
triennial
review
analyses,
their
reviewed,
revised,
and
adopted
water
quality
standards,
and
any
necessary
supporting
information.

(
ii)
Tribal
applications
to
administer
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Program
Where
an
Indian
Tribe
desires
to
seek
authorization
for
administering
its
own
water
quality
standards
program,
the
Tribe
is
required
to
submit
an
application
containing
sufficient
information
for
EPA
to
determine
if
the
Tribe
is
qualified,
including:
(
a)
evidence
that
the
Tribe
is
recognized
by
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior;
(
b)
a
narrative
statement
that
the
Tribe
is
currently
carrying
out
substantial
governmental
duties
and
powers
over
a
Federal
Indian
reservation;
(
c)
a
narrative
statement
of
the
Tribe's
authority
to
regulate
the
quality
of
reservation
waters;
and,
(
d)
a
narrative
statement
describing
the
capability
of
the
Tribe
to
administer
an
effective
water
quality
standards
program.

(
iii)
State/
Tribal
Dispute
Resolution
Requests
Where
a
dispute
arises
between
a
Tribe
and
a
State
over
a
water
quality
standard
on
a
common
waterbody,
and
the
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.
Information
that
a
State
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
12
or
Tribe
must
submit
with
the
request
includes:
(
a)
a
statement
of
the
alleged
unreasonable
consequences
that
have
arisen
due
to
the
differing
water
quality
standards;
(
b)
a
description
of
the
actions
which
have
been
taken
to
resolve
the
dispute
without
EPA
involvement;
and,
(
c)
an
identification
of
the
State/
Tribal
water
quality
standards
provision
which
has
resulted
in
the
unreasonable
consequences,
and
a
statement
of
the
relief
sought.

(
iv)
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
Requirements
necessitated
by
the
Great
Lakes
Guidance
include
bioassay
tests
to
support
the
development
of
water
quality
criteria,
studies
to
identify
and
provide
information
on
antidegradation
control
measures
that
will
guard
against
the
reduction
of
water
quality
in
the
Great
Lakes
system,
and
information
collection
and
record
keeping
activities
associated
with
analyses
and
reporting
to
request
regulatory
relief
from
Guidance
requirements.

4.3
RESPONDENT
ACTIVITIES
(
i)
State
and
Tribal
Review
Process
Review
of
instructions,
guidance
and
regulations
This
item
includes
only
the
time
required
to
review
documents
necessary
for
the
State/
Tribe
to
revise
its
standards.
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.
The
burden
hours
for
this
item
varied
greatly,
apparently
dependent
on
State
or
Tribal
staff
turnover
rates
(
thus,
more
individuals
reviewing
the
same
materials).

Identify
issues
and
plan
activities.
Gather
and
analyze
data
and
other
information
The
activities
considered
within
this
category
include
identifying
the
standards
issues
to
be
addressed,
prioritizing
the
standards
issues
based
on
EPA's
and
the
State's
or
Tribe's
internal
policies,
and
planning
the
activities
to
be
performed.
Gathering
the
existing
water
quality
data
and
waterbody
use
information
and
analyzing
such
data
and
information
as
necessary
for
these
revisions
are
also
within
this
category.

Prepare
revised
water
quality
standards
package
for
submittal
The
activities
considered
here
include
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.
The
time
State
or
Tribal
agency
staff
spend
in
consultation
with
the
State
legislature
and
legislative
committees
or
Tribal
Council,
respectively,
is
also
accounted
for
here.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
13
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
makes
a
change
to
its
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
are
requirements
of
the
Act
enforced
through
the
NPDES
permits.
Before
approving
State
or
Tribal
water
quality
standards,
EPA
must
be
assured
of
their
legal
validity.

Site­
specific
criteria
development
studies
conducted
using
acceptable
methodologies
for
specific
segments,
basins,
or
States
The
Regulation
encourages
States
and
Tribes
to
adopt
site­
specific
criteria
to
reflect
local
conditions.
The
Section
304(
a)
criteria
developed
by
EPA
are
laboratory
derived
and
may
not
accurately
reflect
the
effect
of
a
pollutant
locally
because
of
local
water
quality
characteristics
or
varying
sensitivities
of
local
aquatic
communities.
Certain
compounds
may
be
more
or
less
toxic
in
some
waters
because
of
differences
in
hardness
or
organic
matter
content,
and
other
parameters.
Developing
site­
specific
criteria
is
a
method
of
taking
local
conditions
into
account
to
ensure
that
the
criteria
will
protect
the
designated
use
and
not
be
more
or
less
stringent
than
necessary.

EPA
has
developed
guidance
for
deriving
site­
specific
criteria
and
has
tested
the
guidance
at
field
sites.
These
tests
formed
the
initial
basis
for
estimating
the
burden
hours
for
developing
site­
specific
criteria.
Since
the
development
and
pilot
testing
of
the
site­
specific
criteria
guidance,
considerable
experience
has
been
gained
by
the
States
in
developing
site­
specific
criteria.
The
actual
experiences
of
the
States
form
the
primary
basis
of
the
burden
calculation
estimated
in
this
ICR.

Because
of
the
variability
in
site­
specific
conditions
and
the
range
of
complexity
in
any
given
case,
the
burden
calculations
in
this
category
were
divided
into
two
subcategories.
"
Simple"
cases
are
reflective
of
relatively
easy
studies
where
a
single
or
possibly
two
dischargers
are
present,
discharging
few
pollutants,
and
no
appreciable
nonpoint
source
impacts
exist.
"
Complex"
cases
involve
a
water
segment
with
several
discharges
and
numerous
pollutants,
including
nonpoint
source
impacts.

Use
attainability
analysis
studies
conducted
to
support
a
possible
change
in
use
designation
Use
attainability
analyses
are
designed
to
assist
States
and
Tribes
in
both
refining
use
designations
as
well
as
providing
a
supporting
analysis
on
whether
the
use
designation
is
appropriate,
and
if
not,
provides
a
basis
for
lowering,
raising,
or
retaining
a
use
designation.

Because
legitimate
factors
such
as
natural
high
water
temperatures,
physical
impediments,
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
14
or
irreversible
background
pollutant
levels
may
effectively
prevent
a
use
from
being
met,
States
and
Tribes
are
encouraged
to
analyze
the
attainability
of
presently
designated
but
non­
existing
uses
in
their
water
quality
standards.
Although
this
particular
analysis
is
optional,
if
a
designated
use
is
changed
or
modified
to
a
lower
use
(
e.
g.,
fish
propagation
versus
stocked
fishery),
some
type
of
analysis
is
required.
The
crux
of
such
analysis
is
to
demonstrate
that
attaining
the
higher
designated
use
is
not
feasible.
The
information
generated
by
the
use
attainability
analysis
should
enable
States
to
improve
the
scientific
basis
for
their
decision
making
process.

The
use
attainability
analysis
(
UAA),
as
defined
in
the
Regulation,
is
a
scientific
analysis
of
the
factors
which
determine
the
suitability
of
the
waterbody
to
attain
a
use.
These
factors
include
the
physical,
chemical,
and
biological
characteristics
of
the
waterbody,
its
geographic
setting,
scenic
qualities,
and
current
uses.

If
adequate
data
are
available
to
conduct
a
UAA,
a
field
survey
of
the
waterbody
is
not
necessary.
If
adequate
data
are
not
available,
the
State
or
Tribe
performs
a
waterbody
survey
which
helps
pinpoint
the
water
quality
problems
and
determines
present
uses,
uses
impaired,
and
the
reasons
the
uses
are
impaired.
The
survey
should
ensure
that
the
UAA
is
sufficiently
detailed
to
answer
the
following
questions:

S
What
is
the
use
to
be
protected?

S
To
what
extent
will
control
of
pollution
from
point
sources
restore
or
enhance
the
use?

S
To
what
extent
will
control
of
nonpoint
source
pollution
restore
or
enhance
the
use?

Because
of
the
variability
in
the
type
and
the
level
of
complexity
of
the
analysis
to
be
performed,
the
burden
calculations
were
divided
into
"
simple"
and
"
complex"
subcategories.
"
Simple"
cases
are
those
involving
a
small
water
segment
with
only
minor
augmentation
of
physical,
chemical
and/
or
biological
data
needed.
Many
of
these
studies
are
to
support
changes
in
subcategories
because
improper
use
classifications
made
earlier
(
e.
g.,
change
in
use
from
marginal
cold
water
fishery
to
warm
water
fishery).
"
Complex"
cases
generally
involve
multiple
dischargers
on
a
large
water
segment
with
less
existing
physical,
chemical,
or
biological
data.
The
States
and
Tribes
have
gained
considerable
experience
in
conducting
use
attainability
analyses
since
the
finalization
of
the
revised
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
in
1983.
EPA
has
developed
a
series
of
guidance
documents
to
aid
the
States
in
performing
such
analyses.
The
actual
experience
of
the
State
form
the
primary
basis
of
the
burden
hours
estimated
in
this
ICR.
This
activity
is
water
quality
standards
related
and
is
in
addition
to
the
statutorily
mandated
triennial
review.
Such
review
of
the
standards
usually
includes
an
analysis
of
socioeconomic
impacts.
Under
the
provisions
of
the
Act,
such
an
impact
must
be
considered.
States
usually
review
their
standards
as
part
of
their
standards
review
process
(
addressed
in
burden
item
(
i));
however,
some
supplementary
review
time
might
be
devoted
to
certain
large
or
controversial
projects.
For
purposes
of
this
burden
calculation,
it
was
assumed
that
the
States
would
devote
some
supplementary
review
time
to
significant
or
controversial
UAAs.

(
ii)
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
15
Respondents
may
be
required
to
submit
a
variety
of
different
information
items
for
State,
Tribal,
or
subsequent
Federal
implementation
of
the
Guidance.
In
general,
respondent
activities
will
include
the
following:


Preparing
Basic
Information
­
This
includes
reading
instructions
or
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
­
Detailed
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
(
i)
State
and
Tribal
Review
Process
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.
Activities
associated
with
water
quality
standards
review
are
as
follows:

(
a)
Ongoing
activities
of
managing
the
various
aspects
of
the
water
quality
standards
program.
This
includes
the
transmission
of
policy
and
guidance
to
the
States
and
Tribes
as
well
as
assisting
States
and
Tribes
in
interpretation
and
implementation
of
new
as
well
as
existing
policies
and
initiatives.
Other
activities
include
the
coordination
activities
related
to
water
quality
standards
revisions
with
bordering
Regions
and
States
for
interstate
and
international
waters,
and
with
other
federal
agencies.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
16
(
b)
Activities
associated
with
the
review
for
approval
or
disapproval
of
State
or
Tribal
water
quality
standards
revisions.
The
standards
revisions
are
reviewed
for
consistency
with
the
CWA,
with
downstream
State's
or
Tribe's
water
quality
standards,
and
with
any
standards
for
international
waters.
The
activities
include:
review
for
approval
or
disapproval
of
State
and
Tribal
water
quality
standards
revisions,
promulgation
of
standards
when
a
State's
or
Tribe's
standards
are
disapproved,
and
withdrawal
of
Federal
standards
when
a
State
or
Tribe
corrects
its
standards.

(
ii)
Tribal
applications
to
administer
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Program
After
a
Tribe
submits
an
application
to
administer
a
water
quality
standards
program,
EPA
will
use
the
submitted
information
to
determine
if
the
Tribe
meets
the
statutory
criteria
under
CWA
Section
518(
e)
and
is
qualified
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program
information
submission
requirements.

(
iii)
State/
Tribal
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).

(
iv)
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
Specific
Guidance
program
elements
that
may
necessitate
EPA
review
include:
bioassays
to
support
the
development
of
water
quality
criteria,
antidegradation
demonstrations,
and
requests
for
regulatory
relief
(
e.
g.,
variances).

5.2
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY
AND
MANAGEMENT
States
and
Tribes
submit
their
revised
water
quality
standards
to
their
EPA
Regional
office,
where
the
submittals
are
reviewed
for
consistency
with
the
CWA,
with
downstream
State's
or
Tribe's
water
quality
standards,
and
with
any
standards
for
international
waters.
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
submittals
of
water
quality
standards
regulations,
Tribal
applications
for
the
water
quality
standards
program,
and
on
requests
for
implementing
the
dispute
resolution
mechanism
contained
in
the
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation.
EPA's
national
water
quality
program
provides
support
to
the
Regional
offices
in
the
review
of
these
submittals/
requests.
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/.

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
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
17
associated
with
implementation
of
the
Guidance
will
contain
unique
information,
and
because
permittees
submit
applications
only
once
every
5
years,
improved
information
technology
may
not
be
effective
in
further
reducing
respondent
burden.

5.3
COLLECTION
SCHEDULE
The
CWA
requires
States
and
Tribes
to
review
their
water
quality
standards
at
least
every
three
years
and
provide
the
results
to
EPA.
There
are
no
scheduling
requirements
for
Indian
Tribes
to
apply
for
authorization
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program
or
to
request
EPA
dispute
resolution.

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
EPA
has
estimated
the
total
respondent
burden
to
be
238,776
hours
annually.
Burden
hours
have
been
separated
into
the
following
categories:


State
and
Tribal
Review
Process
(
190,000
hours)


Tribal
Applications
to
Administer
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Program
(
200
hours)


State/
Tribal
Dispute
Resolution
Requests
(
80
hours)


Development
of
Water
Quality
Criteria
(
37,678
hours)


Antidegradation
Demonstration
(
2,508
hours)


Modification
and
Variance
from
Great
Lakes
Guidance
Provisions
(
8,310
hours)

(
i)
State
and
Tribal
Review
Process
The
CWA
and
EPA's
water
quality
standards
regulation
require
reporting
from
76
jurisdictions
 
50
States,
6
commonwealths
and
territories,
and
the
20
Indian
Tribes
that
have
received
EPA
authorization
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program
(
in
accordance
with
Section
518
of
the
Clean
Water
Act).

This
information
collection
request
is
for
three
years.
Because
of
the
methods
used
in
constructing
the
annual
estimated
burden,
EPA
believes
the
burden
estimated
will
be
approximately
the
same
for
each
of
the
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
has
discussed
the
requirements
and
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
18
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
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
(
see
Attachment
A).
The
total
annual
burden
hours
=
(
76
jurisdictions)*(
2,500
hours)
=
190,000
hours.

(
ii)
Tribal
Applications
to
Administer
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Program
For
Tribes
applying
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program,
the
following
assumptions
were
utilized:

(
a)
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.
This
assumption
is
conservative.
Current
practices
indicate
that
Tribes
are
much
more
likely
to
apply
for
treatment
as
a
State
for
purposes
of
the
Section
106
water
quality
management
grant
program
than
for
water
quality
standards.
This
means
that
Tribes
are
likely
to
have
an
opportunity
to
apply
under
the
Section
106
program
long
before
having
an
opportunity
to
apply
under
the
Section
303
water
quality
standards
program.

(
b)
5
Tribes
will
apply
to
administer
the
water
quality
standards
program
per
year.
This
assumption
is
based
upon
the
actual
pace
of
Tribal
submittal
of
applications
for
the
water
quality
standards
program.

(
c)
Each
Tribal
application
will
require
an
average
of
40
hours
to
complete.

Based
on
these
assumptions,
the
total
annual
burden
hours
for
Tribes
=
(
5
Tribes)*(
40
hours/
application)
=
200
hours.

(
iii)
State/
Tribal
Dispute
Resolution
Requests
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
three
Tribes/
States
will
request
a
formal
dispute
resolution
action
over
a
three
year
period
(
one
request
per
year).
The
estimated
hour
burden
to
a
Tribe
or
State
to
develop
a
dispute
resolution
request
is
80
hours.

(
iv)
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
Three
standards
burden
estimates
are
associated
with
the
Great
Lakes
Guidance:
1)
burden
associated
with
studies
to
support
the
development
of
water
quality
criteria,
2)
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
19
antidegradation
policy
burden,
and
3)
modification
and
variance
burden.

EPA
assumed
that
dischargers
will
conduct
bioassays
to
support
the
development
of
water
quality
criteria
for
three
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
for
a
total
discharger
burden
of
34,964
hours.
EPA
assumed
that
the
14
studies
to
support
the
development
of
water
quality
criteria
would
be
submitted
to
the
States
for
review,
resulting
in
14
State
responses.
EPA
estimated
the
State
application
burden
associated
with
review
and
data
collection
to
support
the
development
of
water
quality
criteria
to
be
2,714
hours.

An
antidegradation
demonstration
must
be
performed
to
confirm
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
76
demonstration
submissions
per
year.
The
permittee
burden
associated
with
antidegredation
demonstrations
=
(
76
demonstrations)*(
50
hours)
=
3,800
hours.
This
burden
estimate
is
split
equally
between
standards
and
permits.
The
burden
estimate
for
this
ICR
is
1,900
hours.

EPA
determined
that
it
would
take
a
State
about
two
days
(
16
hours)
to
review
an
antidegradation
demonstration.
Assuming
76
antidegradation
policy
demonstrations
will
be
submitted
annually,
the
State
applications
burden
=
(
76
demonstrations)*(
16
hours)
=
1,216
hours.
This
burden
estimate
is
split
equally
between
standards
and
permits.
The
burden
estimate
for
this
ICR
is
608
hours.

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
15,036
hours
to
complete.
This
burden
estimate
is
split
equally
between
standards
and
permits.
The
burden
estimate
for
this
ICR
is
7,518
hours.
EPA
estimated
the
State
government
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.
The
burden
estimate
for
this
ICR
is
792
hours.

6.2
ESTIMATING
RESPONDENT
COSTS
EPA
has
estimated
the
total
respondent
cost
to
be
$
7,047,495
annually.
Respondent
costs
are
based
on
labor
costs
as
these
regulations
do
not
involve
capital
or
operation/
maintenance
costs.
In
calculating
costs,
EPA
assumed
that
the
average
annual
salary
for
Federal
and
State
employees
is
$
48,652;
this
is
equivalent
to
the
salary
of
a
GS­
9,
Step
10
Federal
employee.
At
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
20
2,080
labor
hours
per
year,
the
hourly
rate
is
$
23.39.
Overhead
cost
for
Federal
and
State
employees
are
expected
to
be
60
percent,
or
$
14.03
per
hour,
yielding
a
total
hourly
rate
of
$
37.42.

(
i)
State
and
Tribal
Review
Process
S
Total
annual
cost
per
jurisdiction
=
(
2,500
hours/
year)/(
2,080
labor
hours/
year)*($
48,652/
year)
=
$
58,476
S
Total
annual
cost
=
(
76
jurisdictions)*($
58,476/
jurisdiction)
=
$
4,444,176
(
ii)
Tribal
Applications
to
Administer
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Program
S
Cost
per
application
=
(
40
hours/
application)*($
37.42/
hour)
=
$
1,497
S
Total
annual
cost
=
(
5
Tribes)*($
1,497/
application)
=
$
7,485
(
iii)
State/
Tribal
Dispute
Resolution
Requests
S
Cost
per
dispute
resolution
request
=
(
80
hours/
request)*($
37.42/
hour)
=
$
2,994
S
Total
annual
cost
=
(
1
request)*($
2,994/
request)
=
$
2,994
(
iv)
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
Cost
to
Dischargers
According
to
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor,
the
total
compensation
for
an
individual
working
in
a
professional
speciality
is
$
38.77
per
hour.
Assuming
a
67
percent
overhead
and
profit
rate,
the
total
private
sector
hourly
rate
is
$
64.74.

The
average
annual
salary
of
a
POTW
employee
is
equivalent
to
that
of
a
GS­
7,
Step
1
Federal
employee.
The
annual
salary
of
this
worker
is
$
30,597;
the
hourly
rate
is
$
14.71.
Assumed
overhead
costs
add
an
additional
50
percent
to
these
costs.
Thus,
the
average
cost
of
a
POTW
worker
is
$
45,895
per
year,
or
$
22.06
per
hour.

S
Bioassays
to
support
development
of
water
quality
criteria
S
Contractor
costs
=
(
34,204
hours)*($
64.74/
hour)
=
$
2,214,367
S
Discharger
costs
=
(
760
hours)*($
22.06/
hour)
=
$
16,766
S
Total
bioassay
costs
=
$
2,231,133
S
Antidegradation
demonstrations
=
(
1,900
hours/
demonstration)*($
22.06/
hour)
=
$
41,914
S
Regulatory
relief
requests
=
(
7,518
hours/
request)*($
22.06/
hour)
=
$
165,847
S
Total
annual
cost
to
dischargers
=
$
2,438,894
Cost
to
State
Governments
S
Review
of
water
quality
criteria
=
(
2,714
hours/
review)*($
37.42/
hour)
=
$
101,558
S
Review
of
antidegradation
demonstrations
=
(
608
hours/
review)*($
37.42/
hour)
=
$
22,751
S
Review
of
regulatory
relief
requests
=
(
792
hours/
review)*($
37.42/
hour)
=
$
29,637
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
21
S
Total
annual
cost
to
State
governments
=
$
101,558
+
$
22,751
+
$
29,637
=
$
153,946
(
v)
Total
respondent
costs
S
State
and
Tribal
review
($
4,444,176)
+
Tribal
applications
($
7,485)
+
dispute
resolution
requests
($
2,994)
+
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
($
2,592,840)
=
$
7,047,495.

6.3
ESTIMATING
AGENCY
BURDEN
AND
COST
Annual
costs
to
the
Federal
government
are
detailed
below.
All
estimates
assume
that
it
will
cost
EPA
$
37.42
per
hour
to
conduct
reviews.

(
i)
Review
of
State/
Tribal
Water
Quality
Standards
(
Triennial
Reviews)

Hours
for
review
of
State
standards:
(
18
State
submittals/
year)*(
400
hours/
submittal)
=
7,200
hours
Hours
for
review
of
Tribal
standards:
(
12
Tribal
submittals/
year)*(
120
hours/
submittal)
=
1,440
hours
Total
annual
hours
for
review
of
State/
Tribal
Triennial
Revisions
=
8,640
hours
Total
annual
costs
for
review
of
State/
Tribal
Triennial
Revisions:
(
8,640
hours)*($
37.42/
hour)
=
$
323,308
(
ii)
Review
of
State/
Tribal
Water
Quality
Standards
(
Submissions
other
than
Triennial
Reviews)

Hours
for
review
of
State
standards:
(
40
States
submittals/
year)*(
120
hours/
submittal)
=
4,800
hours
Hours
for
review
of
Tribal
standards:
(
6
Tribal
submittals/
year)*(
60
hours/
submittal)
=
360
hours
Total
annual
hours
for
review
of
State/
Tribal
Submissions
(
excluding
triennial
reviews)
=
5,160
hours
Total
annual
costs
for
review
of
State/
Tribal
submissions
(
excluding
triennial
reviews):

(
5,160
hours)*($
37.42/
hour)
=
$
193,087
(
iii)
Review
of
Tribal
Applications
to
Administer
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Program
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
22
Total
annual
hours
for
review
of
Tribal
applications:
(
5
Tribal
applications/
year)*(
160
hours/
per
application)
=
800
hours
Total
annual
costs
for
review
of
Tribal
applications:
(
800
hours/
year)*($
37.42/
hour)
=
$
29,936
(
iv)
Review
of
State/
Tribal
Dispute
Resolution
Requests
Total
annual
hours
for
review
of
dispute
resolution
requests:
(
1
request/
year)(
20
hours/
requests)
=
20
hours
Total
annual
costs
for
review
of
dispute
resolution
requests:
(
20
hours/
year)($
37.42
dollars/
hour)
=
$
748
(
v)
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
EPA
estimated
the
annual
Federal
government
burden
to
be
approximately
400
hours
and
cost
$
14,968
to
set­
up
and
maintain
the
water
quality
database
to
serve
as
the
Information
Clearinghouse.
EPA
estimated
little
additional
Federal
government
applications
burden
or
cost
because
all
the
Great
Lakes
States
are
delegated
NPDES
permitting
authorities.

(
vi)
Total
Agency
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Burden
Hours:
Review
of
State
and
Tribal
triennial
reviews
(
8,640)
+
Review
of
State
and
Tribal
standards
other
than
triennial
reviews
(
5,160)
+
Review
of
Tribal
applications
(
800)
+
Review
of
dispute
resolution
requests
(
20)
+
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
(
400)
=
15,020
burden
hours
Costs:
Review
of
State
and
Tribal
triennial
reviews
($
323,308)
+
Review
of
State
and
Tribal
standards
other
than
triennial
reviews
($
193,087)
+
Review
of
Tribal
applications
($
29,936)
+
Review
of
dispute
resolution
requests
($
748)
+
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
($
14,968)
=
$
562,047
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
23
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
State/
Tribal
Review
76
190,000
$
4,444,176
­
­
­
76
190,000
$
4,444,176
Tribal
Applications
to
Administer
Standards
Program
5
200
$
7,485
­
­
­
5
200
$
7,485
Dispute
Resolution
Requests
1
80
$
2,994
­
­
­
1
80
$
2,994
Great
Lakes
Guidance
108
4,114
$
153,946
108
44,382
$
2,438,894
216
48,496
$
2,592,840
Total
190
194,394
$
4,608,601
108
44,382
$
2,438,894
298
238,776
$
7,047,495
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
24
6.5
REASONS
FOR
CHANGE
IN
BURDEN
This
ICR
Supersedes
the
ICR
developed
in
1999
for
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation.
The
respondent
burden
has
increased
48,496
hours
due
to
the
addition
of
the
water
quality
standard
components
of
the
Great
Lakes
Water
Quality
Guidance
Reporting
Requirements
ICR
(
EPA
ICR
Number
1639.04,
OMB
Control
Number
2040­
0180).
The
NPDES
permitting
components
of
the
Great
Lakes
ICR
will
be
incorporated
into
one
or
more
NPDES
ICR(
s).
Thereupon,
the
Great
Lakes
ICR
will
be
withdrawn.
The
respondent
burden
was
reduced
56
hours
for
dispute
resolution
requests.
EPA
has
never
received
a
formal
dispute
resolution
request
from
a
State
or
Tribe,
therefore,
EPA
reduced
the
estimated
number
of
requests
from
1.7/
year
(
136
hours)
to
1/
year
(
80
hours).
Accordingly,
the
Agency
burden
was
reduced
14
hours
for
dispute
resolution
requests.

6.6
BURDEN
STATEMENT
The
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
801
hours
per
response
annually.
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.

Send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460;
and
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.
Include
the
EPA
ICR
number
0988.08
and
OMB
control
number
2040­
0049
in
any
correspondence.
Water
Quality
Standards
Regulation
ICR
25
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)
2,500
