Vol. 78 Tuesday, 

No. 146 July 30, 2013 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 122,123,127, et al. 

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46006 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 127, 403, 501, 

and 503 

[EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0274; FRL 9818–9] 

RIN 2020–AA47 

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a regulation 

that would require electronic reporting 

for current paper-based NPDES reports. 

This action will save time and resources 

for permittees, states, tribes, territories, 

and EPA while improving compliance 

and providing better protection of the 

Nation’s waters. The proposed Clean 

Water Act regulation would require 

permittees and regulators to use 

existing, available information 

technology to electronically report 

information and data related to the 

NPDES permit program in lieu of filing 

written reports. The proposal will also 

allow better allocation and use of 

limited program resources and enhance 

transparency and public accountability 

by providing regulatory agencies and 

the public with more timely, complete, 

accurate, and nationally-consistent sets 

of data about the NPDES program and 

potential sources of water pollution. 

The benefits of this proposed 

rulemaking should allow NPDESauthorized programs in states, tribes, 

and territories to shift precious 

resources from data management 

activities to those more targeted to 

solving water quality and 

noncompliance issues. This in turn may 

contribute to increased compliance, 

improved water quality, and a level 

playing field for the regulated 

community. 

Given the large scope of this proposal, 

EPA commits to offer an additional 

opportunity for transparency and 

engagement by publishing a 

supplemental notice should we receive 

comments on the proposed rule that 

require significant changes. States, 

tribes, territories, permittees, and other 

stakeholders can review and comment 

on the supplemental notice. EPA plans 

to publish the supplemental notice 

within 180 days after the public 

comment period for this proposed rule 

has closed. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received on or before 

October 28, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OECA–2009–0274 by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: docket.oeca@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OECA–2009–0274. 

• Mail: Send the original and three 

copies of your comments to: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Docket Center, Enforcement and 

Compliance Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OECA–2009– 

0274. In addition, if applicable, please 

mail a copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 

EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

• Hand Deliver: Deliver your 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC, 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0274. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

EPA Docket Center’s normal hours of 

operation and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OECA–2009– 

0274. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received by the deadline will be 

included in the public docket without 

charge, and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it within the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment, and, if applicable, with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters and any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, please visit 

the EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard-copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard-copy at 

the Enforcement and Compliance 

Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC, 20004. The 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 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the 

Docket for the Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is 

(202) 566–1752. Docket visitors are 

required to show photographic 

identification, pass through a metal 

detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. 

All visitor bags are processed through 

an X-ray machine and are subject to 

search. Visitors will be provided an EPA 

visitor’s badge that must be visible at all 

times in the building and returned upon 

departure. The ‘‘User Guide to the 

Docket for the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule [DCN 0010]’’ is 

document that provides easy to follow 

instructions on how to access 

documents through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information, please contact 

John Dombrowski, Director, 

Enforcement Targeting and Data 

Division, Office of Compliance (mail 

code 2222A), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 566–0742; email address: 

dombrowski.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

How is this document organized? 

The outline of this notice follows the 

following format: 

I. General Information 

II. Background 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46007 

III. Purpose and Needs 

IV. Discussion of Key Features of This Rule 

V. Matters for Which Comments Are Sought 

VI. Outreach 

VII. Non-Monetary Benefits and Economic 

Analysis 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act 

(CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Electronic Reporting Rule. The 

proposed rule would substitute 

electronic reporting for paper-based 

reports, and over the long term save 

time and resources for permittees, 

states, tribes, territories, and EPA while 

improving compliance and better 

protecting the Nation’s waters. The 

proposed rule would require permittees 

and regulators to use existing, available 

information technology to electronically 

report information and data related to 

the NPDES permit program in lieu of 

filing written reports. 

The purpose and need for the 

proposed rule was re-confirmed in the 

development of the Clean Water Act 

Action Plan. Announced by EPA 

Administrator Lisa Jackson in October 

2009, the Plan was a collaborative effort 

by EPA and state environmental 

agencies to explore opportunities to 

improve water quality by emphasizing 

and adopting new approaches that will 

improve how the NPDES permitting and 

enforcement program is administered. 

The goals of the Plan include improving 

transparency of the information on 

compliance and enforcement activities 

in each state, connecting this 

information to local water quality, and 

providing the public with real-time, 

easy access to this information. The 

proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting 

Rule would make achievement of these 

goals possible through the use of 

available technology to electronically 

report facility locational and operational 

data, and discharge, monitoring, 

compliance, and enforcement data. 

Historically, EPA and NPDESauthorized states have focused on the 

largest or ‘‘major’’ facilities as a way of 

prioritizing resources for permitting, 

enforcement and data reporting to EPA. 

Over time, there has been a growing 

recognition that other sources also 

impact water quality. Storm water 

discharges, concentrated animal feeding 

operations, mines, and raw sanitary 

sewage overflows are all significant 

contributors to water quality 

impairment but are not currently 

considered ‘‘major’’ facilities under the 

NPDES program. The proposed rule 

improves data quality for major and 

nonmajor facilities, thereby providing 

the states, tribes, territories, and EPA 

with more complete and comparable 

data on a substantial majority of NPDES 

permittees, and allowing targeted action 

to address the biggest water quality 

problems. 

EPA is proposing this rule under 

CWA sections 101(f), 304(i), 308, 402, 

and 501. EPA notes that the 

Congressional Declaration of goals and 

policy of the CWA specifies, in CWA 

section 101(f), ‘‘It is the national policy 

that to the maximum extent possible the 

procedures utilized for implementing 

this chapter shall encourage the drastic 

minimization of paperwork and 

interagency decision procedures, and 

the best use of available manpower and 

funds, so as to prevent needless 

duplication and unnecessary delays at 

all levels of government.’’ 

Implementation of information 

technology that is now a common part 

daily life is an important step toward 

reaching these aspirations for 

implementation of the CWA. EPA is 

proposing this rule under the authority 

of CWA section 304(i) that authorizes 

EPA to establish minimum procedural 

and other elements of State programs 

under section 402, including reporting 

requirements and procedures to make 

information available to the public. In 

addition, EPA is proposing this rule 

under section 308 of the CWA. Section 

308 of the CWA authorizes EPA to 

require information to carry out the 

objectives of the Act, including sections 

301, 305, 306, 307, 311, 402, 404, 405, 

and 504. Section 402 of the CWA 

establishes the NPDES permit program 

for the control of the discharge of 

pollutants into the nation’s waters. EPA 

is proposing this rule under CWA 

sections 402(b) and (c), which require 

each authorized state, tribe, or territory 

to ensure that permits meet certain 

substantive requirements, and provide 

EPA information from point sources, 

industrial users, and authorized 

programs in order to ensure proper 

oversight. Finally, EPA is proposing to 

issue this rule under the authority of 

section 501 of the Act, authorizing EPA 

to prescribe such regulations as are 

necessary to carry out provisions of the 

Act. 

2. Summary of the Major Provisions 

This proposed rule would require that 

reports submitted in writing now (i.e., 

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), 

Notices of Intent to discharge in 

compliance with a general permit, other 

general permit waivers, certifications, 

and notices of termination of coverage, 

and program reports) be submitted 

electronically by NPDES-permitted 

facilities to EPA through the National 

Environmental Information Exchange 

Network or to the authorized state, tribe, 

or territory NPDES program. 

Importantly, while the proposed rule 

changes the method by which 

information on NPDES notices of intent 

for coverage under general permits, 

facility discharges, monitoring of 

compliance, facility reports, and 

enforcement responses is provided (i.e., 

electronic rather than paper-based), it 

does not increase the amount of 

information required from NPDESpermitted facilities under existing 

regulations. 

States, tribes, and territories that are 

authorized to implement the NPDES 

program are the sources of certain key 

information regarding the regulated 

facilities. For example, states have 

facility information from NPDES permit 

applications, permit information 

including outfalls, limits, and permit 

conditions, compliance determination 

information including that from 

inspections, and enforcement response 

information. Under this regulation, 

NPDES permitting authorities are 

required to share this information 

electronically with EPA. 

To promote transparency and 

accountability, EPA intends to make 

this more complete set of data available 

to the public, providing communities 

and citizens with easily accessible 

information on facility and government 

performance. Such data provides a 

powerful incentive to improve 

performance by giving government, 

permittees, and the public ready access 

to compliance information. This can 

serve to elevate the importance of 

compliance information and 

environmental performance within 

regulated entities, providing 

opportunity for them to quickly address 

any noncompliance. It opens the 

opportunity for two-way 

communication between authorized 

NPDES programs or EPA and regulated 

facilities to immediately address data 

quality issues and to provide 

compliance assistance or take other 

action when potential problems are 

identified. Complete and accurate data 

also will allow EPA to compare 

performance across authorized 

programs. 

Key provisions of this proposed rule 

are identified in the implementation 

schedule in Table IV.3 of the preamble. 

These include the preliminary 

indication of the anticipated initial 

recipient of the NPDES program data, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46008 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

NPDES information submission from 

states, tribes, and territories regarding 

their implementation activities, program 

and permit changes, and NPDES 

information submission electronically 

from regulated facilities for their 

discharge monitoring reports, notices of 

intent, general permit waivers, 

certifications, or notices of termination, 

and program reports. 

Given the large scope of this proposal, 

EPA commits to offer an additional 

opportunity for transparency and 

engagement by publishing a 

supplemental notice should we receive 

comments on the proposed rule that 

require significant changes. EPA plans 

to publish the supplemental notice 

within 180 days after the public 

comment period for this proposed rule 

has closed. 

3. Costs and Benefits 

To fully implement this regulation, 

there will be initial investment costs 

associated with needed changes to 

information technology and 

infrastructure. EPA plans to develop 

NPDES electronic reporting tools, or 

states may choose to devote their 

resources to develop their own such 

tools while meeting the regulatory 

requirements of 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 

122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. EPA is 

committed to working with the states, 

tribes, and territories to develop their 

electronic databases and capabilities in 

a cost-effective manner. 

The cost of implementing the 

proposed rule in the first four years after 

the effective date is approximately $50.6 

million. The cost is estimated to drop to 

$2.9 million per year after that time 

period, when all regulated facilities will 

be converted to electronic reporting. 

However, two years after rule 

promulgation, annual savings greatly 

outweigh annual costs, by 

approximately $29 million per year. 

EPA anticipates that the proposed 

rule will save money for states, tribes, 

and territories as well as EPA and 

NPDES permittees, while resulting in a 

more complete, accurate, and 

nationally-consistent set of data about 

the NPDES program. By the fifth year of 

implementation, the anticipated savings 

for the states is $28.9 million annually; 

for the permittees, $1.2 million 

annually; and for EPA, $0.7 million 

annually. 

The electronic submittal of data may 

result in improved water quality and 

will result in significant cost savings for 

the states, as well as savings for the 

permittees, tribes and EPA, when the 

rule is fully implemented. The proposal 

will also reduce the reporting burden 

currently borne by the states, improve 

overall facility compliance, allow better 

allocation and use of limited program 

resources, and enhance transparency 

and public accountability by providing 

the public with timely information on 

potential sources of water pollution. 

Other anticipated benefits for the 

proposed rule include efficiencies and 

reduced costs of processing paper forms, 

improved quality and accuracy of the 

data available to regulatory agencies and 

the public, more timely and expanded 

use of the data to identify, target, and 

address problems, quicker availability of 

the data for use, and increased 

accessibility and transparency of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30JY13.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46009 

data to the public. These benefits should 

allow NPDES-authorized programs in 

states, tribes, and territories to shift 

precious resources from data 

management activities to those more 

targeted to solving water quality and 

noncompliance issues. This in turn may 

contribute to increased compliance, 

improved water quality, and a level 

playing field for the regulated 

community. 

The proposed rule will also lighten 

the reporting burden currently placed 

on the states. Upon successful 

implementation, the proposed rule 

would provide states with regulatory 

relief from reporting associated with the 

Quarterly Non-Compliance Report 

(QNCR), the Annual Non-Compliance 

Report (ANCR), the Semi-Annual 

Statistical Summary Report, and the 

biosolids information required to be 

submitted to EPA annually by states. 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action would include all NPDESpermitted facilities, whether covered by 

an individually-issued permit or by a 

general permit, industrial users located 

in cities without approved local 

pretreatment programs, and 

governmental entities that have received 

NPDES program authorization or are 

implementing portions of the NPDES 

program in a cooperative agreement 

with EPA. These entities would include: 

Category Examples of regulated entities 

NPDES-permitted facilities ....................................................................... Publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) facilities, treatment works 

treating domestic sewage (TWTDS), municipalities, counties, 

stormwater management districts, state-operated facilities, Federallyoperated facilities, industrial facilities, construction sites, and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). 

Facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits .................... Stormwater management districts, construction sites, CAFOs, publiclyowned treatment works (POTW), treatment works treating domestic 

sewage (TWTDS), municipalities, counties, stormwater management 

districts, and state-operated facilities. 

Industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment 

programs.

Industrial facilities discharging to POTWs and for which the designated 

pretreatment Control Authority is EPA or the authorized state, tribe, 

or territory rather than an approved local pretreatment program. 

State and territorial government ............................................................... States and territories that have received NPDES program authorization 

from EPA, that are implementing portions of the NPDES program in 

a cooperative agreement with EPA, or that operate NPDES-permitted facilities. 

Tribal government ..................................................................................... Tribes that have received NPDES program authorization from EPA, 

that are implementing portions of the NPDES program in a cooperative agreement with EPA, or that operate NPDES-permitted facilities. 

Federal government ................................................................................. Federal facilities with a NPDES permit and EPA Regional Offices acting for those states, tribes, and territories that do not have NPDES 

program authorization or that do not have program authorization for 

a particular NPDES subprogram (e.g., biosolids or pretreatment). 

This table is not intended to be an 

exhaustive list, but rather provides 

readers with some examples of the types 

of entities likely to be regulated by this 

action. Other types of entities not listed 

in this table may also be regulated. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

comments for EPA? 

You may find the following 

suggestions helpful when preparing 

your comments to EPA on this preamble 

and proposed rule: 

• To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

identify the appropriate docket 

identification number (found in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register notice) in the subject line on 

the first page of your comments or 

response. 

• To help ensure that your 

submission is routed correctly, on the 

first page of your submission, provide 

the name of the proposed rule; date of 

the Federal Register notice; and the 

Federal Register citation (e.g., ___ 

[volume number] FR ___ [page number]) 

related to your comments or response. 

• Clearly identify those sections of 

the preamble or the proposed rule on 

which you are commenting. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

and explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

• Describe clearly any assumptions 

that you used as a basis for your 

comments. 

• Provide any technical information 

and/or data that you used to support 

your views. 

• If you provide any estimate of 

potential economic burdens or costs, 

please carefully consider the 

information provided in the preamble to 

this proposed rule, particularly in 

Sections VII (Non-Monetary Benefits 

and Economic Analysis), VIII.A 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), 

VIII.C (Regulatory Flexibility Act), and 

IV.D (Data Considerations), and provide 

detailed explanations of how you 

arrived at your estimate. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your comments or concerns. 

• Clearly identify preferred options 

and, if applicable, offer feasible 

alternatives that will effectively meet 

the same goals. 

Submit your comments as directed in 

the Addresses section of this Federal 

Register notice before the comment 

period deadline identified in the DATES

section of this notice. 

II. Background 

A. Definitions 

Approval Authority: The Approval 

Authority is responsible for authorizing 

and overseeing approved local 

pretreatment programs and is defined in 

40 CFR 403.3(c) as the: ‘‘Director in an 

NPDES State with an approved State 

pretreatment program and the 

appropriate Regional Administrator in a 

non-NPDES State or NPDES State 

without an approved State pretreatment 

program.’’ 

Authorized state, tribe, or territory: 

Authorized states, tribes, and territories 

(‘‘authorized states’’ or ‘‘authorized 

programs’’) are governmental entities 

that have applied for and received 

authorization from EPA to issue 

permits, implement, and enforce the 

NPDES program. EPA authorizes state, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46010 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

tribal, or territorial NPDES programs to 

administer NPDES programs under 

state, tribal, or territorial law after EPA 

determines that the state, tribal, or 

territorial program meets the 

requirements of CWA section 402(b) and 

conforms with NPDES program 

regulations at 40 CFR part 123 issued by 

EPA under CWA section 304(i)(2). Some 

states are authorized to implement the 

basic NPDES program but have not 

received authorization to implement 

other NPDES subprograms (e.g., 

pretreatment, biosolids programs). See 

the following EPA Web page for a listing 

of authorized NPDES programs: http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestribes/ 

astatus.cfm. 

Batch data entry: The electronic 

transfer of large amounts of data from 

one location (such as a state database) 

to another data system in a format 

compatible with the recipient data 

system. In more technical terminology 

as it applies to this proposed rule, batch 

data entry in the NPDES part of the 

Integrated Compliance System (ICIS– 

NPDES) is the transmission of 

eXtensible Markup Language (XML) 

data files through a Central Data 

Exchange (CDX). In the Permit 

Compliance System (PCS), defined 

below, batch data entry occurred via 

upload of fixed format data files to the 

mainframe. 

Biosolids: The organic materials 

(sewage sludge) resulting as a byproduct 

from the treatment of domestic and 

industrial sewage in a municipal 

wastewater treatment facility. Sewage 

sludge is defined in more detail at 40 

CFR 503.9(w). As defined in the NPDES 

program, the relevant biosolids (sewage 

sludge) regulations are contained in 40 

CFR part 501 (State Sludge Management 

Program Regulations) and in 40 CFR 

part 503 (Standards for the Use or 

Disposal of Sewage Sludge). The key 

NPDES-permitted facilities covered 

under the biosolids requirements are 

generally referred to as Treatment 

Works Treating Domestic Sewage 

(TWTDS). 

Category I noncompliance: Under 40 

CFR 123.45 (a)(2)(ii), the following 

instances of noncompliance by major 

dischargers are considered Category I 

noncompliance: (1) Violations of 

conditions in enforcement orders 

(except compliance schedules and 

reports); (2) violations of compliance 

schedule milestones for starting 

construction, completing construction, 

and attaining final compliance by 90 

days or more from the date of the 

milestone specified in an enforcement 

order or a permit; (3) violations of 

permit effluent limits that exceed those 

specified in Appendix A to 40 CFR 

123.45 ‘‘Criteria for Noncompliance 

Reporting in the NPDES Program;’’ and 

(4) failure to provide a compliance 

schedule report for final compliance or 

a monitoring report. 

Combined sewer overflow (CSO): This 

is a discharge from a combined sewer 

system at a point prior to the POTW [as 

defined in 40 CFR 403.3(p)]. CSOs are 

point sources subject to NPDES permit 

requirements including both 

technology-based and water-qualitybased requirements of the CWA. CSOs 

are sewage overflows from sewer 

systems otherwise conveying domestic 

waste, industrial waste, debris, and 

stormwater to the municipal wastewater 

treatment plant for treatment. During 

periods of heavy rainfall or snowmelt, 

these combined sewer systems (CSSs), 

numbering fewer than 800 in the nation, 

can overflow at various points in the 

sewage system, discharging a 

combination of untreated sewage, 

industrial waste, and stormwater into 

nearby water bodies. 

Control Authority: The Control 

Authority is responsible for overseeing 

compliance by Industrial Users of 

municipal sewer systems and is defined 

in 40 CFR 403.3(f) as the POTW if the 

POTW’s Pretreatment Program 

Submission has been approved in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 403.11; or the Approval Authority if 

the Submission has not been approved. 

Core data: The subgroup of critical, 

and therefore required, NPDES 

information associated with facility, 

permit, compliance monitoring, and 

enforcement data types common to all 

NPDES-regulated facilities. Other ‘‘noncore’’ information specific to NPDES 

subprograms (such as concentrated 

animal feeding operations, stormwater, 

biosolids, pretreatment, sewer 

overflows, etc.) would also be required 

to be submitted electronically under the 

proposed rule. 

Data element: A specific field or 

column where data is entered into the 

national NPDES data systems, ICIS– 

NPDES, or PCS. For example, the 

NPDES permit number is a data 

element. 

Direct data entry: Entry of data by use 

of a keyboard into a recipient data 

system. For example, when a state or 

EPA regional office uses PCS or ICIS– 

NPDES as its primary NPDES program 

management system, employees enter 

data directly into that data system. 

Direct user state: An authorized state 

which uses or will be using ICIS– 

NPDES to manage the NPDES program 

rather than using a state-designed data 

system. Direct users enter data into 

ICIS–NPDES using their computer 

keyboard and a web browser. All states 

that had formerly been direct users of 

PCS have had their data migrated to 

ICIS–NPDES. 

Director: This term generally refers to 

the NPDES permitting authority. As 

defined in 40 CFR 122.2, ‘‘the Regional 

Administrator or the State Director, as 

the context requires, or an authorized 

representative’’ (additional 

circumstances are also described in that 

definition). As defined in 40 CFR 

403.3(g), ‘‘the term Director means the 

chief administrative officer of a State or 

Interstate water pollution control agency 

with an NPDES permit program 

approved pursuant to section 402(b) of 

the Act and an approved State 

pretreatment program.’’ 

Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR): 

As defined in 40 CFR 122.2, a Discharge 

Monitoring Report ‘‘means the EPA 

uniform national form, including any 

subsequent additions, revisions, or 

modifications for the reporting of selfmonitoring results by permittees.’’ The 

term ‘‘eDMR’’ refers to a DMR that is 

electronically submitted by a NPDESregulated facility. 

Effluent limitation: Defined in 40 CFR 

122.2 and CWA section 502(11) as ‘‘any 

restriction imposed by the Director on 

quantities, discharge rates, and 

concentrations of pollutants which are 

discharged from point sources into 

waters of the United States, the waters 

of the contiguous zone, or the ocean.’’ 

ICIS–NPDES: The Integrated 

Compliance Information System for the 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System program (ICIS– 

NPDES) is one of EPA’s two existing 

NPDES national data systems, designed 

as an effort to modernize and eventually 

replace its predecessor system, the 

Permit Compliance System (PCS). The 

ICIS–NPDES system is currently 

operational and, as of December 2012, 

contains NPDES information for all 50 

states, 10 EPA regions, 19 territories, 

and 2 tribes. All States have had their 

NPDES data migrated from PCS into 

ICIS–NPDES. EPA plans to 

decommission PCS by the third quarter 

of the federal fiscal year 2013 (April– 

June 2013). 

Major facility: According to the 

definition at 40 CFR 122.2, a major 

facility means ‘‘any NPDES ‘facility or 

activity’ classified as such by the 

Regional Administrator, or, in the case 

of ‘approved State programs,’ the 

Regional Administrator in conjunction 

with the State Director.’’ For a 

municipal facility, a major facility has a 

design flow of 1 million gallons per day 

or more, a service population of 10,000 

or greater, or a significant impact on 

water quality; industrial facilities are 

considered major facilities based on a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46011 

rating system that allocates points 

against various factors including flow, 

pollutant loadings, and water quality 

factors. 

NetDMR: A nationally-available 

electronic reporting tool, initially 

designed by states and later adapted for 

national use by EPA, which can be used 

by NPDES-regulated facilities to submit 

discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) 

electronically to EPA through a secure 

Internet application over the National 

Environmental Information Exchange 

Network (NEIEN). EPA can then share 

this information with authorized states, 

tribes, and territories. 

Non-direct user state: An authorized 

state that uses a software system other 

than ICIS–NPDES to manage the NPDES 

program. These states also submit data 

to ICIS–NPDES to satisfy national 

reporting responsibilities. These users 

are expected to rely heavily on 

electronic transfer (batch) using EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) and the 

NEIEN to submit information to EPA 

from an existing state data system. 

Nonmajor facility: A facility in the 

universe of facilities regulated under the 

NPDES program that does not fall under 

the definition of ‘‘major facilities.’’ 

Nonmajor facilities may also be referred 

to as minor facilities. 

NPDES: The National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System program. 

According to the definition at 40 CFR 

122.2 and CWA section 402, this is ‘‘the 

national program for issuing, modifying, 

revoking and reissuing, terminating, 

monitoring and enforcing permits, and 

imposing and enforcing pretreatment 

requirements . . . .’’ Under this system, 

wastewater dischargers must apply to 

the permitting authority (i.e., EPA or 

authorized states, tribes, or territories) 

for a permit to discharge pollutants to 

U.S. waters; these permits contain 

specific conditions, reporting 

requirements, and possibly monitoring 

requirements and applicable numeric or 

non-numeric limits for particular 

pollutants. 

Permit Compliance System (PCS): PCS 

was EPA’s NPDES national data system 

from 1982 to December 2012. NPDES 

program data for all 50 states, 10 EPA 

Regions, 19 territories, and 2 tribes is 

now available in EPA’s newer NPDES 

national data system, ICIS–NPDES. EPA 

plans to decommission PCS by the third 

quarter of the federal fiscal year 2013 

(April–June 2013). 

Permit component: A group of ICIS– 

NPDES data elements which are specific 

to a permit for a particular type of 

facility or NPDES subprogram [e.g., 

CAFOs, pretreatment, CSOs, Sanitary 

Sewer Overflows (SSOs), biosolids, or 

municipal separate storm sewer systems 

(MS4s)]. For example, for a permitted 

facility that is a concentrated animal 

feeding operation (CAFO), the permit 

component would be a CAFO and 

would include several permit data 

elements specific to CAFOs, such as the 

type and number of animals at the 

facility. 

Point source: According to the 

definition at 40 CFR 122.2 and CWA 

section 502(14), any discernible, 

confined and discrete conveyance, 

including but not limited to any pipe, 

ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, 

discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, 

concentrated animal feeding operation, 

vessel, or other floating craft from which 

pollutants are or may be discharged. 

This term does not include agricultural 

stormwater discharges and return flows 

from irrigated agriculture. 

Pretreatment: The National 

Pretreatment Program requires 

industrial and commercial dischargers 

to treat or otherwise control the 

pollutant levels in their wastewater 

prior to their discharge, usually to a 

POTW or discharge to treatment works 

treating domestic sewage (TWTDS). 

Pretreatment, as defined by 40 CFR 

403.3(q), ‘‘means the reduction of the 

amount of pollutants, or the alteration of 

the nature of pollutant properties in 

wastewater prior to or in lieu of 

discharging or otherwise introducing 

such pollutants into a POTW.’’ Sewage 

Sludge: Under CWA section 405 and 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 503.9(w), 

sewage sludge means any solid, semisolid, or liquid residue generated during 

the treatment of domestic sewage in a 

treatment works. Sewage sludge 

includes, but is not limited to, solids 

removed during primary, secondary, or 

advanced wastewater treatment, scum, 

septage, portable toilet pumpings, Type 

III Marine Sanitation device pumpings 

(33 CFR part 59), and material derived 

from sewage sludge. Sewage sludge does 

not include ash generated during the 

incineration of sewage sludge or grit and 

screenings generated during preliminary 

treatment of domestic sewage in a 

treatment works. 

Single event violation: A violation of 

an NPDES permit or regulatory 

requirement that is observed or 

determined by the regulatory authority, 

and is distinct from violations that are 

identified by the data system through 

comparison of information. Examples of 

single event violations include an 

unauthorized bypass or discharge, a 

violation detected during an inspection, 

a narrative requirement of the permit 

not met but reported on a DMR, or a 

pretreatment implementation violation. 

Note: Effluent limit violations identified 

from DMR submission or compliance 

schedule violations could be examples 

of system-identified violations, as 

opposed to single event violations. 

System-required data: Key data that 

must be entered into PCS or ICIS– 

NPDES in order to submit additional 

information, create a record, or proceed 

to the next data entry screen. 

Treatment works treating domestic 

sewage (TWTDS): TWTDSs include 

POTWs that discharge to surface waters 

and ‘‘sludge-only’’ facilities. ‘‘Sludgeonly’’ facilities include POTWs that do 

not discharge their effluent stream to 

surface waters, but which do in many 

cases receive discharges from industrial 

users and other sewage sludge 

preparers, such as composting 

operations, which do not produce an 

effluent stream. 

Wet weather point sources: Point 

sources that discharge as a result of 

precipitation events, such as rainfall or 

snowmelt. Wet weather point sources 

include stormwater discharges from 

industrial and municipal sites, 

discharges from CAFOs, bypasses, and 

overflows from CSSs and sanitary sewer 

systems (SSSs). 

B. Acronyms 

ACWA Association of Clean Water 

Administrators [formerly known as 

Association of Water Pollution 

Control Administrators (ASIWPCA)] 

ANCR Annual Noncompliance Report 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operation 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGP Construction General Permit 

CMS Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

(October 17, 2007) 

CROMERR Cross-Media Electronic 

Reporting Regulation 

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow 

CSS Combined Sewer System 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DMR Discharge Monitoring Report 

ECHO Enforcement and Compliance 

History Online 

ECOS Environmental Council of the 

States 

eDMR Electronic Discharge Monitoring 

Report 

EMS Enforcement Management 

System 

ENLC Exchange Network Leadership 

Council 

eNOI Electronic Notice of Intent 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, or Clean Water Act 

FY Fiscal Year (Federal) 

ICIS Integrated Compliance 

Information System 

ICR Information Collection Request 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46012 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1See 50 FR 34649. 

IU Industrial User 

LEW Low Erosivity Waiver 

MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit 

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

System 

NEC No Exposure Certification 

NEIEN National Environmental 

Information Exchange Network 

NetDMR Net-based Discharge 

Monitoring Report 

NNCR NPDES Noncompliance Report 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

OECA EPA’s Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance 

OMB Office of Management and 

Budget 

PCS Permit Compliance System 

PIN Personal Identification Number 

POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment 

Works 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

QA/QC Quality Assurance, Quality 

Control 

QNCR Quarterly Noncompliance 

Report 

RNC Reportable Noncompliance 

(according to EPA policy and 

guidance) 

SEV Single Event Violation 

SNC Significant Noncompliance 

(according to EPA policy and 

guidance) 

SSL Secure Socket Layer 

SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow 

SSS Sanitary Sewer System 

TLS Transport Layer Security 

TWTDS Treatment Works Treating 

Domestic Sewage 

VGP Vessel General Permit 

WENDB Water Enforcement National 

Data Base 

XML eXtensible Markup Language 

C. The Clean Water Act 

The 1948 Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (FWPCA) and subsequent 

amendments are now commonly 

referred to as the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). The CWA establishes a 

comprehensive program for protecting 

and restoring our nation’s waters. The 

CWA established the national pollutant 

discharge elimination system (NPDES) 

permit program to authorize and control 

the discharges of pollutants to waters of 

the United States (CWA section 402(a)). 

This proposed electronic reporting rule, 

which is intended to reduce resource 

burdens associated with the paper-based 

system and increase the speed, quality, 

and scope of information received by 

EPA, the states, tribes, territories, and 

the public, echoes the goals of CWA 

section 101(f). 

EPA is proposing this rule under 

CWA sections 101(f), 304(i), 308, 402, 

and 501. EPA notes that the 

Congressional Declaration of goals and 

policy of the CWA specifies, in CWA 

section 101(f), ‘‘It is the national policy 

that to the maximum extent possible the 

procedures utilized for implementing 

this chapter shall encourage the drastic 

minimization of paperwork and 

interagency decision procedures, and 

the best use of available manpower and 

funds, so as to prevent needless 

duplication and unnecessary delays at 

all levels of government.’’ 

Implementation of information 

technology that is now a common part 

daily life is an important step toward 

reaching these aspirations for 

implementation of the CWA. EPA is 

proposing this rule under the authority 

of CWA section 304(i) that authorizes 

EPA to establish minimum procedural 

and other elements of State programs 

under section 402, including reporting 

requirements and procedures to make 

information available to the public. In 

addition, EPA is proposing this rule 

under section 308 of the CWA. Section 

308 of the CWA authorizes EPA to 

require information to carry out the 

objectives of the Act, including sections 

301, 305, 306, 307, 311, 402, 404, 405, 

and 504. Section 402 of the CWA 

establishes the NPDES permit program 

for the control of the discharge of 

pollutants into the nation’s waters. EPA 

is proposing this rule under CWA 

sections 402(b) and (c), which require 

each authorized state, tribe, or territory 

to ensure that permits meet certain 

substantive requirements, and provide 

EPA information from point sources, 

industrial users, and the authorized 

program in order to ensure proper 

oversight. Finally, EPA is proposing to 

issue this rule under the authority of 

section 501 of the Act, authorizing EPA 

to prescribe such regulations as are 

necessary to carry out provisions of the 

Act. 

D. National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

As authorized by the Clean Water Act, 

the NPDES permit program protects the 

nation’s waters by controlling the 

discharge of pollutants into waters of 

the United States. Such discharges are 

illegal unless authorized by an NPDES 

permit. NPDES permits may be issued 

by EPA or by a state, tribe, or territory 

authorized by EPA to implement the 

NPDES program. As of October 1, 2011, 

EPA has authorized 46 states and the 

Virgin Islands to implement the basic 

NPDES program as well as the general 

permits program; as of that same date, 

no tribe was currently authorized to 

implement the NPDES program. There 

are several subprograms of the NPDES 

program that states, tribes, and 

territories may also receive 

authorization from EPA to administer, 

including the pretreatment and the 

biosolids programs. As of October 1, 

2011, 36 states are authorized to 

implement the pretreatment program 

and eight states are authorized to 

implement the biosolids program as part 

of the NPDES program. 

NPDES permit authorization to 

discharge may be provided under an 

individual NPDES permit, which is 

developed after a process initiated by 

the facility submission of a permit 

application (40 CFR 122.21), or under a 

general NPDES permit (e.g., most oil 

and gas extraction facilities, most 

seafood processors). See 40 CFR 

122.28(a)(2). Authorization to discharge 

under a general NPDES permit typically 

occurs following the submission of a 

‘‘notice of intent’’ (NOI) by the facility 

seeking authorization to discharge 

under the permit (40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)) 

and approval of that NOI by the 

permitting authority. Submission of a 

notice of intent is not required for 

specified types of discharges under 

certain circumstances (40 CFR 

122.28(b)(2)(v)). Approximately 95 

percent of NPDES-permitted sources are 

regulated under general permits. 

EPA has developed criteria to 

determine which sources should be 

considered ‘‘major’’ facilities. The 

distinction was made initially to assist 

EPA, states, tribes, and territories in 

setting priorities for permitting, 

compliance, and enforcement activities. 

Historically, EPA has placed greater 

priority on major facilities and has 

required NPDES-authorized states, 

tribes, and territories to provide more 

information about these dischargers. 

The existing regulations establish 

annual, semi-annual, and quarterly 

reporting requirements (some of which 

focused on major facilities) that organize 

violation information, thus facilitating 

EPA’s assessment of the effectiveness of 

authorized programs and EPA regional 

program activities (e.g., permitting, 

compliance monitoring, and 

enforcement). This information has 

guided EPA in the management and 

oversight of program activities.1 For 

more background information regarding 

the NPDES program, see DCN 0005. 

E. Evolution of the NPDES Program 

In order to support development of 

appropriate permit limits and 

conditions, issuance of effective 

permits, compliance monitoring, and 

appropriate enforcement actions, EPA 

has developed policies, guidance, 

requirements, and expectations to track, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46013 

2The link provides access to the 2004 Water 

Quality Report to Congress, which was the last 

hard-copy version of this report. Since 2004 these 

data are made directly via the ATTAINS database 

(link provided at site below). The ATTAINS 

database provides state information showing the 

water quality impairments and the likely causes of 

impairments. In particular, ‘‘Urban-Related Runoff/ 

Stormwater’’ ranks high among the list of 

impairment causes. See: http://ofmpub.epa.gov/ 

waters10/attains_nation_cy.control 

measure, evaluate, and report on these 

efforts on a nationwide basis. Over the 

past 25 years, these efforts, focused 

primarily on major facilities, to establish 

significant pollutant controls have 

resulted in important pollutant 

discharge reductions from traditional 

major sources. 

Although large municipal and 

industrial point sources continue to be 

significant sources of pollution, NPDES 

permits of smaller sources show that 

these point sources also contribute 

significant amounts of pollutants to our 

nation’s waters. About 29,000 nonmajor 

facilities have individual permits which 

have requirements similar to the permits 

for major facilities. As the 

understanding of water quality issues 

has grown, the universe of regulated 

nonmajor sources has also expanded. In 

order to efficiently manage the growing 

universe of regulated facilities, smaller 

sources are often regulated under 

general permits rather than individual 

permits. In many cases, nonmajor 

facilities use pollutant control measures 

based on best management practices in 

operational activities rather than on 

implementation of pollutant control 

technologies, which are measured with 

numeric effluent limits on pollutant 

discharges. Several hundred thousand 

nonmajor facilities are covered by 

NPDES general permits; therefore, the 

number of nonmajor dischargers 

covered by general permits is very large 

compared to the number of major or 

nonmajor dischargers covered by 

individual permits. The universe of 

nonmajor dischargers also includes 

some large volume dischargers (e.g., 

MS4s) that had not previously been 

regulated with the same types of 

individual permits used to regulate 

discharges from major facilities. 

The most recent state water quality 

assessment reports submitted under 

CWA section 305(b) and compiled by 

EPA in the National Water Quality 

Inventory Reports indicate the growing 

significance and link between nonmajor 

sources and impairments in water 

quality of U.S. waters, particularly from 

precipitation-induced or ‘‘wet-weather’’ 

point sources of pollutants.2 These 

sources include discharges of 

stormwater associated with 

construction, concentrated animal 

feeding operations (CAFOs), and 

overflows from combined sewer systems 

(CSSs) and sanitary sewer systems 

(SSSs). Stormwater discharges include a 

variety of pollutants, such as sediment, 

oil and grease, chemicals, nutrients, 

metals, and bacteria. Discharges from 

CAFOs often include bacteria, nutrients, 

organic matter, pathogens, and trace 

metals. Overflows from combined and 

separate sanitary sewer systems pose a 

significant threat to public health and 

the environment due to high 

concentrations of bacteria from fecal 

contamination, as well as diseasecausing pathogens. The pollution 

controls for wet-weather sources are 

often best management practices (BMPs) 

rather than traditional end-of-pipe 

controls. These wet-weather sources are 

high priorities for the enforcement and 

compliance programs of EPA, states, 

tribes, and territories and have been for 

over a decade. 

In the past, states, tribes, and 

territories were not generally required to 

consistently report information to EPA 

on most wet-weather sources. Therefore, 

EPA and the public do not currently 

have complete information on these 

additional sources of pollution. 

Electronic reporting provides an 

efficient and cost-effective solution to 

the problem of gaining access to this 

data, and assists EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories in focusing their limited 

resources on significant water pollution 

sources and serious violations, whether 

from major or nonmajor facilities. 

F. Existing NPDES Program 

Requirements and Expectations of the 

States, Territories, Tribes, and NPDESregulated Facilities 

In the context of developing this 

proposed rule, EPA has reviewed the 

existing NPDES program reporting 

requirements and expectations (as 

identified in existing statutes, 

regulations, policy documents, and 

guidance documents) as they apply to 

states, tribes, and territories, and 

NPDES-regulated facilities. For a 

detailed description of these reporting 

requirements and expectations, see DCN 

0006 and DCN 0007. 

G. National NPDES Data Systems: PCS 

and ICIS–NPDES 

Historically, EPA has used the Permit 

Compliance System (PCS), a national 

data system developed in 1982, to 

support the NPDES program. As of 

December 2012, all States have had their 

NPDES data migrated from PCS into 

ICIS–NPDES, the updated replacement 

NPDES data system for PCS. EPA plans 

to decommission PCS by the third 

quarter of the federal fiscal year 2013 

(April–June 2013). 

The Integrated Compliance 

Information System (ICIS) serves as the 

repository for multi-media facility, 

compliance, and enforcement data at the 

federal level. ICIS–NPDES is the 

incorporation of NPDES programspecific requirements into ICIS. ICIS– 

NPDES ensures that the NPDES 

information regarding major facilities 

remains available, accessible, and in a 

nationally consistent format for 

analyses. ICIS–NPDES also provides 

means to track and access nonmajor 

NPDES information that was not 

historically available in PCS 

(particularly regarding various NPDES 

subprograms). For more background 

information regarding PCS and ICIS– 

NPDES, see DCN 0008. As of December 

2012, ICIS–NPDES contains NPDES 

information for all 50 states, 10 EPA 

regions, 19 territories, and 2 tribes. 

III. Purpose and Needs 

A. Purpose: what would this proposed 

rule do? 

On October 15, 2009, EPA 

Administrator Lisa Jackson announced 

an action plan focused on the 

revitalization of the Clean Water Act 

NPDES program, with an emphasis on 

compliance and enforcement (‘‘U.S. 

EPA Administrator Jackson Takes New 

Steps to Improve Water Quality,’’ DCN 

0009). The goals of this Clean Water Act 

Action Plan include: 

• Raising the bar for Clean Water Act 

enforcement performance and ensuring 

a focus on the most significant sources 

and the most serious violators 

threatening water quality; 

• Improving performance in 

authorized states and EPA where EPA is 

the permitting authority; 

• Improving and enhancing the 

information available on the EPA Web 

site regarding compliance and 

enforcement activities in each state, 

tribe, and territory, showing 

connections to local water quality where 

possible; and 

• Providing public access to 

information in a user-friendly format 

that is easily understandable and 

useable. See DCN 0042. 

Historically, EPA has relied on its 

EPA regional offices and authorized 

NPDES programs in states, tribes, and 

territories to submit the information in 

EPA’s national NPDES data systems. As 

currently drafted, and subject to public 

comment, this proposed rule would 

require, under the authority of sections 

304(i), 308, and 402 of the CWA, that 

the unique source of the NPDES 

information electronically submit the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46014 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

information identified in Appendix A to 

40 CFR part 127 to EPA or the 

authorized NPDES program. 

Accordingly, as the unique source of 

DMRs, NOIs, and program reports, for 

example, NPDES-regulated facilities 

would be required to electronically 

submit this information to EPA or 

authorized NPDES programs. As 

reflected in this proposed rule, EPA is 

considering requiring authorized states, 

tribes, and territories to electronically 

submit information regarding NPDES 

implementation such as permit 

issuance, inspections, violation 

determinations, and enforcement 

through the National Environmental 

Information Exchange Network. EPA, 

states, tribes, and territories will use 

electronic reporting and 21st century 

information technology to increase the 

speed, accuracy, quality, and scope of 

the information that EPA, states, tribes, 

and territories, regulated facilities, and 

the public receive on permits, water 

pollution, and regulatory agency actions 

implementing the NPDES permitting, 

compliance, and enforcement program. 

This proposed rule identifies essential 

NPDES facility-specific information that 

EPA and authorized programs need to 

receive electronically from NPDESpermitted facilities and information that 

NPDES-authorized programs need to 

submit to EPA. This information would 

be submitted to EPA in a nationallyconsistent manner [i.e., using national 

data standards, in a format fully 

compatible with the NPDES national 

data system (ICIS–NPDES currently), 

and using consistent units of measure]. 

Under this approach to electronic 

reporting, EPA is proposing to revise the 

existing federal regulations addressing 

state, tribe, and territory NPDES 

program requirements, pretreatment, 

biosolids management, and other parts 

of NPDES subprograms (such as 

concentrated animal feeding operations, 

stormwater, and sewer overflows) to 

change the mode by which NPDES 

information is provided. EPA has 

identified the following NPDES data 

types for which electronic submission 

will be required from the NPDESregulated facilities: 

• Self-monitoring information as 

reported on Discharge Monitoring 

Reports (DMRs) for major and nonmajor 

facilities (including subprograms as 

appropriate), and similar selfmonitoring pretreatment-related 

information submitted by industrial 

users located in cities without approved 

local pretreatment programs. Facilities 

are already required to report this 

information via paper reports. It also 

represents the largest current reporting 

burden on states as they are required to 

report this information to EPA for major 

facilities; 

• General permit reports [Notice of 

Intent to be covered (NOI); Notice of 

Termination (NOT); No Exposure 

Certifications (NECs); Low Erosivity 

Waivers (LEWs)], which are required for 

initial permit coverage, permit coverage 

termination, approval for permit 

coverage, or permit exclusion. These 

reports would be submitted 

electronically from facilities in relation 

to coverage under a general NPDES 

permit (rather than an individuallyissued NPDES permit); 

• Sewer overflow event and bypass 

event reports for POTWs or other 

sewerage systems with CSOs, SSOs, or 

bypass events, as required by the 

NPDES permit, and incidents of 

noncompliance as required by 40 CFR 

122.41(l)(6); 

• Annual or more frequent 

pretreatment reports from facilities with 

approved local pretreatment programs; 

• Annual reports from CAFOs; 

• Annual reports from NPDESregulated biosolids generators and 

handlers; and 

• Annual reports (or less frequent 

reports as required by the permit) from 

MS4 permittees. 

Existing federal regulations already 

require the submission of each of these 

reports; however, most of these reports 

are submitted on paper. As indicated in 

this proposed rule, EPA is considering 

requiring NPDES-regulated facilities to 

submit these reports electronically. The 

data types associated with these reports 

are described in greater detail in Section 

IV.E. 

Under the proposed rule, EPA would 

continue to require certain NPDES 

information from the authorized states, 

tribes, and territories, particularly 

information linked to the NPDES-related 

implementation, compliance 

monitoring, and enforcement activities 

and responsibilities of the states, tribes, 

and territories. The types of NPDES 

information that EPA proposes to 

require the NPDES-authorized states, 

tribes, and territories to report would 

include: 

• Facility and permit information for 

individually-issued NPDES permits 

(much of this information is already 

reported to EPA and resides in national 

NPDES databases) and for industrial 

users located in cities without approved 

local pretreatment programs; 

• Information associated with general 

permits (generally to be entered by 

states, tribes, and territories once in the 

permit cycle, and when the permit is 

modified, and linked to facilitysubmitted NOI information); 

• Information regarding compliance 

monitoring and inspection activities; 

• Compliance determination 

information; 

• Enforcement action information; 

• Other NPDES information required 

to be submitted electronically from 

permittees but routed by the electronic 

reporting tools to the states, tribes, or 

territories rather than to EPA; and 

• Other NPDES information covered 

by this proposed rule but submitted by 

the permittee to the state, tribe, or 

territory in paper form under an 

approved temporary waiver. 

Each of these NPDES data types to be 

submitted by NPDES-authorized 

programs is described in Section IV.F. 

In addition, upon the successful 

implementation of this rule and the 

significant use of electronic reporting 

tools for submission of NPDES 

information from permittees and 

regulated entities, EPA would also plan 

to phase out the state, tribe, and 

territory responsibilities for several 

existing authorized program reporting 

requirements to EPA, including those 

associated with: (1) The Quarterly NonCompliance Report (QNCR) regarding 

major facilities (40 CFR 123.45(a)); (2) 

the semi-annual statistical summary 

report regarding major facilities (40 CFR 

123.45(b)); (3) the Annual 

Noncompliance Report (ANCR) 

regarding nonmajor facilities (40 CFR 

123.45(c)); and (4) the annual 

authorized program biosolids reports 

(40 CFR 501.21). Proposed changes to 

these reporting requirements are 

described in more detail in Section 

III.B.6 and Sections IV.F.5 of the 

preamble. 

B. Need for the Proposed Rule 

In the sections that follow, EPA 

presents information regarding practical 

examples of the feasibility of electronic 

reporting, the benefits of improved 

NPDES program transparency, the 

utility of NPDES information gathered, 

and the advantages of a central data 

system. 

1. Why require electronic reporting? 

As information technology has 

advanced, electronic reporting of 

information, as well as other electronic 

transactions, has become relatively 

commonplace in government, business, 

and everyday life. Moving many of the 

NPDES program’s reporting 

requirements to electronic submission 

will likely provide significant benefits, 

specifically by: 

• Saving permittees, states, tribes, 

territories, and EPA time and money 

and freeing up resources to tackle the 

most serious water pollution problems; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46015 

3EPA 305–F–10–001, see DCN 0011. 

4See: http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/ 

0,,id=146364,00.html. 

5The ISO 14000 is an international voluntary 

standard that is used by organizations to 

continually minimize how their operations 

(processes etc.) negatively affect the environment 

and to improve their compliance with applicable 

laws, regulations, and other environmentallyoriented requirements. 

• Improving water quality through a 

better basis for targeting of resources; 

• Improving facility compliance by 

creating a new awareness of a facility’s 

compliance status for the facility, the 

regulated community, the public, and 

across all levels of government; 

• Empowering the public by 

improving transparency and 

accountability through the provision of 

more complete and accurate information 

about sources of water pollution in their 

communities; 

• Improving EPA-state relationships 

by focusing on performance rather than 

on data quality or completeness issues; 

• Improving the basis for decisionmaking by states and EPA due to more 

accurate, timely and complete 

information about the NPDES program; 

and 

• Enabling EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories to better develop compliance 

monitoring approaches to target the 

most serious problems. 

Furthermore, these benefits will 

accrue sooner if electronic reporting of 

NPDES information is required, has 

significant national consistency, and 

happens in a timely manner. 

Development and implementation of a 

consistent set of electronic reporting 

tools would significantly help make 

required electronic reporting feasible, 

practical, and cost-effective. 

Electronic reporting implemented in 

some states has significantly improved 

its data quality and data availability 

while reducing its costs. Requiring 

electronic reporting is an efficient way 

to achieve complete data on the 

expanded NPDES regulated universe in 

an efficient and cost-effective manner. 

Better nationally-available information 

will help improve the NPDES program 

overall. 

2. Feasibility of Electronic Reporting 

Electronic reporting is not a new 

concept. Identified below are three 

practical examples of the use of 

electronic reporting by or within (1) 

state government (Ohio’s experience 

with electronic DMRs); (2) federal 

government (the Internal Revenue 

Service); and (3) the regulated 

community (an industry perspective). 

Additional examples [such as the U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission’s 

Division of Corporate Finance 

(regarding possible hardship 

exemptions for electronic reporting), 

medical records, the Toxic Release 

Inventory, recent EPA air rules, and 

NetDMR] are described in Section VII 

and DCN 0011. 

a. Ohio’s DMR Case Study 

A case study of the efforts of the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio 

EPA) to require electronic reporting of 

DMRs highlights how a successful 

implementation of a mandatory 

electronic reporting system can 

dramatically improve the way a state, 

tribe, or territory manages its NPDES 

program.3 As of 2011, Ohio has 

achieved a 99 percent electronic 

reporting rate for DMRs. Ohio’s system 

uses electronic reporting to allow 

permittees to report their discharge 

measurements quickly and easily 

online. The automated compliance tools 

within the state’s eDMR system inform 

permittees if their discharges exceed 

their authorized permit limits or if there 

are data errors. As a result, errors have 

dropped by 90 percent (from 

approximately 50,000 per month to 

5,000 per month), giving the Ohio EPA 

more accurate and complete data. This 

improved data quality allows Ohio EPA 

to better allocate its resources to 

respond to significant noncompliance 

and water quality concerns, further 

improving Ohio’s enforcement and 

compliance program. 

Prior to use of its eDMR, Ohio EPA 

needed five full-time staff members to 

support the DMR program. By switching 

to an eDMR program, however, Ohio 

EPA was able to shift its staffing 

responsibilities to run the program 

without any full-time staff members, 

effectively redirecting its resources to 

address the most important water 

pollution problems in Ohio. 

b. Internal Revenue Service 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

provides tax payers and preparers the 

option of filing their tax forms 

electronically. After a tax return is 

complete and signed by the appropriate 

person, tax preparation software 

approved by the IRS for electronic filing 

provides the necessary instructions to 

electronically submit the return and 

authorize the filing via IRS e-file. During 

this process, the electronic return data 

is converted into the format defined by 

IRS for electronic filing. IRS-authorized 

e-file providers or taxpayers may 

transmit directly to IRS or use a third 

party transmitter. Transmitters use the 

internet to transmit electronic return 

data to the IRS Modernized e-File 

system (MeF). MeF is a web-based 

system that allows electronic filing of 

corporate, partnership, exempt 

organization, and excise tax returns 

through the Internet. MeF uses the 

widely accepted extensible Markup 

Language (XML) format and provides 

benefits including more explicit 

identification of errors, faster 

acknowledgements, and an integrated 

payment option.4

In 2011, 79 percent of all individual 

Federal tax returns were e-filed, a 

noticeable increase over prior years. 

Both preparer and self-prepared e-file 

rates increased, which IRS officials 

attributed to different factors. IRS 

officials said an e-file mandate was one 

key factor in the growth of preparer efiling. Several preparers also noted that 

they now find that e-filing helps their 

business—for example, by reducing the 

time needed to file returns (see DCN 

0012). 

c. Industry Perspective: Integration With 

Environmental Management Systems 

In recent years, environmental 

management software solutions have 

become the standard for any 

organization seeking to craft a 

streamlined, effective and proactive 

environmental management system (see 

DCN 0013). These tools allow facilities 

to ensure their regulatory compliance, 

conform to widely accepted 

environmental management standards 

(e.g. ISO 14001) 5, and conserve 

resources. These environmental 

management system software tools 

provide the means for electronic storage 

of facility performance data, and the use 

of these data to analyze environmental 

metrics and leverage quantifiable data 

into cost savings, risk avoidance, or 

opportunities for revenue generation. 

Environmental management system 

software tools also store NPDES 

compliance monitoring information and 

allow facilities to more easily report this 

information to their regulatory agency. 

Currently, some of these environmental 

management system software tools 

allow regulated facilities to easily export 

DMR data into state eDMR tools or 

NetDMR. EPA is also exploring an 

‘‘open platform e-file’’ option, which 

could allow third-party commercial 

software providers the opportunity to 

provide electronic reporting services to 

their clients (e.g., NPDES-permitted 

facilities). See ‘‘Proof of Concept 

Demonstration for Electronic Reporting 

of Clean Water Act Compliance 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46016 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

6EPA has developed its own eNOI system for 

federally-issued general permits. These state 

systems do not utilize EPA’s eNOI system. 

7EPA’s Office of Environmental Information is 

examining ways to streamline the CROMERR 

approval process. 

8Note: References to specific products are for 

informational purposes only. EPA and the federal 

government do not endorse any specific product, 

service, or enterprise. 

9 ‘‘White House Forum on Modernizing 

Government: Overview and Next Steps’’ March 

2010—http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

modernizing_government, p. 8, DCN 0014. 

Monitoring Data,’’ June 23, 2011 (76 FR 

36919). 

C. Development of Electronic Reporting 

Tools 

EPA intends to work with states, 

tribes, territories, and third-party 

software vendors to develop and have in 

place all of the electronic reporting tools 

and National Environmental 

Information Exchange Network 

protocols required to implement this 

regulation prior to the effective date of 

the final rule. EPA is not proposing that 

NPDES-regulated facilities must use an 

EPA-developed electronic reporting 

tool. Rather, EPA is providing the 

flexibility for facilities to have a range 

of options including an EPA electronic 

reporting tool, a tool developed by a 

state authorized to implement the 

NPDES program, or potentially tools 

developed by third-party vendors, if 

such tools meet the requirements of this 

proposed rule. EPA is proposing this 

flexibility because it recognizes that 

many states, tribes, and territories have 

their own electronic data systems and 

reporting tools for managing NPDES 

data. For example, EPA is aware that, as 

of October 2011, 24 states have a 

working version of an electronic DMR 

(eDMR), 10 states have an eDMR system 

planned, and eight states have some 

form of electronic NOI (eNOI 6). For 

states that elect to use their own data 

systems and electronic reporting tools to 

collect this NPDES information, this 

proposed rule would require the states 

to transmit the federally-required data 

(identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 127) to EPA. 

All of the electronic reporting tools, 

whether already existing or to be 

developed (by EPA, state, or third-party 

software vendors), utilized to support 

this regulation would need to be 

compliant with EPA’s Cross-Media 

Electronic Reporting Regulation 

(CROMERR) 7 (see 40 CFR part 3) if they 

transmit the information to EPA. All 

tools would need to flow data to data 

systems of states, tribes, and territories 

and to ICIS–NPDES, provide some 

capacity for the entry and retrieval of 

state-specific data in addition to the 

federally-required data, and have 

internal administration, user 

management, and email notification 

infrastructure. These tools would use 

the National Environmental Information 

Exchange Network’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) services for the 

different electronic ICIS–NPDES 

exchanges. 

EPA, states, tribes, territories, and 

third-party software vendors could 

choose to build these tools through 

incremental approaches such that each 

tool implementation would benefit from 

the existing framework and intellectual 

capital established during the previous 

phase of tool implementation. In 

addition, users and regulatory 

authorities would experience familiar, 

repeatable processes and activities when 

interacting with tools developed using 

this framework. The tools to be 

developed for the electronic submission 

of the information would support 

regulated users who are applying for 

coverage under a general permit, or 

submitting information required by EPA 

regulations (e.g., DMRs, biosolids and 

pretreatment data). Section IV.I of the 

preamble and 40 CFR 127.27 describe 

the process for determining the point of 

first contact for electronic data 

submissions (EPA or authorized 

program), compliance dates for 

electronic reporting, and the available 

electronic reporting tools. In particular, 

EPA intends to provide notice to 

regulated entities on its Web site of the 

available tools for electronically 

reporting data; the point of first contact 

for electronic data submissions; 

compliance dates for each state, tribe, 

and territory; and the data source (e.g., 

DMR, NOI, five different program 

reports, and implementation and 

enforcement data from the state, tribe, or 

territory). 

One of the goals of this regulatory 

effort is to increase electronic reporting 

from NPDES-regulated entities. 

Simplifying the process for preparing 

these reports would help to promote 

and increase electronic reporting. One 

option for simplifying the preparation of 

reports is to build electronic reporting 

into software which is available for use 

by the reporting entity. For example, 

several facilities currently use software 

to compile information used in 

preparing required reports, such as 

DMRs. 

EPA could utilize an open platform 

option similar to the IRS model for 

electronic reporting, which uses thirdparty software vendors for tax data 

collection and transmission (e.g., 

TurboTax, TaxACT, or others) 8. Under 

this option, EPA would specify the 

required data for collection and the 

requirements necessary for exchanging 

data (e.g., data delivery protocols, 

standards, guidelines, and procedures 

will likely include CROMERR 

requirements) for each NPDES data 

flow. There are benefits to this open 

platform model as compared with tools 

built and maintained solely by EPA 

(closed platform system), including that: 

• This open platform model also 

builds on the ‘‘good government’’ 

recommendations from the White House 

Forum on Modernizing Government. In 

particular, the report from this forum 

strongly encouraged federal agencies to 

‘‘consider available technology 

solutions before defaulting to costly, 

long-term system development efforts’’;9

• Open market competition would 

give software vendors a stake in client 

satisfaction, with the result that they 

would strive to develop and maintain 

software that is easy and user-friendly, 

provide additional support, and 

integrate with other data management 

systems. These data management 

systems, developed to be used by 

regulated entities, will likely need to be 

certified or approved by EPA before use; 

• Software vendors would likely have 

a good understanding of the business 

needs of their clients; 

• Software vendors would likely 

compete with one another through 

tiered services, which would keep costs 

lower for those clients who want 

minimum data management and 

reporting capabilities. Software vendors 

could also provide other services (e.g., 

technical assistance to clients with other 

program challenges) or offer competitive 

prices for smaller entities; 

• Competition between vendors 

would enhance the quality of the 

electronic data collection tool in terms 

of creating greater utility from the data, 

which could improve facility operations 

and lead to better environmental 

performance; 

• Software vendors are better 

equipped at quickly adapting new 

technologies and other opportunities for 

efficiencies and cost savings; and 

• Finally, the open platform concept 

would lead to faster adoption of new 

software and technologies (e.g., new 

personal computer operating systems). 

EPA solicits comment on this open 

platform option of allowing software 

vendors to offer their clients federal 

electronic reporting services compliant 

with the final rule and on potential 

methods for determining whether thirdparty software vendors meet the 

minimum federal electronic reporting 

requirements. EPA would need to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46017 

certify or approve the methods used by 

the software to authenticate, encrypt, 

and send compliance monitoring and 

other data. 

D. Transparency Improvements That 

Would Accrue From the Rule 

EPA shares with the public NPDES 

information that is currently available 

(except for that information which is 

specifically exempted from disclosure 

by statute, or confidential enforcement 

and business information), but 

recognizes that increased transparency 

of NPDES program implementation and 

compliance is essential. This proposed 

rule, in combination with efforts by EPA 

and the authorized programs to make 

facility compliance information readily 

available and accessible, and parallel 

efforts by EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories to provide more information 

regarding their implementation efforts, 

would enable the public to be better 

informed on local and national 

problems and on efforts being made to 

address those problems. To keep pace 

with program and technology changes, 

this proposed rule seeks to increase the 

transparency and utility of reporting 

requirements and to facilitate the ability 

of EPA, states, tribes, and territories to 

focus on the problems of greatest 

concern to protect human health and 

water quality. Increased information 

may also help the public to press for 

improved performance from the 

regulated community, federal, state, 

tribal, and territorial governments, and 

for better protection of human health 

and the environment. EPA has received 

feedback from states and public data 

users that they find the existing 

terminology and nomenclature for 

categorizing violations to be confusing. 

The proposed changes to 

noncompliance reporting would provide 

clarity for categorizing violations. 

Among the many benefits of the 

proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting 

Rule would be the opportunity to 

enhance EPA’s existing publicly 

accessible NPDES information. EPA’s 

Enforcement and Compliance History 

Online (ECHO) Web site currently 

provides online access to compliance 

monitoring and enforcement data for 

approximately 800,000 regulated 

facilities across the United States. The 

information provided is an integrated 

compilation of federal and authorized 

program environmental inspections, 

violation determinations, enforcement 

actions, and other environmental 

records collected pursuant to the Clean 

Water Act, Clean Air Act, and the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act. The information collected/reported 

by EPA, state, and local environmental 

agencies or facilities is submitted 

through EPA’s national and federal 

databases, such as PCS and ICIS. The 

web interface ultimately provides the 

public, government officials, investors, 

with environmental reports and 

compliance information. 

The proposed NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule would enhance the 

features of ECHO in several ways, for 

example: 

• The proposed rule would provide a 

complete inventory of NPDES-permitted 

facilities which can be included in 

ECHO; All violations identified through 

inspections and other compliance 

monitoring activities by EPA, states, 

tribes, and territories would be made 

available through public search. 

Currently, the EPA PCS Policy 

Statement (as amended) states that state 

NPDES programs must enter inspection 

related violation determinations into 

EPA’s data system for facilities with 

NPDES permits designated as majors 

and pretreatment related violations 

associated with POTWs that have an 

approved pretreatment program. States 

are not currently expected to enter any 

other inspection related violation 

determinations into EPA’s data system; 

• Compliance information would 

become available from smaller facilities, 

such as DMRs and program reports, 

closing important knowledge gaps; 

• Information on enforcement actions 

and associated penalties would be more 

complete; 

• Documents related to 

noncompliance (e.g., the proposed 

NPDES Noncompliance Report) would 

be more accessible, resulting in 

increased efficiency in tracking and 

resolving noncompliance status; 

• Comparative analysis would be 

made easier by utilizing a national 

consistent set of data (i.e., Appendix A 

to part 40 CFR part 127); 

• Timeliness of data would improve; 

and 

• Integration of permit and water 

quality assessment information would 

also be improved through better linkage 

of facility locational data (e.g., latitude 

and longitude data) and information on 

the receiving waters (e.g., receiving 

waterbody name for permitted feature). 

In conclusion, the requirement of 

electronic reporting of NPDES 

information is expected to result in 

greater availability of timely and 

complete information to the public 

because of reliance on electronic 

transmission and retrieval of 

information. Tracking data 

electronically is less expensive, more 

efficient, more accurate, and better able 

to support program management 

decisions than is paper tracking. 

Furthermore, electronic tracking allows 

more information to be shared with the 

public. This eliminates transaction costs 

for the public and for permitting 

authorities previously involved in 

obtaining or exchanging information 

kept only in hard-copy format. 

E. EPA Uses of NPDES Data 

In the development of this proposed 

rule, and particularly in the 

identification of required NPDES data, 

EPA has identified several key EPA uses 

for the NPDES information. These 

include: 

• Permitting, compliance, and 

enforcement decisions affecting 

individual facilities or watersheds; 

• Informing national program 

decisions and rulemakings; 

• Managing and overseeing national 

and state, tribal, or territorial program 

performance, management and 

oversight; 

• Leveling the playing field between 

dischargers, and between states, tribes, 

and territories, regarding availability of 

compliance information; 

• Establishing program performance 

indicators; 

• Developing trend data on facility 

compliance and government 

performance; and 

• Preparing for and responding to 

emergencies. 

Each of these EPA uses of NPDES 

information is described in more detail 

in DCN 0015. Better availability and 

consistency of NPDES information 

through electronic reporting will 

enhance the usefulness of this data for 

a variety of purposes. 

F. Key Characteristics for Data 

Congress and the public expect 

environmental program managers at 

every level of government—local, state, 

tribal, territorial, and federal—to design 

and implement programs that deliver 

environmental results. In order to target 

the most important pollution problems 

and most serious noncompliance, to 

better ensure environmental protection 

and public health, and to enable more 

integrated program assessment and 

planning at the national level, data used 

by EPA should have the following 

characteristics: 

• The data should be current. Recent 

data are more likely to be representative 

of current conditions. Although 

historical data may be useful in 

identifying trends and patterns, data 

that are not representative of current 

conditions are not as reliable for 

drawing conclusions as to the current 

condition of the environment or the 

compliance status at permitted facilities, 

or for making plans for improvements. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46018 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

10 2008 ANCR, available at http://www.epaecho.gov/echo/ancr/us/docs/ancr_report_2008.pdf. 

11Category I noncompliance is defined in Section 

II.A. of the preamble; examples of Category I 

noncompliance are identified in existing federal 

regulations at 40 CFR 123.45(a)(2)(ii). 

12See: http://www.exchangenetwork.net/dataexchange/pacific-northwest-water-qualityexchange/ 

• The data should generally be 

comparable in format, reporting units, 

frequency, etc. In order to aggregate and 

compare data across the states, tribes, 

and territories for national program 

planning and reporting purposes, it is 

important that the data from the 

individual states, tribes, and territories 

be reported in a similar format (e.g., the 

reporting units are the same, the metric 

being measured must be defined 

identically) and with the same 

frequency (e.g., annual reports required 

for certain types of NPDES-regulated 

facilities). For example, for a national 

statement to be made regarding the 

volume of waste discharged by publicly 

owned treatment works, those providing 

the data would need to consistently 

provide data to EPA, share the same 

definition of publicly-owned treatment 

works, the same definition of volume 

(per day, per week, per month) and 

express the measure in the same units 

(gallons, million gallons, cubic feet, 

liters, etc.) However, states can certainly 

institute more stringent reporting 

requirements than does EPA (if data 

remain nationally consistent). 

• The data should be complete. 

Incomplete, inaccurate data can lead to 

wrong conclusions. For example, the 

significant noncompliance rate for major 

facilities is a key indicator of the health 

of the NPDES compliance and 

enforcement program. This rate is 

derived in large part from effluent data 

self-reported in DMRs to EPA, the states, 

tribes, and territories by major facilities. 

These data are then entered into or 

provided to PCS or ICIS–NPDES by the 

states, tribes, territories, or EPA. 

Incomplete compliance data in PCS or 

ICIS–NPDES prevent EPA from 

adequately assessing industry, state, and 

national noncompliance rates and 

identifying any potential corrective 

actions. Consequently, program 

planning and authorized program 

evaluation resulting from such 

incomplete data can be unreliable. 

Similarly, incomplete data may result 

in inaccurate conclusions as to 

noncompliance rates for nonmajor 

permittees. EPA found through the 

Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR) 

(see DCN 0016) 10 for NPDES Nonmajor 

Permittees that the reported 

noncompliance rate for serious 

violations is much higher for those 

authorized NPDES programs with 

detailed compliance data in EPA’s 

national data systems than it is for 

authorized NPDES programs that only 

provide only summary data. Based on 

2008 data, states, tribes, and territories 

with DMR information for nonmajor 

permittees in the national data systems 

report a 60 percent Category I 

noncompliance 11 rate, whereas states, 

tribes, and territories that did not 

routinely provide the facility-specific 

compliance data to EPA’s national data 

systems reported a national Category I 

noncompliance rate of just less than 18 

percent. The findings presented in the 

2008 ANCR suggest that instances of 

noncompliance may be higher than 

reported by states, tribes, and territories 

that non-electronically review and 

report data and do not routinely provide 

facility-specific compliance data to 

EPA’s national data systems. The 

proposed rule would ensure that DMR 

information from facilities would be 

received electronically, making that 

information more readily available for 

identification of violations by the data 

system while at the same time reducing 

the burden on states, tribes, territories, 

and EPA to independently identify 

effluent violations. 

• The data should be made available 

so that the basis for EPA program 

evaluation and subsequent planning is 

transparent and reproducible. The bases 

for EPA’s planning and conclusions 

about the status of program 

implementation need to be readily 

available to those affected, including the 

regulated community, the general 

public, Congress, federal, state, tribal, 

and territorial agencies. For example, 

the data that EPA needs to evaluate the 

performance of an authorized program 

should be readily available to EPA from 

the state, tribe, or territory (and readily 

available from EPA to the state, tribe, or 

territory) and the state, tribe, or territory 

should be able to easily duplicate EPA’s 

analysis. 

The above examples demonstrate the 

need for a shared definition and central 

management of the information 

necessary to manage the NPDES 

program, ready access to that 

information by states, tribes, territories, 

and EPA, and assurance that the data 

across the states, tribes, and territories 

are complete, accurate, and timelyreported. The proposed rule would 

provide definitions for the shared data, 

ensure the accessibility of that 

information, and provide the basis for 

ensuring that the data are nationally 

consistent, complete, accurate, and 

timely. 

G. The National Environmental 

Information Exchange Network (NEIEN) 

1. Purpose 

Today, the NEIEN is making 

environmental protection more efficient 

and helping to improve the quality of 

the environmental decision-making 

processes. The proposed rule utilizes 

the NEIEN for sharing NPDES program 

data between regulated entities; NPDES 

permit programs, and EPA. This 

information sharing network helps 

facilitate the reporting and information 

sharing requirements in the proposed 

rule. 

Many environmental problems cross 

jurisdictions. The business of managing 

and solving these problems has become 

very information-intensive. 

Environmental policymakers and other 

stakeholders need access to timely, 

accurate, and consistent data that 

present a holistic picture of the 

environment in order to make better 

decisions. 

Previous approaches to environmental 

information exchange were often 

inefficient. Currently, most 

environmental data are stored in 

electronic data management systems. 

Electronic data sharing between 

agencies is not a simple and automatic 

process; because, many of these systems 

are incompatible with each other. Even 

similar systems can have difficulties 

exchanging information when the data 

are not identically structured. 

The National Environmental 

Information Exchange Network 

(‘‘NEIEN’’) supported by EPA uses 

eXtensible markup language (XML), web 

services, and common data standards to 

overcome system incompatibility, 

allowing partners to securely and 

automatically exchange environmental 

data. The NEIEN is helping participants 

to reduce costs, save time, and 

overcome delays in making better 

informed decisions and responding to 

environmental emergencies. 

For example, states in the Pacific 

Northwest are using the NEIEN to share 

ambient water quality data to improve 

decision-making for the protection of 

water quality.12 Laboratories are able to 

quickly share sampling results with 

regulators, allowing real-time 

monitoring of drinking water for public 

health and homeland security concerns. 

Governments and industry are 

seamlessly sharing reporting data, 

realizing savings, and improving 

environmental protection. State, tribal, 

and territorial environmental agencies 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46019 

13U.S. EPA, 2009. ‘‘Testimony of Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Before the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, United States House of 

Representatives, 15 October 2009. 

14See: http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/water/ 

documents/policies/actionplan101409.pdf 

15See http://www.ecos.org/section/projects/ 

?id=3683. 

and the EPA can fulfill regulatory and 

reporting requirements efficiently 

through automated processes that 

reduce the need for non-electronic or 

duplicative data entry directly into 

national data systems. 

2. Enhancements to the NEIEN 

Where authorized programs elect to 

electronically receive data from 

reporting entities, they should work 

with EPA to ensure that their data 

systems can automate data transfers to 

EPA of the data required in the new 40 

CFR part 127 and Appendix A to part 

127 developed for this proposed rule, 

rather than having NPDES-regulated 

facilities in their state, tribe, or territory 

electronically report directly to EPA. 

Likewise, EPA intends to work with 

states to ensure that any data collected 

by EPA on behalf of an authorized 

NPDES program can be shared with the 

state, tribe, or territory via an automated 

process in a timely manner. These EPAto-authorized-program and authorizedprogram-to-EPA data exchanges are 

expected to use the National 

Environmental Information Exchange 

Network. Using the NEIEN and an 

automated data flow between EPA and 

the states, tribes, and territories would 

allow states, tribes, and territories to 

benefit from electronic reporting in the 

event they have not yet developed their 

own electronic reporting tools or choose 

not to develop them. 

The NEIEN options for electronically 

flowing permit data from states, tribes, 

and territories to EPA were made 

available at the end of February 2011 

and the NEIEN options to transfer 

enforcement and compliance data to 

ICIS–NPDES are under development as 

of October 2011. States and EPA are 

meeting regularly as an Integrated 

Project Team (IPT) to jointly discuss the 

design of the remaining components of 

the ICIS–NPDES data flow and the 

ongoing transition from the Permit 

Compliance System (PCS) to the 

modernized ICIS–NPDES data system. 

Authorized programs are encouraged to 

participate in the IPT to keep abreast of 

development timelines and progress. 

When the ICIS–NPDES compliance and 

enforcement data flows are complete 

and all state data has been migrated 

from PCS to ICIS–NPDES, the PCS data 

system is expected to be retired by EPA 

(in 2013, prior to full implementation of 

this rule). 

H. Relation to the Clean Water Act 

Action Plan 

As mentioned earlier in Section III.A, 

on October 15, 2009, EPA Administrator 

Lisa Jackson announced the Clean Water 

Act Action Plan focused on the 

revitalization of the Clean Water Act 

NPDES program, with an emphasis on 

compliance and enforcement (see DCN 

0009). EPA Administrator Jackson also 

then announced to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

United States House of Representatives 

that, as part of the CWA Action Plan, 

she was directing her staff to ‘‘quickly 

develop a proposed rule requiring 

electronic reporting from regulated 

facilities, to replace the current paper 

based system.’’ 13

The CWA Action Plan recognizes that 

EPA lacks nationally consistent and 

complete information on the facilities, 

permits, pollutant discharges, and 

compliance status of most NPDESregulated facilities.14 This information 

gap affects the ability of EPA, states, 

tribes, and territories to identify 

violations, target their actions, connect 

violations to water quality impacts, and 

share information with the public. This 

proposed rule would use technology to 

address this gap. 

Electronic reporting is identified as a 

key component of the new system 

envisioned by the CWA Action Plan and 

would greatly reduce the burden on 

states, tribes, territories, EPA, and 

regulated facilities of submitting and 

processing paper forms. Under the CWA 

Action Plan, EPA intends to find 

innovative, resource-efficient ways of 

collecting, using, and making available 

to the public information about where 

pollution sources are located, what 

pollution they produce, their 

relationship to water quality, and where 

violations are most severe. 

Through the Clean Water Act Action 

Plan Discussion Forum, EPA solicited 

ideas from the public that encompassed 

a broad range of perspectives (DCN 

0017). Outreach to states, tribes, 

territories, community groups, industry, 

and environmental organizations 

ensured an opportunity for participation 

in the forum. 

As currently drafted, and subject to 

public comment, this proposed NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule would help to 

achieve the CWA Action Plan goals. By 

requiring reports to be submitted 

electronically by regulated facilities, 

EPA would be able to provide more 

complete, accurate, and timely 

information to both regulators and the 

public. This would improve 

transparency and accountability, and 

help EPA, states, tribes, and territories 

to monitor compliance with NPDES 

permits. 

I. Relation to the State Burden 

Reduction Initiative 

In an effort to address state concerns 

over escalating reporting requirements, 

EPA and the Environmental Council of 

the States (ECOS) launched the Burden 

Reduction Initiative in October 2006.15

This initiative aimed to identify and 

reduce high-burden reporting 

requirements for various media (e.g., air, 

water, waste). 

EPA asked states to identify their top 

five reporting requirements with 

potential for streamlining or 

elimination. Thirty-nine states 

responded to the October 2006 data call 

by EPA, recommending more than 200 

ways to reduce reporting frequency and 

level of detail, increase electronic data 

entry, and standardize regional 

differences in reporting requirements to 

the greatest extent possible. 

Several states identified NPDES 

compliance reporting as a priority area 

for burden reduction. Specifically, those 

states recommended that reporting 

requirements for three NPDES reports 

required under EPA’s NPDES 

regulations (40 CFR 123.45) be reduced 

or eliminated. They recommended that 

EPA reduce the reporting frequency for 

the Quarterly Noncompliance Report 

(QNCR) required under 40 CFR 

123.45(a) and eliminate the SemiAnnual Statistical Summary, required 

under 40 CFR 123.45(b), and the Annual 

Noncompliance Report (ANCR), 

required under 40 CFR 123.45(c). States 

suggested the elimination of these 

reports to reduce their burden of 

implementing the NPDES program. 

The QNCR is a quarterly report 

regarding major NPDES-regulated 

facilities in noncompliance; under 40 

CFR 123.45(a), this report is required to 

be submitted to EPA by states, tribes, 

and territories authorized to implement 

the NPDES program. These reports are 

used by EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories to track progress and assess 

the effectiveness of NPDES compliance 

monitoring and enforcement activities. 

The ANCR is an annual report 

submitted to EPA by states, tribes, and 

territories authorized to implement the 

NPDES program; in this report, as 

required under 40 CFR 123.45(c), the 

states, tribes, and territories provide 

information regarding the total number 

of nonmajor NPDES-regulated facilities 

that have been reviewed for the purpose 

of making compliance determinations, 

the number of non-complying nonmajor 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46020 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

permittees, the number of enforcement 

actions taken against these nonmajor 

NPDES-regulated facilities, and the 

number of permit modifications 

extending compliance deadlines for 

these nonmajor NPDES-regulated 

facilities. 

The semi-annual statistical summary 

report is a semi-annual report regarding 

major NPDES-regulated facilities 

exhibiting a particular type of 

noncompliance; under 40 CFR 

123.45(b), this report is required to be 

submitted to EPA by states authorized to 

implement the NPDES program. 

As part of the proposed rule, EPA is 

seeking comment on changes to 40 CFR 

123.45, entitled ‘‘Noncompliance and 

program reporting by the Director.’’ The 

purposes of these changes would be to: 

(1) Reduce the state reporting burden by 

phasing out reports that can be 

produced automatically by EPA from a 

national data system—(such as the 

QNCR); (2) provide a more accurate and 

comprehensive report of known 

violations using a more complete set of 

noncompliance data that would flow to 

EPA as a result of this proposed NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule; (3) improve 

EPA’s ability to analyze, track, and 

manage violations and ensure that the 

full universe of NPDES sources is 

considered in tracking, analyzing, and 

managing compliance and enforcement 

programs; and (4) establish a better 

process to ensure EPA is focused on the 

appropriate pollutants and can keep 

pace with changes to the permitting 

program and new limit types. 

EPA is proposing to establish a new 

public inventory, the NPDES 

Noncompliance Report (NNCR), of all 

reported violations. The proposed 

changes to the reporting requirements in 

40 CFR 123.45 are discussed in greater 

detail in Section IV.F.5 of the preamble. 

As currently drafted, and subject to 

public comment, the proposed rule 

should allow EPA to eliminate the state, 

tribe, and territory reporting 

requirements within the existing QNCR, 

semi-annual statistical summary report, 

and ANCR requirements because the 

proposed rule would enable EPA to 

generate this report directly from 

information in its federal data systems 

based on facility, state, tribe, and 

territory reporting. The regulatory 

changes would eliminate the 

requirements that states, tribes, and 

territories submit the QNCR, semiannual statistical summary report, and 

ANCR by a date certain after rule 

implementation. EPA would then take 

over the obligation of generating all 

summary reports currently covered by 

40 CFR 123.45 and generate the new 

NNCR, reducing the reporting burden 

on states, tribes, and territories. 

For more detailed information on the 

State Burden Reduction Initiative, 

please visit www.epa.gov/ 

burdenreduction. 

J. Issues Related to Critical 

Infrastructure Security Information 

EPA and the Department of Defense 

(DOD) wish to clarify how this rule will 

intersect with recent amendments to the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as 

enacted in The National Defense 

Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). 

Under NDAA, the Department of 

Defense (DOD) may designate ‘‘critical 

infrastructure security information’’ that 

can be withheld from release under 

FOIA (see 10 U.S.C. 130e). If DOD 

receives a FOIA request for information 

on NPDES-regulated federal facilities, it 

may designate particular data as critical 

infrastructure security information that 

is then withheld from public release in 

response to the FOIA request. NPDES 

program data designated as critical 

infrastructure security information in 

response to a FOIA request will also be 

withheld from public release under this 

rule. DOD will contact EPA and identify 

the specific data elements for specific 

NPDES-regulated entities that are to be 

withheld from public disclosure under 

a FOIA request because it has been 

designated as critical infrastructure 

security information. 

EPA will not release information that 

has been designated as critical 

infrastructure security information in 

response to a FOIA request to the 

public. The critical infrastructure 

security information designation is 

expected to be used rarely for the type 

of information required to be 

electronically reported by this rule and 

any determination by DOD to withhold 

information from public release will be 

made at the data element level (see 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) for 

each DOD facility. Additionally, the 

DOD process for designating particular 

data as critical infrastructure security 

information (see DCN 0067) is 

prospective and does not affect data 

already publicly available (i.e., the DOD 

process will not be used to withdraw 

data that is already available to the 

public). In the instance where an 

NPDES program data element for a 

particular facility is designated as 

critical infrastructure security 

information in response to a FOIA 

request, a separate filtered set of data 

without the redacted information will 

be shared with the public; however, all 

NPDES program data will continue to be 

provided to EPA and the authorized 

state, tribe, or territorial NPDES 

program. 

IV. Discussion of Key Features of This 

Rule 

A. Overview of Existing Regulation 

Citations Impacted by the Proposed 

Rule 

As indicated in the proposed rule, 

and subject to public comment, EPA is 

considering amendments to the current 

NPDES regulations to require electronic 

reporting by NPDES-regulated facilities 

for many of the existing NPDES 

reporting requirements, to require 

electronic reporting of NPDES 

information by the states, tribes, and 

territories to EPA, and to eliminate some 

existing reporting requirements, 

particularly those for states, tribes, and 

territories. Under this approach, in 

addition to the creation of a new 40 CFR 

part 127, the affected regulations would 

include: 

• 40 CFR 122.22. Signatories to 

permit applications and reports; 

• 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15), (c)(1)(ii), and 

(g)(1)(iii). Stormwater discharges 

(applicable to State NPDES programs, 

see 40 CFR 123.25); 

• 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2). General 

Permits (applicable to State NPDES 

programs, see 40 CFR 123.25); 

• 40 CFR 122.34(g)(3). Reporting [as 

related to small Municipal Separate 

Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)]; 

• 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i). Monitoring 

reports [Discharge Monitoring Reports]; 

• 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6). Twenty-four 

hour reporting; 

• 40 CFR 122.41(l)(7). Other 

noncompliance; 

• 40 CFR 122.41(m)(3). Notice [as 

related to Bypass]; 

• 40 CFR 122.42(c). Municipal 

separate storm sewer systems [as related 

to medium or large systems]; 

• 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4). Annual 

reporting requirements for CAFOs; 

• 40 CFR 122.43. Establishing permit 

conditions (applicable to State NPDES 

programs, see 40 CFR 123.25); 

• 40 CFR 122.44(i). Monitoring 

requirements; 

• 40 CFR 122.48(c). Requirements for 

recording and reporting of monitoring 

results (applicable to State NPDES 

programs, see 40 CFR 123.25); 

• 40 CFR 122.63(f). Minor 

modifications of permits. 

• 40 CFR 122.64(c) Termination of 

permits (applicable to State NPDES 

programs, see 40 CFR 123.25); 

• 40 CFR 123.22. Program 

description. 

• 40 CFR 123.24(b)(3). Memorandum 

of Agreement with the Regional 

Administrator; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46021 

16Formerly known for 50 years as the Association 

of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 

Agencies (ASIWPCA). 

• 40 CFR 123.25(a). Requirements for 

permitting; 

• 40 CFR 123.26. Requirements for 

compliance evaluation programs; 

• 40 CFR 123.41(a). Sharing of 

information; 

• 40 CFR 123.43(d). State datatransmission of information from states 

to EPA; 

• 40 CFR 123.45. Noncompliance and 

program reporting by the Director; 

• 40 CFR 403.10(f). State Pretreatment 

Program requirements; 

• 40 CFR 403.12(e). Periodic reports 

on continued compliance [Pretreatment 

program reports for Categorical 

Industrial Users]; 

• 40 CFR 403.12(h). Reporting 

requirements for Industrial Users not 

subject to categorical Pretreatment 

Standards [Pretreatment program 

reports for Significant Industrial Users 

not subject to EPA categorical 

pretreatment standards]; 

• 40 CFR 403.12(i). Annual POTW 

reports [Pretreatment program report]; 

• 40 CFR 501.21. Program Reporting 

to EPA (State Sludge Management 

Program); 

• 40 CFR 503.18. Reporting [Biosolids 

annual program report for land 

application]; 

• 40 CFR 503.28. Reporting [Biosolids 

annual program report for surface 

disposal]; 

• 40 CFR 503.48. Reporting [Biosolids 

annual program report for incineration]. 

B. Derivation of Required NPDES Data 

Elements 

From FY 2002 through FY 2007, EPA 

and the states worked to identify the 

data needed for permitting authorities to 

successfully implement and manage the 

NPDES program. Various iterations of 

critical data elements were discussed by 

the state and EPA members of the PCS 

Steering Committee, the PCS 

Modernization Executive Council, and 

the Expanded PCS Steering Committee, 

which added representatives from the 

Environmental Council of States (ECOS) 

and the Association of Clean Water 

Administrators (ACWA).16 Those efforts 

led to the April 2007 issuance by EPA 

of a draft ICIS–NPDES Policy Statement 

that included the list of NPDES data 

elements that states, tribes, and 

territories would report to EPA. 

After receipt of numerous comments 

on the draft ICIS–NPDES Policy 

Statement from the states, EPA began to 

develop a federal regulation that would 

require electronic reporting of specific 

NPDES information from the regulated 

permittees, states, tribes, and territories. 

In 2010, EPA initiated an effort to 

carefully review the data needs and uses 

(as described in Section III), identify the 

types of information and specific data 

elements that would allow EPA to meet 

those needs and uses, and evaluate 

whether the information should be 

sought directly from NPDES-regulated 

facilities or from states, tribes, and 

territories. This was done with full 

acknowledgement that for certain 

activities (such as permit issuance, 

inspections, compliance determinations, 

and issuance of enforcement actions), 

the states, tribes, and territories are the 

unique source of the identified NPDES 

information. 

During summer 2010, EPA conducted 

a series of concurrent technical analyses 

of various data types and facility types 

which examined the feasibility of 

electronic reporting, the existing 

regulatory data and reporting 

requirements, key considerations, and 

preliminary information regarding costs 

and benefits (see DCN 0018, 0019, 0020, 

0021, 0022). 

EPA then conducted extensive 

examinations of the data elements list. 

The result of these efforts is this 

proposed rule, as currently drafted and 

subject to public comment, and the list 

of minimum set of federal NPDES data 

(Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). EPA 

invites comment on the data identified 

in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. 

C. NPDES Data Groups 

EPA has identified several data 

groups of NPDES information based on 

the source of the information. These 

‘‘NPDES Data Groups’’ are defined and 

listed in 40 CFR 127.2(c) and in Table 

1 to Appendix A of 40 CFR part 127. As 

defined in 40 CFR 127.2(c), the term 

NPDES data group means the group of 

related data elements identified in Table 

1 in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. 

These NPDES data groups have similar 

regulatory reporting requirements and 

have similar data sources. The proposed 

rule uses the NPDES Data Groups to 

identify the minimum set of data 

elements for each type of NPDES 

reporting (e.g., DMRs, NOIs, program 

reports) and to help permittees and 

regulated entities identify the initial 

recipient of electronic NPDES data 

submissions. 

D. Data Considerations 

Based on EPA’s national program 

management needs, the approach taken 

by EPA in the proposed rule, as 

currently drafted, identifies a variety of 

NPDES data that permittees would be 

required to provide electronically to 

states or EPA and that states, tribes, and 

territories would be required to submit 

to EPA on a regular basis. These data are 

supported by existing collection 

requirements and are essential to 

successfully manage, implement, and 

enforce the NPDES program. EPA notes 

that other required data submissions 

that are not proposed to be collected 

electronically (e.g., NPDES permit 

applications) are also essential to 

successfully manage, implement, and 

enforce the NPDES program, even 

though they remain unchanged by this 

proposed rule. This section of the 

preamble discusses the reasons for each 

required electronic data submission 

(e.g., DMRs, general permit reports, 

program reports) covered by this 

proposed rule, as currently drafted and 

subject to public comment. 

A large number (over 60 percent) of 

these required NPDES data are specific 

to particular NPDES subprograms (e.g., 

pretreatment, biosolids, CAFO, MS4, 

sewer overflow and bypass events). 

Additionally, it is unlikely that there is 

any NPDES-permitted facility that has a 

permit that covers all subprograms, 

meets all of the conditions that would 

require reporting of all of the 

conditional data elements (described 

later), and has also had enforcement 

actions that included compliance 

schedules, milestones, and penalties. In 

addition, certain types of data may not 

be generally expected for certain types 

of facilities. Therefore, any potential 

workload or burden estimates for 

reporting burden or data entry burden 

based on the entire list of NPDES 

required data would be incorrect and 

very misleading if applied to the entire 

NPDES-regulated universe. 

A number of other considerations 

associated with these required data are 

described below. 

1. Data Entry/Reporting Frequency 

The frequency at which data would be 

required to be reported electronically is 

a key consideration in estimating 

workload or burden estimates of data 

entry. In this proposed rule, as currently 

drafted and subject to public comment, 

the required data entry frequency would 

vary considerably based upon the data 

type. 

Data that has already been entered 

into PCS or ICIS–NPDES would not 

need to be re-entered by EPA, states, 

tribes, or territories unless that data has 

changed. NPDES information has been 

migrated from PCS to ICIS–NPDES for 

all states as of December 2012. 

Under the approach described in the 

proposed rule, states, tribes, and 

territories would still need to update or 

change particular facility or permit 

information as permits are modified or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46022 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

when the permits are re-issued, 

generally every five years. A similar 

timeframe would apply to facilities 

electronically submitting a NOI to be 

covered under a NPDES general permit. 

States, tribes, and territories would also 

have a similar reporting frequency for 

providing EPA with information 

regarding the general permit, such as 

limits, permitted features, etc. 

The required data entry frequency for 

inspection-related information would be 

linked directly to the inspection. The 

inspection frequency itself may vary 

considerably depending on the type of 

inspection and the type of facility. For 

example, major NPDES-regulated 

facilities might be inspected every two 

years, whereas nonmajor NPDESregulated facilities might be inspected 

once every five years. Under the 

approach described in the proposed 

rule, information related to inspections, 

violations, and enforcement actions, 

would be entered after those events 

occur. 

Electronic submissions of NPDES data 

(e.g., DMRs, program reports, NOIs) by 

NPDES-regulated entities would be 

linked to the required reporting 

frequency specified in the regulations or 

in the permit, and may therefore vary 

across permittees and type of reports 

(e.g., may be reported semi-annually, 

quarterly, or monthly). 

2. Conditionally-Required Data 

Conditionally-required NPDES data 

must be reported when certain rare 

circumstances occur. For example, as 

currently drafted, this proposed rule 

requires POTWs to report in their 

Pretreatment Program Annual Report 

[see 40 CFR 403.12(i)] information 

regarding their administration of 

pollutant removal credits. In practice, 

POTWs would rarely be required to 

report these data as there are only four 

POTWs nationwide that have removal 

credits authority, as of October 1, 2011. 

3. Programs Broader in Scope 

NPDES data entry/availability 

requirements specified in this proposed 

rule would not apply to those particular 

portions of a state, tribal, or territorial 

program which are broader in scope 

than the minimum requirements of the 

approved NPDES program. States, 

tribes, and territories are welcome to 

track these additional aspects, but this 

proposed rule does not require that such 

additional information be reported to 

EPA. Under the proposed rule, state, 

tribal, and territory programs have the 

option to use EPA’s data collection 

tools, which would be capable of both 

collecting data that are in addition to 

the minimum set of federal NPDES data 

(Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) and 

passing these data to state, tribal, and 

territory NPDES data systems. 

4. Appropriate Linkages Between 

NPDES Data Groups by the Permitting 

Authorities 

As previously noted, under the 

approach described in this proposed 

rule, as currently drafted and subject to 

public comment, EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories would submit the minimum 

set of federally-required NPDES data 

(see Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). 

Having this minimum set of federallyrequired NPDES data would ensure that 

the appropriate linkages are made 

between the data for permitting, 

compliance monitoring, violations, and 

enforcement actions within EPA’s 

NPDES information system. For 

example, an inspection would be linked 

to all violations identified during the 

inspection, which in turn would be 

linked to any resulting enforcement 

action, penalty, or enforcement 

compliance schedule. Such linkages 

would ensure that the compliance status 

of the facility would show whether the 

violations have been addressed and 

resolved. In another situation, it would 

also be possible to link the information 

in EPA’s NPDES data system for an 

unpermitted facility that subsequently 

becomes an NPDES permittee (e.g., an 

inspection might discover an 

unpermitted discharge and the 

resolution would be to issue a permit to 

this discharger). 

5. Major and Nonmajor Designations 

In PCS, some of the designated Water 

Enforcement National Data Base 

(WENDB) data applied to every facility 

regardless of whether the NPDES 

permittee was a major or nonmajor 

facility. Other WENDB data elements in 

PCS only applied to major NPDESregulated facilities (see DCN 0023). For 

the purposes of this proposed rule, few 

distinctions would be made in data 

entry requirements between major and 

nonmajor NPDES facilities (e.g., the 

proposed rule requires the electronic 

submission of DMRs from major and 

nonmajor NPDES facilities). There are 

only a few examples where the major 

and nonmajor status, or facility size, of 

a permittee would affect reporting based 

on existing regulations (e.g., MS4 and 

biosolids program reports). 

6. Facilities Without NPDES Permits 

The NPDES information described in 

the proposed rule would generally not 

be required for facilities without NPDES 

permits, with the following exceptions: 

• Unpermitted facilities that have 

been subject to a formal enforcement 

action, an administrative penalty order, 

or an informal enforcement action (if 

such informal action addressed 

significant noncompliance); 

• Unpermitted facilities that have 

been inspected; and 

• Industrial users located in cities 

without approved local pretreatment 

programs. 

For the first two types of exceptions 

identified above, EPA, authorized states, 

tribes, and territories would be expected 

to electronically provide the following 

information: basic facility information; 

inspection-related information; and, if 

applicable, violations, and information 

regarding enforcement actions. For the 

first two exceptions, there would not be 

any expectation for data to be submitted 

to EPA regarding narrative permit 

conditions, permitted features, permit 

limit sets, permit limits, DMRs, or 

program reports. 

Facilities included in the third 

exception would be operating under a 

control mechanism, which may or may 

not be a permit (see 40 CFR 403.8). 

These indirect discharging facilities 

would also electronically submit to 

EPA, authorized states, tribes, or 

territories their bi-annual compliance 

reports, which are similar to DMRs for 

direct dischargers. Authorized states, 

tribes, and territories would be expected 

to provide to EPA the following 

information for these indirect 

dischargers: basic facility information, 

basic permit or control mechanism 

information (the latter would apply to 

industrial users located in cities without 

approved local pretreatment programs) 

(possibly including, if applicable, 

information regarding permit issuance, 

narrative conditions, limits, limit sets, 

permitted features, etc.), inspectionrelated information, and violations and 

information regarding enforcement 

actions, if applicable. 

7. Retroactive Data Entry 

Due primarily to an increased focus 

on the various NPDES subprograms 

(e.g., CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, 

sewer overflow event reports, MS4 

program reports), the required data set 

as defined by this proposed rule, as 

currently drafted, is more 

comprehensive than what was 

previously identified as WENDB. For 

inspections and enforcement actions 

that occur prior to the effective date of 

this rulemaking, the proposed rule does 

not require states or permittees to 

submit the data not covered by WENDB 

in the minimum set of federal NPDES 

data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) 

However, under the approach described 

in the proposed rule, EPA is considering 

requiring states, tribes, and territories to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46023 

17 It is important to note that EPA general permit 

regulations (40 CFR 122.28) do not require all 

general permit covered facilities to submit NOIs for 

all general permits issued by EPA and authorized 

state NPDES programs. Some general permits 

provide for automatic coverage. 

provide information to EPA regarding 

the existing permits before the 

beginning of the required electronic 

reporting from permitted facilities, even 

if that permit was issued prior to 

effective date of the final rule. EPA will 

work closely with states, tribes, and 

territories to ensure that states, tribes, 

and territories report all WENDB data 

for all permits into ICIS–NPDES prior to 

the effective date of this rulemaking. 

Additionally, the data in PCS have been 

migrated to ICIS–NPDES, and would not 

need to be re-entered into ICIS–NPDES. 

E. Electronic Reporting by NPDES 

Regulated Entities 

1. What Data From Which Regulated 

Entities 

As described in Section IV.B, EPA has 

spent considerable time and effort in 

analyzing the data needs and uses of 

information, the types of data that 

would meet those needs and uses, and 

the technical, legal, and economic 

considerations associated with 

obtaining that information. Based on 

these efforts, EPA solicits comment on 

the following NPDES data types for 

electronic submission from NPDESregulated facilities or other regulated 

entities: 

• Self-monitoring information as 

reported on Discharge Monitoring 

Reports (DMRs) for major and nonmajor 

facilities (including subprograms as 

appropriate), and similar selfmonitoring pretreatment-related 

information submitted by industrial 

users located in cities without approved 

local pretreatment programs; 

• General permit reports [Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to discharge; Notice of 

Termination (NOT); No Exposure 

Certification (NEC); and Low Erosivity 

Waiver (LEW)], which are required for 

initial permit coverage, permit coverage 

termination, or consideration for permit 

exclusion.17 These reports will come 

from facilities in relation to coverage 

under a general NPDES permit (rather 

than an individually-issued NPDES 

permit); 

• Annual reports from concentrated 

animal feeding operations (CAFOs); 

• Sewer overflow or bypass event 

reports for POTWs with combined 

sewer overflow (CSO), sanitary sewer 

overflow (SSO), or bypass events; 

• Annual or more frequent 

pretreatment reports from facilities with 

approved local pretreatment programs; 

• Annual reports from NPDESregulated biosolids generators and 

handlers; and 

• Program reports (annual or less 

frequent reports as may be indicated by 

the permit) from municipal separate 

storm sewer system (MS4) permittees. 

Existing federal regulations already 

require each of these reports to be 

submitted to the permitting authority. 

Currently, most of these compliance 

reports are submitted on paper. EPA is 

soliciting comment on switching the 

submission of these reports from paper 

reporting to electronic reporting. Each of 

the data types associated with these 

reports is described in more detail in 

Section IV. 

EPA notes that some NPDES permits 

require additional reports from NPDESregulated entities than the reports 

identified in the proposed NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 

127) (e.g., engineering construction 

completion reports, large-scale 

construction blue prints). Reports that 

are not specifically listed in the NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 

127) are not required to be electronically 

submitted under EPA regulations, and 

NPDES-regulated entities should 

continue to report these documents as 

required by the NPDES-authorized 

program. 

EPA is soliciting comment on the 

minimum set of NPDES program data 

that NPDES-regulated facilities or other 

regulated entities would electronically 

submit to their authorized programs and 

the process for the authorized programs 

receiving these electronic data to 

forward these data electronically to 

EPA. The minimum set of NPDES 

program data is provided in Appendix 

A to 40 CFR part 127. This proposed 

rule does not expand the reportable data 

from NPDES-regulated facilities or other 

regulated entities beyond what is 

required by existing regulations. 

EPA is soliciting comment on the 

minimum set of data to be reported 

electronically to ensure that there is 

consistent and complete reporting 

nationwide, and to expedite the 

collection and processing of the data, 

thereby making it more timely, accurate, 

and complete. EPA notes that 

authorized states, tribes, and territories 

may also require permittees to submit 

additional data electronically (data in 

addition to the minimum set of data 

provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 

127). EPA’s electronic reporting tools 

would be flexible to allow the collection 

and transfer of these additional data to 

authorized NPDES programs. This is 

consistent with EPA’s requirements for 

approving NPDES program 

authorizations, in which state forms 

need to collect at least the same basic 

information as the forms used by EPA 

(e.g., 40 CFR 123.22). 

Taken together, electronically 

reporting the information described 

above would save the states, tribes, and 

territories considerable resources, make 

reporting easier for permittees, make it 

easier for the states and EPA to 

exchange data with each other and to 

provide it to the public, and enable 

better environmental decision-making. 

a. Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) 

Data 

i. Background 

EPA’s regulations require reporting of 

samples and measurements taken for the 

purpose of compliance monitoring at 

intervals specified in the NPDES permit 

[40 CFR 122.41(j) and (l)(4)]. When selfmonitoring results are reported to the 

permitting authority, they are compared 

with current permit limits and any 

existing enforcement orders to 

determine facility compliance. The 

sample collection and analytical results 

required by the NPDES permit must be 

reported to the permitting authority 

through the submission of Discharge 

Monitoring Reports (DMRs) [40 CFR 

122.41(l)(4)(i)]. It is extremely important 

that the data reported on the DMR is 

timely, accurate, complete, and legible 

to ensure that the facility’s compliance 

status is correctly reflected; electronic 

reporting will likely improve each of 

these qualities. 

As of October 1, 2011, there are 

approximately 63,000 facilities 

submitting DMRs to their permitting 

authorities; the majority of these are 

individually-permitted facilities that 

directly discharge to surface waters. The 

universe of NPDES-regulated facilities 

has grown since the passage of the Clean 

Water Act and some facilities in these 

new sectors (e.g., some regulated 

stormwater discharges and vessels) are 

required to submit DMRs. 

The DMR submission process that is 

most frequently used requires the 

permittee to mail a hard-copy form of a 

pre-printed form (OMB Control No. 

2040–0004) to the authorized NPDES 

permitting authority. After receiving the 

hard copy version of the DMR, the 

authorized NPDES permitting authority 

enters this data into an electronic 

database (ICIS-NPDES or state database 

system). When a state, tribe, or territory 

applies for and obtains the authority to 

implement the NPDES permitting and 

enforcement program, the state, tribe, or 

territory is required to have a system for 

evaluating all DMRs [40 CFR 123.26(e)]. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46024 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

18Note: Any references to specific products are 

for informational purposes only. EPA and the 

federal government do not endorse any specific 

product, service or enterprise. 

ii. Existing Reporting Requirements and 

Expectations 

The permittee is responsible for 

understanding and meeting all permit 

requirements and submitting timely, 

accurate, complete, and legible selfmonitoring data in accordance with the 

CWA and its implementing regulations. 

The sample collection and analytical 

results required by the NPDES permit 

must also be reported to the permitting 

authority through the submission of 

DMRs at the frequency specified in the 

permit [see 40 CFR 122.41(j) and (l)(4)]. 

DMRs must be signed and submitted to 

the permitting authority by the date 

specified in the permit [40 CFR 

122.41(k) and (l)(4)]. All facilities must 

submit DMRs at least annually [40 CFR 

122.44(i)(2)], at the frequency specified 

in the permit. 

EPA’s PCS Policy Statement (as 

amended) created the expectation that 

the permitting authority enter facility 

information for all permitted facilities 

and DMR information from major 

facilities into ICIS-NPDES. About half of 

NPDES-authorized states also transmit 

DMR data for nonmajor facilities to 

ICIS-NPDES. EPA also notes that some 

NPDES permits require the electronic 

reporting of baseline monitoring data on 

DMR forms [e.g., EPA’s Multi-Sector 

General Permit (MSGP)], as baseline 

monitoring and effluent monitoring both 

relate to wastewater discharges and the 

same data elements as DMRs. 

Authorized states, tribes, and territories 

currently report DMR data to EPA (ICISNPDES) by one of the following means: 

• Collecting paper-based DMR forms, 

manually entering the information into 

the state, tribe, or territory database, and 

entering the expected federal data into 

ICIS-NPDES either on the web or 

through Batch eXtensible Markup 

Language (XML) files. 

• Developing and using a customized 

state, tribe, or territory electronic DMR 

(eDMR) tool that allows regulated 

entities to enter and electronically 

submit DMR data into a web-based 

application. The DMR data is then sent 

to the state, tribe, or territory database 

and the state, tribe, or territory is 

responsible for entering the expected 

federal data into ICIS-NPDES either on 

the web or through Batch XML files. 

• Sending data directly from the 

regulated entity to ICIS-NPDES through 

a customized installation of NetDMR, 

which is the federal eDMR tool. 

• Allowing regulated entities to enter 

data into the National Installation of 

NetDMR. 

Because there is a significant burden 

on states, tribes, or territories associated 

with manually entering DMR data into 

a data system, some states, tribes, or 

territories found that they were not able 

to meet their regulatory requirement 

[see 40 CFR 123.26(e)] to evaluate all 

DMR data for violations (see 2008 and 

2009 Clean Water Act Annual 

Noncompliance Reports, DCN 0016 and 

0025) or meet EPA’s ICIS-NPDES data 

entry policy expectations (see DCN 

0026). As documented in the Agency’s 

2008 Annual Noncompliance Reports, 

eight states reported reviewing less than 

50 percent of their nonmajor facilities 

for noncompliance (see DCN 0016). The 

lack of an automated, searchable NPDES 

data tracking system for each authorized 

state, tribe, or territory contributes to 

this gap in compliance oversight and 

environmental protection. 

To address such problems, 34 states 

(as of October 1, 2011) have or are 

planning to use electronic reporting 

tools where the permittee transfers DMR 

data over the internet into state or 

Federal databases. These tools include 

NetDMR, EPA’s current eDMR tool, 

which was released in June 2009. 

NetDMR allows NPDES-regulated 

facilities to enter and electronically 

submit DMR data through EPA’s CDX to 

ICIS-NPDES as an alternative to the 

paper-based DMR submission process. 

NetDMR and other comparable state, 

tribe, or territory tools essentially 

reproduce the pre-printed DMR in 

electronic format. Some of these tools 

allow for a properly formatted file [e.g., 

comma-separated value file or 

Extensible Markup Language (XML) file] 

to be shared between EPA, states, tribes, 

and territories, which is an important 

step towards more efficient data sharing. 

Most of these state, tribe, or territory 

DMR tools submit data to the state, 

tribe, or territory data system, which in 

turn sends the data to either ICISNPDES. These electronic reporting tools 

provide a successful model for 

transforming the paper-driven process 

with e-reporting. 

The adoption rate, or percent of 

permittees that use electronic reporting, 

in the states where electronic reporting 

of DMRs is an option as of October 1, 

2011, is generally less than half. EPA 

believes this is because electronic 

reporting is not required, and/or release 

of electronic reporting tools is relatively 

recent (see DCN 0027). However, as 

described in more detail in Section 

III.B.1, Ohio is an example of a state that 

has been able to achieve close to 100 

percent of electronic reporting of DMRs 

by implementing a phased approach for 

requiring permittees to use the eDMR 

system and by providing comprehensive 

training. EPA believes the Ohio 

experience validates the position that 

national electronic reporting of DMRs is 

feasible. 

iii. What Data Would be Required to be 

Submitted Electronically and Why 

EPA is soliciting comment on having 

NPDES-regulated facilities 

electronically submit DMRs in 

accordance with the proposed 40 CFR 

122.41(l)(4), which would reference the 

need for these submissions to be 

compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, 

and part 127. Some permitting 

authorities may require baseline 

monitoring discharge data to also be 

reported on DMR forms. The data 

elements specific to DMRs are listed in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA is 

proposing to revise 40 CFR 

122.41(l)(4)(i) to include electronic 

reporting requirements. 

iv. Additional Considerations 

EPA intends to expand the current 

NetDMR system and encourage the 

expansion of state, tribe, and territory 

eDMR systems to include DMRs for the 

existing and anticipated NPDESregulated community. To support the 

requirements under the proposed rule, 

EPA will expand NetDMR by the 

effective date of this rule to include all 

facilities that report DMRs and to add 

functionality, streamline overlapping 

system functionality, and provide a 

more robust platform for permitting 

authorities to manage and submit DMR 

data, including the addition of statespecific data that is not listed in the 

minimum set of federal data (Appendix 

A to 40 CFR part 127). 

EPA is also exploring the 

development of an ‘‘open platform’’ 

option that would allow NPDESregulated facilities to use third-party 

software for electronically submitting 

NPDES program data (e.g., DMRs) to the 

state, tribe, territory, or EPA in 

compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, 

and part 127 (see June 23, 2011; 76 FR 

36919). As previously discussed in 

Section III.B.1 of this preamble, this 

open platform option would be similar 

to the IRS model for electronic 

reporting, which uses third-party 

software vendors (e.g., TurboTax, 

TaxACT, or others) for tax data 

collection and transmission.18


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46025 

19See http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm. 20See 40 CFR 122.28(a)(2). 

b. General Permit Reports: Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to discharge; Notice of 

Termination (NOT); No Exposure 

Certification (NEC); Low Erosivity 

Waiver (LEW) 

i. Background 

EPA and authorized states, tribes, and 

territories issue general permits to cover 

multiple similar facilities under a single 

permit. Where a large number of similar 

facilities require permits, a general 

permit allows the permitting authority 

to allocate resources in a more efficient 

manner and provide more timely permit 

coverage than would occur if individual 

permits had to be issued to each similar 

facility. States, tribes, and territories 

must seek EPA approval to administer 

general permits.19 EPA’s regulations 

governing the General Permit Program 

are located at 40 CFR 122.28. EPA and 

authorized programs have issued over 

700 general permits nationwide. 

General permits typically share 

common elements: 20

• Sources that involve the same or 

substantially similar types of operations; 

• Sources that discharge the same 

types of wastes or engage in the same 

types of sludge use or disposal; 

• Sources that require the same 

effluent limitations or operating 

conditions, or standards for sewage 

sludge use or disposal; or 

• Sources that require the same 

monitoring where tiered conditions may 

be used for minor differences within a 

class (e.g., size or seasonal activity). 

The regulations at 40 CFR 122.28(a)(1) 

provide for general permits to cover 

dischargers within an area 

corresponding to specific geographic or 

political boundaries such as the 

following: 

• Designated planning area; 

• Sewer district; and 

• City, county, or state boundary. 

The process for developing and 

issuing NPDES general permits is 

similar to the process for individual 

permits; however, there are some 

differences in the sequence of events. 

For general permits, the permitting 

authority first identifies the need for a 

general permit and collects data that 

demonstrate that a group or category of 

dischargers has similarities that warrant 

a general permit. In deciding whether to 

develop a general permit, permitting 

authorities consider whether: 

• A large number of facilities will be 

covered; 

• The facilities have similar 

production processes or activities; 

• The facilities generate similar 

pollutants; and 

• Whether uniform water qualitybased effluent limits (WQBELs) (where 

necessary) will appropriately implement 

water quality standards. 

The remaining steps of the general 

permit process are the same as for 

individual permits. The permitting 

authority develops a draft permit that 

includes effluent limitations (if 

applicable), monitoring conditions, 

special conditions, and standard 

conditions. The permitting authority 

then issues a public notice and 

addresses public comments, coordinates 

with EPA as appropriate in the review 

process, completes a CWA section 401 

certification process, develops the 

administrative record, and issues the 

final permit. The final permit will also 

establish the requirements for the 

specific information that must be 

submitted by a facility that wishes to be 

covered under the general permit. 

After the final general permit has been 

issued, there are several general permit 

reports that facilities must submit to 

their permitting authority, including: 

• Notice of Intent (NOI) to discharge: 

This is the initial submission seeking 

coverage under a general permit [40 CFR 

122.28(b)(2)(i) and (ii)]; 

• Notice of Termination (NOT): A 

request by the permittee to terminate 

their coverage under an existing permit 

(40 CFR 124.5); 

• No Exposure Certification (NEC): A 

certification from a facility indicating 

that coverage under an existing 

stormwater general permit is not 

necessary due to certain facility-specific 

conditions [40 CFR 122.26(g)(1) and (4)]; 

and 

• Low Erosivity Waiver (LEW): A 

certification from a facility indicating 

that coverage under an existing 

construction stormwater general permit 

is not necessary due to certain facilityspecific or climate conditions [40 CFR 

122.26(b)(15)]. 

It is important to note that EPA 

general permit regulations (40 CFR 

122.28) do not require all general permit 

covered facilities to submit NOIs for all 

general permits issued by EPA and 

authorized state NPDES programs. Some 

general permits provide for automatic 

coverage. 

This means that neither EPA nor the 

authorized state, tribe, or territory 

programs will have information 

regarding exactly which facilities are 

regulated under these general permits. 

General permits cover a wide range of 

facility types that range from the very 

large (e.g., offshore oil and gas facilities, 

seafood processors) to very small 

discharges. Discharges from facilities 

covered under general permits include a 

variety of pollutants, such as total 

suspended solids, biochemical oxygen 

demand, oil and grease, bacteria, 

nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, and 

toxics. The following table presents an 

estimate of several types of general 

permit covered facilities: 

TABLE IV.1—ESTIMATE OF FACILITIES COVERED BY GENERAL PERMITS

General permit type 

Current 

number of 

facilities 21

Estimated total 

number of 

facilities over 

5 years 

Construction Stormwater ......................................................................................................................................... 222,000 22 1,010,000 

Industrial Stormwater ............................................................................................................................................... 100,000 171,000 

CAFO ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11,600 14,000 

Small Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer Systems .......................................................................................... 6,300 8,000 

Vessel General Permit 23 ......................................................................................................................................... 69,000 100,000 

Pesticide Applicators 24 ............................................................................................................................................ 365,000 645,000 

Other Industrial General Permits (e.g., oil and gas extraction, seafood processors) ............................................. 31,800 40,000 

Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs) ......................................................................................................................... 38 38 

Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) ............................................................................................................................. 1,900 1,900 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 816,138 1,989,938 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46026 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

21As of October 2011. 

22Although EPA anticipates the need to manage 

data flows for approximately 1 million CGP 

permittees over the next 5 years, due to rapid 

turnover there will only be approximately 202,000 

permittees at any given time. 

23Not covered in this proposed rule; the reasons 

are described in Section IV.E.6.c. 

24Not covered in this proposed rule; the reasons 

are described in Section IV.E.6.d. 

25See http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/ 

msgp.cfm. 

Finally, EPA notes that POTWs with 

approved pretreatment programs can 

use general control mechanisms, such as 

general permits, to regulate the activities 

of groups of significant industrial users 

(SIUs). Provided that the POTW has the 

necessary legal authority, it may issue a 

general control mechanism for a group 

of SIUs that meet certain minimum 

criteria for being considered 

substantially similar [40 CFR 

403.8(f)(1)(A)(1)]. Pretreatment reporting 

is discussed in Section IV.E.1.e. 

ii. Existing Reporting Requirements 

In general, there is significantly less 

data in ICIS–NPDES on facilities 

covered by general permits than 

facilities regulated under individual 

permits due to reduced state reporting 

requirements for non-major facilities. 

Most facilities covered by general 

permits are classified as non-majors. 

States, tribes, territories, and EPA 

regions are required to enter data 

concerning the general permit and some 

limited data regarding general permit 

covered facilities. Limited data on 

general permit covered facilities 

impedes an accurate assessment of this 

part of the NPDES program. . 

In particular, there are significantly 

less DMR data and linkages to receiving 

waters for these facilities as compared to 

facilities controlled by individual 

permits. EPA estimates that 

approximately 90 percent of general 

permit covered facilities regulated by a 

non-stormwater general permit are 

required to submit DMRs. However, 

most of the general permit covered 

facilities are nonmajors and their DMR 

data is not yet incorporated into ICIS– 

NPDES. This lack of data significantly 

inhibits public transparency on 

discharge data and compliance with 

permit effluent limits, as roughly 95 

percent of all NPDES-regulated entities 

are covered by general permits. 

iii. What data would be required to be 

submitted electronically and why? 

EPA is soliciting comment on having 

facilities electronically submit NOIs and 

NOTs for permit coverage or requesting 

the termination of permit coverage in 

accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i) 

and (ii), 122.41(l), 122.26(b)(15) and 

(g)(4), and 124.5, which are proposed to 

be updated to reference the need for 

these submissions to comply with 40 

CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. 

Similarly, as required, NECs and LEWs 

are to be completed and submitted 

electronically by the facility in 

accordance with 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15) 

and (g)(4), which references the need for 

these submissions to comply with 40 

CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. The 

data elements specific to these general 

permit reports are listed in Appendix A 

to 40 CFR part 127. 

In addition to notifying the permitting 

authority of a facility’s desire to obtain, 

waive, or terminate permit coverage, the 

general permit reports submitted by 

facilities also provide EPA, the state, 

tribe, or territory with data about the 

facility and its operations. These data 

include: information identifying the 

facility; a description of the facility’s 

processes, wastewater volumes, and 

pollutant characteristics; discharge 

point locations, including the name of 

the receiving water body; projected start 

and end dates of permit coverage; effects 

of discharge on threatened or 

endangered species; certification 

statements; and other site-specific data. 

Although each general permit can 

impose slightly different reporting 

requirements, the process is consistent 

and may include some of the following 

types of data: 

• Facility information (e.g., 

ownership, name, address, location, 

non-government contacts); 

• Permit information (e.g., NPDES ID, 

permit number, permit type, various 

permit dates, permitted flow 

information, information about permit 

status, industry category and codes, 

permit limits, and permittee address 

information); 

• Certain information for cooling 

water intake structures and thermal 

variances where applicable (e.g., intake 

type, number of intakes, design intake 

flow); 

• Report information associated with 

NOTs, NECs, and LEWs; 

• Biosolids information, where 

applicable (e.g., sewage sludge 

production and disposal information); 

• CAFO information, where 

applicable (e.g., animal types and 

numbers, confinement types and 

capacity, storage types and capacities); 

• Stormwater discharge information, 

where applicable (e.g., receiving water 

body name, project size, residual 

designation information, MS4 data, 

project termination data); 

• CSO information, where applicable 

(e.g., incorporated controls, population 

served, information on collection 

system and satellite systems); 

• Pretreatment information, where 

applicable (e.g., program indicators and 

dates, receiving POTW, streamlining 

dates, control authority); and 

• POTW information, where 

applicable (e.g., population served, and 

satellite collection system information). 

EPA is soliciting comment on a 

minimum set of data (see Appendix A 

to 40 CFR part 127) be submitted 

electronically to ensure consistent and 

complete reporting nationwide and to 

expedite the collection and processing 

of the data, thereby making it more 

timely, accurate, complete, and 

available to the public. EPA estimates 

that the electronic submission of these 

general permit reports will save the 

states, tribes, and territories 

considerable resources, make reporting 

easier for NPDES-regulated entities, 

streamline permit renewals (as permit 

writers typically review previous 

noncompliance events during permit 

renewal), ensure full exchange of 

NPDES general permit data between 

states, tribes, territories, and EPA to the 

public, and improve environmental 

decision-making. The standard 

minimum data elements are provided in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. This 

proposed rule does not expand the 

reporting requirements for permittees 

beyond what is required by existing 

regulations. 

In most cases, a business or facility 

will only be required to submit such 

forms once during each permit cycle. 

Most of these general permit reports are 

currently being received by the states, 

tribes, territories, or EPA in hard-copy 

form (i.e., printed on paper) for 

distribution within the permitting 

authority for approval processing and 

management. In addition to the four 

general permit reports (i.e., NOIs, NOTs, 

LEWs, and NECs), facilities operating 

under some general permits are also 

required to electronically submit other 

NPDES data (e.g., DMRs). 

iv. Additional Considerations 

During the implementation period, 

EPA will address variations in the four 

general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, 

NOTs, LEWs, NECs) across the different 

authorized NPDES programs. EPA’s goal 

is to implement a general permit 

reporting system that can capture 

general permits data nationally. For 

example, EPA currently operates an 

electronic reporting system for NOIs and 

a Vessels One Time Report supporting 

four EPA-issued general permits: MultiSector General Permit (MSGP) 25; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46027 

26See http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/ 

cgp.cfm. 

27http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/ 

vgpermit.cfm. 

Construction General Permit (CGP) 26; 

Vessels General Permit (VGP) 27; and the 

Pesticides General Permit (PGP). The 

MSGP and CGP regulate facilities where 

EPA is the permitting authority (e.g., in 

non-authorized states, tribes, and 

territories) and the VGP is a nationwide 

permit administered by EPA. On 

October 31, 2011, EPA issued a final 

NPDES Pesticide General Permit (PGP) 

for point source discharges from the 

application of pesticides to waters of the 

United States. 

All state, tribe, and territory MSGPs 

and CGPs should be collecting similar 

data, but some states, tribes, and 

territories might be collecting additional 

data elements for their own needs. For 

these general permits, EPA believes a 

reporting tool based on the federal 

MSGP and CGP, which includes a 

number of definable data fields can 

accommodate the full range of state, 

tribe, or territory variability. In essence, 

the reporting tool could merge the EPA 

data fields with other definable fields to 

produce a ‘‘customized’’ general permit 

reporting tool specifically for use by 

permittees within that state, tribe, or 

territory. EPA anticipates a certain 

amount of data commonality that will 

help limit the number of truly unique 

fields on reporting forms. 

Several factors could reduce the 

number of unique reporting tools that 

would be needed. First, substantial 

portions of all general permits are quite 

similar–such as the data identifying the 

facility and its owners and operators. In 

addition, many of the general permit 

types would be tracked by multiple 

states, tribes, or territories and may be 

similar due to common permittee 

operations, discharges, or monitoring. 

Several states, tribes, or territories have 

either developed general permits for 

specific industries, or have developed a 

more generic general permit that 

includes an industry as a subset under 

a broader category. Where common 

general permit data are identified across 

states, tribes, and territories, a limited 

number of industry-specific templates, 

each of which includes a limited 

number of definable fields, might be 

able to accommodate the full range of 

variability among non-EPA issued 

general permits. EPA solicits comment 

on how to best address the variability of 

general permits issued by EPA, states, 

tribes, and territories. There are a 

number of scenarios as states, tribes, 

and territories move toward the 

electronic submission of general permit 

reports. 

• Permits Covered by State, Tribal, 

and Territory General Permit Electronic 

Reporting Tools—As of October 1, 2011, 

approximately 15 states use an 

electronic reporting tool for NOIs for at 

least some of their permit types (see 

DCN 0027). EPA expects these states to 

continue using their existing NOI 

electronic reporting tools. EPA will 

review these tools to determine if they 

comply with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and 

part 127 (see 40 CFR 127.27). States, 

tribes, and territories will also be 

required to share with EPA the 

minimum set of federal data (Appendix 

A to CFR part 127). EPA will provide 

the states, tribes, and territories with 

information on how to provide the data 

to EPA’s CDX node on the Exchange 

Network, which will provide the data to 

ICIS–NPDES. 

• States, Tribes, and Territories 

Opting to Use EPA’s General Permit 

Report System- Some states, tribes, and 

territories do not have an electronic 

reporting system for general permit 

reports and would prefer not to develop 

one. States, tribes, and territories have 

the option to adopt EPA’s electronic 

reporting tool for general permit reports. 

EPA’s electronic reporting tool would 

allow users to enter their general permit 

report data into a fillable PDF electronic 

form and then electronically sign and 

submit the form to the authorized 

NPDES program. The appropriate 

authorized NPDES program will 

approve or deny the form, and approved 

forms would be sent to ICIS–NPDES by 

the tool through CDX. EPA’s electronic 

reporting tool for general permit reports 

will also offer users the capability of 

sending the approved general permit 

data to a particular state, tribe, and 

territory NPDES data system. 

When a state, tribe, or territory 

notifies EPA that they intend to use 

EPA’s tools to allow their permittees to 

electronically submit general permit 

reports, the EPA system administrator 

will set up a general permit report 

workspace within the federal tool for 

use by EPA regions and authorized 

state, tribe, or territory programs. After 

that workspace has been set up, the tool 

will solicit essential general permit data 

and monitoring requirements from ICIS– 

NPDES via CDX to populate electronic 

forms. EPA regions and authorized state, 

tribe, or territory programs will also 

have the capability of creating new 

general permits in the new federal tool. 

These forms would be accessible to 

facilities through the workspace. An 

authorized NPDES program 

administrator would be responsible for 

approving general permit reports from 

users, establishing the limit monitoring 

requirements for an approved NOI, and 

submitting the data to ICIS–NPDES. 

The authorized NPDES program user 

would be responsible for confirming 

that ICIS–NPDES has processed the data 

and would either communicate errors 

back to the facility user or generate a 

confirmation letter for the facility user 

along with a permit identifier that has 

been assigned by ICIS–NPDES. The new 

federal tool will provide an easy means 

for the authorized NPDES program to 

manage these general permit data 

without requiring direct access to ICIS– 

NPDES. 

As noted in the implementation 

section (see Section IV.K), facilities 

seeking coverage, waiver, or termination 

from a general permit would be required 

to submit the information required by 

this rule electronically. If the general 

permit does not require electronic 

reporting, then these facilities would be 

required to submit paper copy general 

permit reports to their permitting 

authority for approval and (unless the 

permitting authority is EPA) also report 

electronically to EPA under Sections 

304(i) and 308 of the Clean Water Act. 

If that general permit requires electronic 

reporting, it must be compliant with 40 

CFR part 3 (CROMERR) and 40 CFR part 

127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule), 

including submission to the appropriate 

initial recipient, as identified by EPA, 

and as described in Section IV.I. 

c. CAFO Program Reports 

i. Background 

Concentrated animal feeding 

operations (CAFOs) are animal feeding 

operations where animals are kept and 

raised in confinement, as defined at 40 

CFR 122.23(b)(2), and that meet certain 

regulatory criteria or are designated by 

the permitting authority or Regional 

Administrator. In the absence of facilityspecific data, EPA’s Office of Water 

estimates there are approximately 

14,400 large or medium CAFOs 

nationwide. The Office of Water 

estimates that of this universe, 

approximately 8,300 CAFOs have 

NPDES permits. Of the remaining large 

and medium CAFOs, it is unknown how 

many of them discharge and need 

permit coverage (see DCN 0029). Failure 

to properly manage manure, litter, and 

process wastewater at CAFOs can 

negatively impact the environment and 

public health. Discharges of manure and 

wastewater from CAFOs have the 

potential to contribute pollutants such 

as nitrogen, phosphorus, organic matter, 

sediments, pathogens, heavy metals, 

hormones, and ammonia to surface 

waters. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46028 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

28See EPA’s Web site at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ 

npdes/cso/cpolicy.cfm. 

ii. Existing Reporting Requirements 

Under the existing NPDES 

regulations, pursuant to 40 CFR 

122.23(d)(1), every CAFO that 

discharges must apply for either an 

individual NPDES permit or seek 

coverage under a general permit, if 

available. NPDES-permitted CAFOs are 

required to submit an annual report to 

the State Director or Regional 

Administrator pursuant to 40 CFR 

122.42(e)(4). The annual report must 

include: (1) The number and type of 

animals, whether in open confinement 

or housed under roof; (2) estimated 

amount of total manure, litter, and 

process wastewater generated by the 

CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons 

or gallons); (3) estimated amount of total 

manure, litter, and process wastewater 

transferred to other persons by the 

CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons 

or gallons); (4) total number of acres for 

land application covered by the CAFO’s 

nutrient management plan; (5) total 

number of acres under control of the 

CAFO that were used for land 

application of manure, litter, and 

process wastewater in the previous 12 

months; (6) summary of all manure, 

litter, and process wastewater 

discharges from the production area that 

have occurred in the previous 12 

months, including date, time, and 

approximate volume; (7) a statement 

indicating whether the current version 

of the CAFO’s nutrient management 

plan was developed or approved by a 

certified nutrient management planner; 

and (8) specified supporting agricultural 

data and calculations including the 

actual crop(s) planted and actual 

yield(s) for each field, and the actual 

nitrogen and phosphorus content of the 

manure, litter, and process wastewater. 

iii. What Data Would Be Required To Be 

Submitted Electronically and Why? 

EPA is soliciting comment on 

requiring CAFO permitted facilities 

electronically submit CAFO annual 

reports in accordance with 40 CFR 

122.42(e)(4), which references the need 

for these submissions to be compliant 

with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 

127. The data elements specific to these 

annual reports are listed in Appendix A 

to 40 CFR part 127. EPA is proposing to 

revise 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4) to include 

electronic reporting requirements. 

The electronic submission of annual 

reports would help permitting 

authorities collect and process CAFO 

information more efficiently, and aid in 

the evaluation of the compliance status 

of NPDES-permitted CAFOs. Electronic 

annual reports would provide the data 

elements already required under 40 CFR 

122.42(e)(4) in a more efficient and 

accessible form, allowing EPA, the 

states, tribes, territories, and the public 

to obtain updated information such as 

how many permitted CAFOs there are in 

the U.S., how many animals of each 

animal type are being raised at 

permitted CAFOs, how many permitted 

CAFOs have had discharges within the 

previous year, the type and amounts of 

manure generated by permitted CAFOs 

in the previous year, and the 

requirements and controls on these 

CAFOs. 

Electronic reporting of CAFO annual 

reports will also improve compliance 

monitoring. EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories rely on the information 

contained in annual program reports to 

augment inspections and effectively 

monitor compliance. The electronic 

submittal of annual reports will supply 

basic information on permitted CAFOs 

as well as more detailed discharge 

information. 

Finally, EPA is soliciting comment on 

eliminating the reporting of ‘‘time’’ of 

discharge from the annual report [see 40 

CFR 122.42(e)(4)(vi)]. EPA estimates 

that the reporting of the ‘‘date’’ of a 

discharge is sufficient for permitting 

and compliance determinations. EPA 

solicits comment on this proposed 

change. 

iv. Additional Considerations 

EPA recognizes that electronic 

reporting could be impracticable for 

some CAFO facilities, particularly those 

that do not have broadband access to the 

internet. In general, electronic reporting 

tools require faster Internet connection 

speeds to work most effectively. Taking 

into account the limitations of 

broadband availability and 

technological capabilities, EPA is 

considering providing a temporary 

exception to the electronic reporting 

requirements for certain CAFO facilities 

or other facilities lacking broadband 

capability or high-speed Internet access 

and solicits comment on such an 

exception. See 40 CFR 127.15. In that 

section, EPA solicits comment on 

whether to allow such facilities to 

receive a temporary waiver from 

electronic reporting, and temporarily be 

required to submit their NPDES 

compliance information on paper-based 

forms. 

d. Sewer Overflow and Bypass Reports 

i. Background 

This section of the preamble discusses 

CSOs and SSOs (together referred in this 

proposal as ‘‘sewer overflow events’’), 

and wastewater treatment works 

bypasses. CSO discharges generally 

occur at known outfall locations and are 

covered by an NPDES permit. SSOs 

generally do not occur at designated 

locations, but can occur from various 

locations in the system (e.g., manholes). 

A bypass at a POTW is an intentional 

diversion of wastewater from any 

portion of the treatment facility. See 40 

CFR 122.41(m)(l). 

ii. Existing Program Reporting 

Requirements 

Reporting requirements for sewer 

overflows and bypasses in NPDES 

permits are to be at least as stringent as 

specified in the ‘‘standard conditions’’ 

applicable to all NPDES permits [40 

CFR 122.41(l), and (m)(3)] or the CSO 

Control Policy [59 FR 18688, April 19, 

1994)] The following summarizes the 

current reporting requirements for sewer 

overflows and bypasses. 

Combined Sewer Overflows 

Under Section 402(q)(1) of the Clean 

Water Act, NPDES permits for combined 

sewer system discharges shall conform 

to EPA’s 1994 CSO Control Policy.28

The CSO Control Policy calls for a 

phased approach to permitting. In Phase 

I permits, all permittees with combined 

sewer systems were initially required to 

immediately implement Best Available 

Technology/Best Control Technology, 

which at a minimum includes the ‘‘nine 

minimum controls’’ as determined on a 

Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) basis 

by the permitting authority and develop 

a long-term CSO control plan that will 

ultimately result in compliance with the 

requirements of the CWA, including 

water quality standards. Phase II 

permits contain requirements for 

implementing the permittees’ long-term 

CSO control plans (LTCPs). 

The nine minimum controls are 

measures to reduce the prevalence and 

impacts of CSOs and include two 

information-related measures. 

Permittees are required to provide 

‘‘public notification to ensure that the 

public receives adequate notification of 

CSO occurrences and CSO impacts,’’ 

and to conduct ‘‘monitoring to 

effectively characterize CSO impacts 

and the efficacy of CSO controls.’’ 

Development and implementation of the 

LTCPs entails the following, which 

include monitoring and reported 

activities: 

• Characterizing, monitoring, and 

modeling of the combined sewer system 

(see CSO Control Policy Section II.C.1); 

• Prohibiting new or significantly 

increased overflows to sensitive areas, 

which requires monitoring and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46029 

assessment of the CSO events (see CSO 

Control Policy Section II.C.3.a); 

• Conducting an evaluation of CSO 

controls based on frequency, duration, 

volume, location, treatment, and 

compliance with water-quality 

standards (see CSO Control Policy 

Section II.C.4); 

• Conducting a cost and performance 

analysis of the LTCP based on 

characterization, monitoring, and 

modeling data (see CSO Control Policy 

Section II.C.5); 

• Maximizing treatment at the 

existing POTW treatment plant based on 

characterization, monitoring, and 

modeling data (see CSO Control Policy 

Section II.C.7); and 

• Conducting a post-construction 

compliance monitoring program, 

according to a plan which details the 

monitoring protocols to be followed, 

such as the necessary effluent, ambient, 

and other water-quality monitoring, 

which must be approved by the NPDES 

authority (see CSO Control Policy 

Section II.C.9). 

The characterization, monitoring, 

modeling, and reporting measures help 

the permittee and the NPDES permitting 

authority determine the appropriate 

controls to be implemented and the 

effectiveness of the controls selected in 

the LTCP in meeting CWA requirements 

and achieving applicable water quality 

standards. The NPDES permitting 

authority uses CSO monitoring and 

assessment data from the permittee in 

order to develop appropriate permit 

conditions and demonstrate compliance 

with the CSO Control Policy. NPDES 

permits must identify the CSO outfalls 

and permitted discharges. All 

discharges from these outfalls, whether 

dry or wet-weather discharges, are 

subject to reporting requirements under 

NPDES permits. CSO discharges from 

CSO permitted outfalls (dry or wetweather) that constitute noncompliance 

are required to be reported under 40 

CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7). CSO 

discharges from CSO permitted outfalls 

(wet-weather) that do not result in 

noncompliance can be reported on 

DMRs [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i)] at the 

frequency identified by the permit, and 

are subject to public notification 

requirements, one of the nine minimum 

measures under the CSO Control Policy. 

However, one of the nine minimum 

measures is to prohibit CSO discharges 

during dry weather. Therefore, EPA 

regulations require that these and other 

noncompliance events must be reported 

under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7). 

Sanitary Sewer Overflows 

Separate sanitary sewer systems, 

unlike combined sewer systems, are 

designed to carry only domestic sewage. 

SSOs are generally unplanned and can 

occur anywhere in a collection system, 

although generally they are due to 

excessive infiltration and inflow during 

and following wet weather events. 

SSOs, including those that do not reach 

waters of the United States, may be 

indicative of improper operation and 

maintenance of the sewer system and 

thus may violate NPDES permit 

conditions requiring proper operation 

and maintenance [40 CFR 122.41(e)]. 

These noncompliance events are 

required to be reported to the NPDES 

permitting authority in compliance with 

EPA’s standard permit conditions [40 

CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)]. POTWs must 

provide an oral report within 24 hours 

for any overflow event that ‘‘may 

endanger health or the environment’’ 

and follow-up the oral report with a 

‘‘written submission’’ within 5 days of 

the permittee’s discovery of the 

overflow event [see 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)]. 

All other overflows are required to be 

reported by the permittee with the next 

regularly scheduled monitoring report 

[40 CFR 122.41(l)(7)]. 

Bypass Events 

EPA regulations [40 CFR 122.41(m)] 

prohibit ‘‘bypassing’’ any portion of a 

treatment facility. If the permittee 

knows that a bypass will occur, it is 

required to submit notice to the 

permitting authority, if possible at least 

ten days in advance of anticipated 

bypass events [see 40 CFR 

122.41(m)(3)(i)]. If a bypass is 

unanticipated, permittees must provide 

an oral report within 24 hours and 

follow-up the oral report with a ‘‘written 

submission’’ within 5 days of the 

permittee’s discovery of the bypass 

event [see 40 CFR 122.41(m)(3)(ii) 

which references 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)]. 

Where a POTW has a combined sewer 

system, and the permit includes an 

approved anticipated bypass, the permit 

should specify monitoring and reporting 

related to the bypass. This proposed 

rule does not change the reporting 

requirements for bypass events related 

to non-POTW facilities (industrial 

facilities). 

iii. What data would be required to be 

submitted electronically and why? 

EPA is soliciting comment on 

requiring POTWs to report sewer 

overflow, sanitary sewer overflow, and 

bypass reports in compliance with 

permit conditions implementing 40 CFR 

122.41(l)(4),(6), and (7), (m)(3), and CSO 

Control Policy would be required to be 

completed electronically. These data 

submissions would be subject to 40 CFR 

part 3, 122.22, and part 127. The data 

for these reports would be based on 

current reporting requirements and 

listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 

127. EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 

122.41(l)(6) and (7), and (m)(3)(i) to 

include electronic reporting 

requirements for sewer overflows and 

bypass events. 

With respect to CSOs, this proposed 

language would only require electronic 

reporting for noncompliant combined 

sewer overflows. EPA is not proposing 

to require the electronic submission of 

LTCPs as these reports are unique to 

each POTW. EPA solicits comment on 

this approach. In addition, under 

section 402(q), permits issued to POTWs 

with combined sewer systems must 

require monitoring and reporting of wetweather CSO events in accordance with 

the CSO Control Policy. As previously 

noted, wet weather CSO discharges that 

do not result in noncompliance can be 

reported on DMRs [40 CFR 

122.41(l)(4)(i)] at the frequency 

identified by the permit. EPA is 

soliciting comment on amending 40 

CFR 122.41(l)(4) to require the same 

data that would be required to be 

reported under proposed section 

122.41(l)(6) and Appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 127 be reported electronically by 

such POTWs in their DMRs. 

With respect to unanticipated 

bypasses, EPA is soliciting comment 

that the reporting requirements in 40 

CFR 122.41(m)(3)(ii) would also be 

changed from paper-based reporting to 

electronic reporting as this section 

cross-references section 122.41(l)(6), 

which EPA is proposing to amend as 

above. This proposed rule would not 

change the reporting requirements for 

bypass events related to non-POTW 

facilities (industrial facilities). 

The collection, management, analysis, 

and reporting of data from the sewer 

overflow and bypass reports, which 

have been identified for conversion 

from paper-based to electronic reporting 

under the proposed rule, would aid EPA 

oversight of state NPDES programs as 

well as provide the public with better 

access to this data. CSO, SSO, and 

bypass events are of special concern 

with respect to public health because 

they can expose the public to bacteria, 

viruses, intestinal parasites, and other 

microorganisms that can cause serious 

illness such as cholera, dysentery, 

hepatitis, cryptosporidiosis, and 

giardiasis. Precipitation and snowmelt 

entering combined and separate sanitary 

sewer systems may result in sewer 

overflow events, which in turn may be 

responsible for beach closings, 

swimming and fishing advisories, and 

habitat degradation. Sewer overflows 

contribute to 15 percent of impaired 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46030 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

29U.S. EPA, 2009. ‘‘FY 2010 Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance, April 

23, 2009, DCN 0044. 

30U.S. EPA, 2004. ’’ Report to Congress: Impacts 

and Control of CSOs and SSO,’’ EPA 833–R–04– 

001, August, DCN 0045. 

31U.S. EPA, 2007, ‘‘Controlling Fats, Oils, and 

Grease Discharges from Food Service 

Establishments,’’ EPA–833–F–07–007, July, DCN 

0046. 

rivers and streams, 6 percent of 

impaired lakes, and 33 percent of 

impaired bays and estuaries.29 The 

Office of Water’s (OW) 2004 Report to 

Congress on ‘‘Impacts and Control of 

CSOs and SSOs’’ estimated the annual 

CSO and SSO discharge volumes of 

untreated wastewater at 850 billion and 

three to ten billion gallons per year, 

respectively.30

As a result of this proposed rule, EPA, 

states, tribes, and territories would be 

able to better estimate the location, 

frequency, magnitude, and duration of 

sewer overflows, the environmental and 

public health impacts, and the potential 

causes. This sewer overflow data would 

provide the public with meaningful 

information on the number and 

frequency of sewer overflows in their 

communities. This data could also be 

used to prioritize decisions on how best 

to upgrade aging infrastructure and 

could be integrated with health 

warnings by local municipalities to 

protect public health. 

EPA also solicits comment on 

whether these sewer overflow reports 

should be limited to sewer overflows at 

a threshold volume or include de 

minimis releases (minor volumes 

associated with routine operation and 

maintenance). Finally, EPA also solicits 

comment on whether the list of 

minimum federal data for sewer 

overflows and bypasses (Appendix A to 

40 CFR part 127) provide sufficient 

distinction between the different types 

of sewer overflows and bypasses. 

e. Pretreatment Program Reports 

i. Background 

POTWs receive wastewater from 

households (domestic waste), as well as 

from a wide variety of commercial and 

industrial facilities, referred to as 

industrial users (IUs). The types of IUs 

range widely, from small restaurants to 

hospitals to large and complex organic 

chemical manufacturers. EPA has 

further identified some IUs as 

categorical industrial users (CIUs), i.e., 

IUs subject to EPA’s pretreatment 

standards developed for particular 

industrial categories, and significant 

industrial users (SIUs), i.e., IUs that are 

either CIUs or discharge process 

wastewater above the thresholds set in 

40 CFR 403.5. EPA has developed a 

comprehensive pretreatment program 

implemented through EPA Regions, 

state, tribes, territories, and POTWs to 

control IU discharges of pollutants that 

might pass through or interfere with 

POTW treatment processes or 

contaminate sewage sludge, thereby 

posing a threat to human health or the 

environment. POTWs with approved 

pretreatment programs are required to 

develop, implement, and enforce 

pretreatment program elements through 

provisions written into their NPDES 

permits or waste discharge 

requirements. POTWs with approved 

pretreatment programs are also required 

to annually report biosolids compliance 

monitoring data to EPA or an authorized 

state program. NPDES regulations also 

require POTWs to disclose information 

to the Director of the permitting 

authority about IU discharges into their 

collection system and to identify when 

these discharges substantially change 

[see 40 CFR 122.42(b) and 122.44(j)(1)]. 

The pretreatment program primarily 

focuses on controlling pollutants from 

IUs that: (1) Have the potential to cause 

the POTW to violate its NPDES permit 

discharge limits; (2) may pose a safety 

concern to the POTW or its workers; or 

(3) affect the POTW’s sewage sludge 

disposal method. [See 40 CFR 403.3(i).] 

The pretreatment program also has 

several other equally important 

regulatory requirements and initiatives. 

First, the pretreatment program ensures 

implementation and compliance with 

the technology-based categorical 

pretreatment standards (see 40 CFR 

403.6). Second, the pretreatment 

program contains regulatory provisions 

for preventing sewer blockages and 

collection system overflows due to fats, 

oils, and grease.31 Finally, municipal 

pretreatment programs are the source of 

significant pollution prevention and 

innovation initiatives. For example, 

such efforts include best management 

practices and controls for dental 

mercury and unused pharmaceuticals. 

Through the pretreatment program 

regulations at 40 CFR part 403 and 

requirements within the NPDES 

regulations at 40 CFR part 122, EPA and 

approved state pretreatment programs 

directly oversee and regulate over 1,500 

approved pretreatment programs. These 

approved pretreatment programs, in 

turn, oversee approximately 20,000 SIUs 

[see 40 CFR 403.8(f)]. The total number 

of SIUs is approximately three times the 

number of NPDES major dischargers. 

The pretreatment program is 

considered a component of the NPDES 

program; however, in a larger sense, its 

regulatory framework is as 

comprehensive as the NPDES permit 

program itself. As with the NPDES 

permit program, EPA can authorize 

states to implement and enforce the 

NPDES pretreatment program. EPA has 

authorized pretreatment programs in 36 

states as of October 1, 2011. The 

pretreatment program has additional 

complexity as authorized states, tribes, 

and territories (approval authorities) can 

further authorize pretreatment program 

authority to local governments. This 

complexity is reflected in the different 

types of compliance monitoring 

reporting, the associated report 

preparers and reviewers, and report 

timing. 

ii. Existing Program Reporting 

Requirements 

EPA identified 23 different 

pretreatment program reports as 

candidates for electronic reporting; 

these reports are currently managed in 

hard-copy format between industrial 

users, control authorities, and approval 

authorities. See Table IV.2. In general, 

these reports fall into the following 

categories: 

• Approval Authority Reports: 

Program reports from approval 

authorities to EPA; 

• Control Authority Reports: Program 

reports from control authorities to 

approval authorities (states or EPA 

Regions); and 

• Industrial User Reports: Program 

reports from industrial users to control 

authorities (local POTWs, authorized 

states, tribes, territories, or EPA Regions 

in cities without approved programs). 

TABLE IV.2—LIST OF PRETREATMENT PROGRAM REPORTS

Regulation Report Reporting entity Receiving entity Frequency 

40 CFR 403.6 ..... Categorical Determination Request.CIU/POTW ......................... Approval Authority .............. Once per request. 

40 CFR 403.7 ..... Removal Credit Authorization and 

Compliance Monitoring.

Control Authority ................ Approval Authority .............. Once per request. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46031 

TABLE IV.2—LIST OF PRETREATMENT PROGRAM REPORTS—Continued 

Regulation Report Reporting entity Receiving entity Frequency 

40 CFR 403.09 ... POTW pretreatment programs 

and/or authorization to revise 

pretreatment standards: Submission for approval.

Control Authority ................ Approval Authority .............. Once per request. 

40 CFR 403.10 ... Application and Reporting Requirements for States to Seek 

Approval from EPA to Run Their 

State Pretreatment Program.

Approval Authority .............. EPA .................................... Once per request. 

40 CFR 403.11 ... Removal Credit Authorization ....... Control Authority ................ Approval Authority .............. Case by Case. 

40 CFR 403.12 

(b).

Baseline Monitoring Report .......... CIU ..................................... Control Authority ................ Once per EPA categorical 

standard rulemaking. 

40 CFR 403.12 

(d).

Initial report on Compliance with 

Categorical Pretreatment Standard.

CIU ..................................... Control Authority ................ Once per EPA categorical 

standard rulemaking. 

40 CFR 403.12 

(e).

Periodic Reports on Continued 

Compliance for CIUs.

CIU ..................................... Control Authority ................ Biannually. 

40 CFR 403.12 

(f).

Notice of Potential Problems, Including Slug Loading.IU ........................................ Control Authority ................ Case by Case. 

403.12(g)(2) ........ 24 hour notification of violations, 

30 day re-sampling.

SIU ..................................... Control Authority ................ Case by Case. 

40 CFR 403.12 

(h).

Periodic Reports on Continued 

Compliance for Non-CIUs.

SIU ..................................... Control Authority ................ Biannually. 

40 CFR 403.12 (i) Annual POTW Reports ................. Control Authority ................ Approval Authority .............. Annually. 

40 CFR 403.12 (j) Notification of Changed Discharge IU ........................................ Control Authority ................ Case by Case. 

40 CFR 403.12 

(k).

Compliance Schedule for POTWs Control Authority ................ Approval Authority .............. Once per event. 

40 CFR 403.12 

(p).

Hazardous Waste Notification and 

BMP Certification.

IU ........................................ Control Authority ................ Case by Case. 

40 CFR 122.42(b) POTW Disclosure Requirements 

on IU Discharges for NPDES 

Permitting.

POTW ................................ NPDES Program Director .. Case by Case. 

40 CFR 

122.44(j)(1).

SIUs, identify in terms of volumes 

and character of pollutants.

POTW ................................ NPDES Program Director .. Case by Case. 

40 CFR 403.12 

(q).

Annual Certification by Non-Significant Categorical Industrial 

Users.

CIU ..................................... Control Authority ................ Annually. 

40 CFR 403.13 ... Variances from categorical 

pretreatment standards for fundamentally different factors.

IU, POTW, or Other Interested Person.Approval Authority and 

EPA.

Case by Case. 

40 CFR 403.15 ... Net/Gross calculations .................. IU ........................................ Control Authority ................ Case by Case. 

40 CFR 403.16 ... Upset ............................................. CIUs ................................... Control Authority ................ Case by Case. 

40 CFR 403.17 ... Bypass .......................................... IUs ...................................... Control Authority ................ Case by Case. 

40 CFR 403.18 ... Modifications of POTW 

pretreatment programs.

Control Authority ................ Approval Authority .............. Case by Case. 

Note: EPA’s pretreatment regulations (40 CFR part 403) also require other reports (e.g., reports required by administrative orders). These reporting requirements are case-by-case events. 

These reports are submitted in hardcopy format to local pretreatment 

programs, authorized states, tribes, 

territories, or EPA Regions. Key data 

from these reports are not generally 

standardized, publicly available, or 

shared because these data are mostly in 

hard-copy format and reported in 

different forms. 

Currently, authorized states, tribes, 

territories, or EPA Regions enter or 

otherwise transfer basic POTW data 

(e.g., POTW name, address, latitude and 

longitude, POTW NPDES ID, POTW 

effluent limits, name of receiving 

waterbody) into ICIS–NPDES (see DCN 

0031). Pretreatment program audits and 

compliance inspection summary data, 

collected by the authorized states, 

tribes, territories, or EPA, is entered into 

ICIS–NPDES; similar summary data on 

POTW performance actions is submitted 

annually by the POTW [in accordance 

with NPDES permit conditions and also 

40 CFR 403.12(i)], but is not necessarily 

entered into state or federal data 

systems. EPA limited the number of 

WENDB pretreatment data elements as a 

means of reducing the reporting burden 

on states, tribes, and territories. 

Consequently, ICIS–NPDES 

pretreatment data only provide very 

general information about pretreatment 

programs and do not contain 

programmatic or compliance 

information on individual significant 

industrial users. 

In the absence of approved local 

pretreatment programs, EPA, state, tribe, 

or territory functions as the control 

authority with the direct responsibility 

of overseeing these industrial users. 

EPA estimates that there are 

approximately 1,400 industrial users 

located in cities without approved local 

pretreatment programs. Failure to track 

and enforce compliance of IUs for 

which states, tribes, territories, or EPA 

are the control authority was cited as a 

weakness by EPA’s Office of Inspector 

General (see DCN 0032). Some states 

and EPA Regions acting as control 

authorities have entered some 

information regarding industrial users 

located in cities without approved local 

pretreatment programs, but such data is 

very limited in the national NPDES data 

systems. 

There are also inconsistencies in data 

entry between the state, tribe, territory, 

and Regional pretreatment programs. 

EPA recently reviewed pretreatment 

data in PCS and ICIS–NPDES and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46032 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

32The Missouri DNR Web site is an example of 

such a PDF repository of static searchable 

documents. See http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/ 

permits/wpcpermits-issued.htm. 

interviewed EPA Regional pretreatment 

data entry staff. In doing this, EPA 

identified considerable inconsistencies 

in data entry, including use of database 

codes, types of data entered, and 

whether the data is entered at all. This 

lack of timely, accurate, and complete 

data limits EPA’s oversight of the 

pretreatment program at the national 

level. Finally, there is limited public 

access to pretreatment data in ICIS– 

NPDES. 

iii. What data would be required to be 

submitted electronically and why? 

EPA solicits comment on having 

certain pretreatment program reports 

submitted electronically in accordance 

with 40 CFR 403.12(e), (h), and (i), 

which references the need for these 

submissions to be compliant with 40 

CFR part 3, part 127, and 403.12(l). The 

data elements for these reports are listed 

in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA 

notes that these reporting requirements 

do not apply to facilities solely 

regulated under state, tribe, and territory 

pretreatment statutes and regulations 

(i.e., facilities that are exempt from EPA 

regulations but are regulated under 

more stringent state, tribe, and territory 

statutes or regulations). 

EPA reviewed all pretreatment reports 

in Table IV.2 as potential candidates for 

electronic reporting. EPA evaluated the 

feasibility and necessity of converting 

paper-based pretreatment program 

reports to electronic reports against the 

following factors: (1) The ability to 

standardize a pretreatment report; (2) 

the frequency of the pretreatment report; 

(3) the need to collect and manage data 

from the pretreatment report on a 

national basis for measuring 

programmatic and compliance 

activities; and (4) what summary data 

from various paper-based reports could 

be combined into another existing 

reporting requirement. EPA proposes 

that reports that are not identified for 

electronic reporting in this proposed 

rulemaking would remain as paperbased reporting requirements unless 

future regulations are implemented. 

Additionally, the pretreatment program 

reports that are not identified for 

electronic reporting in this proposed 

rulemaking may still be good candidates 

for being managed as electronic 

documents (e.g., searchable PDFs) and 

for posting on EPA, state, tribe, territory, 

or local government Web sites. Making 

these documents available to the public 

will increase the transparency of the 

pretreatment program. For the reports 

not identified in this proposed rule for 

electronic submission, EPA solicits 

comment on which other pretreatment 

reports (if any) EPA should require for 

electronic submission as electronic 

documents (e.g., searchable PDFs).32

Annual POTW Report 

Using the criteria described above, 

EPA identified the Annual POTW 

Report [40 CFR 403.12 (i)], as a 

pretreatment report that could be 

converted from a paper-based report to 

an electronic submission compliant 

with 40 CFR part 3, part 127, and 

403.12(l). In developing this proposal, 

EPA noted that summary data (e.g., the 

number of slug loadings) from the 

following reports are already included 

in the existing Annual POTW Report [40 

CFR 403.12(i)] requirements: 

• 40 CFR 403.7 Removal credits; 

• 40 CFR 403.12(f) Notice of 

potential problems including slug 

loadings; 

• 40 CFR 403.12(j) Notice of change 

in Industrial User discharge; 

• 40 CFR 403.12(p) Hazardous 

waste notification and BMP 

certification; 

• 40 CFR 403.12(q) Annual 

certification by Non-significant CIUs; 

• 40 CFR 122.42(b) POTW 

disclosure requirements to NPDES 

Director; 

• 40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) POTW 

identification of industrial users; 

• 40 CFR 403.16 Upset notification; 

and 

• 40 CFR 403.17 Bypass 

notification. 

The data elements that comprise the 

Annual POTW Report are provided in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA is 

proposing to revise 40 CFR 403.12(i) to 

include electronic reporting 

requirements. 

Industrial User Reports 

Using the criteria cited previously, 

EPA also identified that the following 

industrial user reports could be 

collected electronically for SIUs and 

CIUs in cities without approved 

pretreatment programs(EPA notes that 

SIUs and CIUs in cities with an 

approved pretreatment programs will 

continue to send their reports to their 

control authority; such reports may or 

may not be electronic submissions). 

• 40 CFR 403.12(e) Periodic reports 

on continued compliance for CIUs; and 

• 40 CFR 403.12(h) Periodic reports 

on continued compliance for Non-CIUs. 

This will facilitate tracking and 

enforcing compliance of SIUs and CIUs 

for which states, tribes, territories, and 

EPA are the control authorities. 

Standardizing and electronically 

collecting these reports will help 

address deficiencies in EPA’s National 

Pretreatment Program that were 

identified by EPA’s Office of Inspector 

General (see DCN 0032). The data 

elements that comprise these industrial 

users reports in cities without approved 

pretreatment programs are provided in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 and in 

the rulemaking record (see DCN 0022). 

EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 

403.12(e) and (h) to include electronic 

reporting requirements. EPA is not 

proposing to require electronic reporting 

from IUs that are not SIUs or CIUs as 

these facilities discharge smaller 

volumes of process wastewater and the 

number of IUs far exceeds the number 

of SIUs and CIUs. EPA solicits comment 

on whether it should require electronic 

reporting from IUs that are not SIUs or 

CIUs located in cities where EPA, the 

state, tribe, or territory is the control 

authority. 

EPA solicits comment on making 

changes to 40 CFR 403.10 to require 

approved state, tribe, or territory 

pretreatment programs to incorporate 

the electronic reporting changes and 

submit their programs to EPA for review 

and approval. This state, tribe, or 

territory submission must require that 

the approval authority regularly notify 

each control authority that it must 

electronically submit its annual report 

in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, part 

127, and 403.12(l) (including the 

requirement for the control authority to 

identify the initial recipient for 

electronic submissions). EPA considers 

these state tribe, territory, and local 

pretreatment program submissions to be 

a non-substantial modification, which 

means that the approval authority has 

45 days to either approve or disapprove 

the modification. Where the approval 

authority does not notify the POTW 

within 45 days of its decision to 

approve or disapprove the modification 

or to treat the modification as 

substantial, the POTW may implement 

the modification as if it were approved 

by the Approval Authority. The 

proposed rule would make changes to 

40 CFR 403.10(f)(2) to add the following 

language: Regularly notify all Control 

Authorities of electronic submission 

requirements of 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, 

and part 127. 

iv. Additional Considerations 

Due to the extensive number of 

entities either implementing or 

regulated under the National 

Pretreatment Program—approximately 

1,600 approved pretreatment programs 

nationwide oversee approximately 

20,000 SIUs—EPA is not proposing to 

convert paper-based reports between all 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46033 

33North East Biosolids and Residual Association, 

2007. A National Biosolids Regulation, Quantity, 

End Use & Disposal Survey, July 20, DCN 0034. 

34U.S. EPA, 2010. Standards of Performance for 

New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines 

for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units. Fact Sheet, DCN 0047. 

35See: 40 CFR 503.9 (c). 

36See DCN 0004. 

37U.S. EPA, 1994. ‘‘WENDB Data Elements for 

Sludge. Memorandum from Carol Galloway, Chief, 

Compliance Information Evaluation Branch, and 

Richard Kuhlman, Acting Branch Chief, Policy 

Development Branch, January 25, DCN 0048. 

38See DCN 0034. 

IUs and POTWs to electronic 

submissions at this time. EPA is first 

focusing its efforts on collecting annual 

reports electronically from control 

authorities, acknowledging that these 

reports include summary data from IU 

reports, and collecting compliance 

reports electronically from IUs in cities 

without pretreatment programs. EPA 

solicits comment on whether EPA 

should re-examine this decision for the 

final rulemaking. Local pretreatment 

programs on their own initiative may 

convert these other paper-based reports 

to electronic submissions. 

f. Biosolids Program Reports 

i. Background 

Wastewater treatment necessarily 

produces the end products effluent, 

sewage sludge, methane and other gases 

for energy, and water for reuse. Sewage 

and wastewater generated in homes, 

businesses, industries, and other venues 

that are conveyed to wastewater 

treatment plants are treated to allow 

effluent discharges or beneficial uses. 

The National Research Council has 

identified that compliance with EPA 

standards can promote the effective 

treatment and safe return of sewage 

sludge to the environment (see DCN 

0034). Sewage sludge treatment usually 

involves a variety of processes and 

factors (e.g., aerobic or anaerobic 

microbial degradation, time and 

temperature, high pH, lime stabilization 

and dewatering). Without proper 

controls, biosolids (sewage sludge) can 

present health hazards and cause water 

quality impairments. 

Based upon the 2008 Clean Watershed 

Needs Survey (CWNS) Report to 

Congress, there are now 14,780 POTWs, 

which would represent an updated 

universe of sewage sludge (biosolids) 

generators. Note that the same 2008 

CWNS Report (updated with more 

accurate data from the states) to 

Congress indicates that the 14,780 

POTWs annually serve 73.7 percent of 

the U.S. population (226,302,213) and 

treat over 32 billion gallons of 

wastewater. Biosolids incinerators and 

septage removed from the numerous 

onsite/decentralized treatment systems 

are also covered by the 40 CFR part 503 

requirements. 

In almost equal amounts, these 

biosolids are either beneficially re-used 

or disposed (e.g., municipal landfill, 

incineration). This volume of biosolids 

production will continue to increase 

with population growth and more 

stringent treatment requirements (e.g., 

nutrient removal). The most recent 

national survey estimated that over 

seven million tons (dry weight) of 

biosolids were nationally generated by 

POTWs in 2004.33 Also, there are 

currently 218 sewage sludge 

incineration (SSI) units in the United 

States and Puerto Rico.34

Section 405 of the CWA sets the 

statutory framework for regulating 

sewage sludge (biosolids). EPA has 

established a protective regulatory 

framework to manage the use and 

disposal of biosolids at 40 CFR part 503. 

Part 503 is a ‘‘self implementing’’ rule, 

which means that entities producing 

biosolids are regulated whether or not 

these requirements are included in a 

permit. Depending on use or disposal 

practice, EPA’s sewage sludge 

regulations require monitoring and 

control of up to 10 metals and pathogen 

indicators. 

Limited biosolids data can be found 

in national databases such as ICIS– 

NPDES or the Toxics Release Inventory 

(TRI). More detailed information on 

monitoring and biosolids management 

is provided in annual reports submitted 

by Class I sewage sludge management 

facilities, POTWs with a design flow 

rate equal to or greater than one million 

gallons per day, and POTWs that serve 

10,000 people or more. Class I sewage 

sludge management facilities are 

facilities that have an approved 

pretreatment program or are in one of 

the five states that have assumed direct 

pretreatment responsibilities under 40 

CFR 403.10(e). EPA and authorized 

states, tribes, and territories can also 

identify other sewage sludge 

management facilities as Class I 

facilities because of the potential for 

their sewage sludge use or disposal 

practices to affect public health and the 

environment adversely.35

The vast majority of biosolids annual 

reports are submitted in hard-copy 

format to EPA’s regional offices. These 

reports document the measures taken to 

protect human health and watersheds 

from the mismanagement of biosolids. 

Key data from these reports are not 

generally standardized, publicly 

available, or shared because these data 

are mostly in hard-copy format and are 

reported in different forms. The 

following quote provides a good 

example of the effort required to 

complete a one-time assessment of the 

biosolids program, which mostly relies 

upon non-standardized hard-copy 

reports: ‘‘Consistent data on biosolids 

management is difficult to obtain and 

compile . . . With no centralized data 

collection and storage system yet in 

place, disparate pieces of data from 

various states and EPA regions must be 

painstakingly collected and interpreted 

to produce a useful national picture.’’ 36

As of October 1, 2011, eight states are 

authorized to carry out the biosolids 

program under the NPDES program for 

EPA relative to at least part of the 

biosolids management practices under 

Part 503. Not all authorizations are 

complete (e.g., Michigan has 

authorization for land application only). 

Some states incorporate EPA’s biosolids 

regulations in other state programs 

outside of their NPDES program (e.g., 

solid waste management programs). 

ii. Existing Program Reporting 

Requirements 

EPA’s ICIS–NPDES data system has 

data fields for collecting and reporting 

some biosolids data. Some of these data 

fields were identified as required data 

elements for entry into EPA’s data 

system (i.e., WENDB). 37 It is the 

responsibility of the biosolids regulatory 

authority to enter these WENDB data 

elements into ICIS–NPDES. A review of 

these two databases shows that 

currently there are comparatively few 

biosolids data in either ICIS–NPDES. 

As indicated previously, EPA’s 

sewage sludge regulations (40 CFR part 

503) require certain POTWs to submit to 

the authorized state or EPA region an 

annual biosolids report. POTWs that 

must submit an annual report include 

POTWs with a design flow rate equal to 

or greater than one million gallons per 

day, POTWs that serve 10,000 people or 

more, and Class I sewage sludge 

management facilities. In general, Class 

I sewage sludge management facilities 

must report annually to the permitting 

authority biosolids monitoring data, 

quantity of biosolids managed, ultimate 

end use or disposal of the biosolids, end 

use or disposal location(s), and vector 

and pathogen reduction measures. The 

most recent national review of state 

management of biosolids data found a 

variety of data collection, management, 

and reporting activities.38 Ten states are 

able to efficiently produce data on 

biosolids management projects in their 

state. Nine states require extensive help 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46034 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

39 Id. 

40Web-based Measurable Goals Guidance for 

Phase II MS4s, available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ 

npdes/stormwater/measurablegoals/index.cfm. 

to collect and analyze their state data on 

biosolids management projects.39

There are no data collection 

requirements on sludge removal from 

septic systems, which is also regulated 

by EPA (Part 503). Additionally, there 

are no existing reporting requirements 

for smaller POTWs without approved 

local pretreatment programs (e.g., design 

flow rate less than one million gallons 

per day and serving less than 10,000 

people) and treatment works treating 

domestic sewage (TWTDS) that are not 

identified by EPA or the authorized 

state, tribe, or territory as Class I sewage 

sludge management facilities. 

iii. What data would be required to be 

submitted electronically and why? 

EPA solicits comment on having 

POTWs electronically submit their 

biosolids annual reports in compliance 

with existing biosolids reporting 

requirements at 40 CFR 503.18, 503.28, 

and 503.48. The standard data elements 

for these annual biosolids reports are 

provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 

127. EPA solicits comment on 

standardizing biosolids reporting in the 

following areas: 

• Type and amount of biosolids 

generated and managed; 

• Sampling and analytical methods; 

• Location of biosolids disposal and 

management practices; 

• Land application data; 

• Surface disposal data; and 

• Incineration data. 

EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 

503.18, 503.28, and 503.48 to include 

electronic reporting requirements. 

The electronic collection, 

management, analysis, and reporting of 

data from these annual biosolids reports 

would aid EPA oversight of state, tribe, 

and territory biosolids programs as well 

as providing the public with better 

access to biosolids data. The improved 

accessibility to biosolids data, in 

accordance with the proposed rule, 

would provide the public with useful 

information on how well POTWs and 

other biosolids generators are managing 

their biosolids. These data could also be 

used to prioritize decisions on EPA, 

state, tribe, and territory inspections in 

order to best protect public health and 

the environment. 

g. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

System (MS4) Program Reports 

i. Background 

EPA and authorized programs issue 

NPDES permits to municipal separate 

storm sewer systems (MS4s) which 

require MS4s to reduce pollutants in 

stormwater discharges and which 

prohibit illicit discharges pursuant to 

CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii). The 

Phase I Stormwater Rule, issued in 

1990, requires MS4s serving 

populations of 100,000 or more to 

obtain NPDES permit coverage for their 

stormwater discharges (55 FR 47990). 

The Phase II Rule, issued in 1999, 

requires small MS4s in urbanized areas, 

as well as small MS4s outside the 

urbanized areas that are designated by 

the permitting authority, to obtain 

NPDES permit coverage for their 

stormwater discharges. Individual 

permits tend to cover Phase I MS4s and 

general permits cover most Phase II 

MS4s. 

Stormwater discharges, including 

discharges from municipal separate 

storm sewers, industrial facilities and 

construction sites, can have a significant 

impact on water quality (DCN 0070, 

0071, and November 16, 1990; 55 FR 

47991). Such discharges are responsible 

for beach closings, swimming and 

fishing advisories, and habitat 

degradation. Several studies reveal that 

stormwater discharges from urban areas 

can include a variety of pollutants, such 

as turbidity, pathogens, organic 

nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, oil and 

grease, and debris. Stormwater picks up 

a variety of pollutants such as sediment, 

debris, pesticides, petroleum products, 

chemicals, solvents, asphalts and acids 

on its way over streets, buildings, 

landscaping, construction sites, and 

industrial areas, and in extreme cases it 

can alter the pH of the receiving stream 

or river. These pollutants can harm the 

environment and public health. 

As of October 1, 2011, EPA estimates 

that there are approximately 6,600 MS4 

permits nationwide. Approximately 280 

Phase I MS4 permits cover 

approximately 1,000 permittees in total 

(many MS4 permits include two or more 

co-permittees). According to ICIS– 

NPDES (including data for 34 states, 

plus territories and tribes), 1,673 

permits are designated as having MS4 

requirements (i.e., with an MS4 permit 

component). Due to system limitations 

in PCS, permits that include MS4 

requirements are unable to be identified 

and evaluated easily for compliance and 

enforcement rates. 

Many MS4 permits contain 

requirements to implement stormwater 

management programs to prohibit illicit 

(non-stormwater) discharges in order to 

reduce pollutants discharged to the 

‘‘maximum extent practicable’’ (MEP). 

EPA regulations require that permit 

language for MS4s include the 

development and implementation of 

stormwater management plans 

(SWMPs), which incorporate the use of 

best management practices (BMPs) to 

meet these pollutant reduction and 

illicit discharge elimination 

requirements. See 40 CFR 122. 

26(d)(2)and 122.34. Phase I MS4 permit 

applications must include estimated 

reductions in pollutant loadings 

expected from implementation of the 

SWMP [see 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(v)]. To 

be covered by a general permit, Phase II 

MS4 applications and notices of intent 

must include ‘‘measurable goals’’ for 

each of the BMPs to be implemented 

through the MS4’s SWMP [see 40 CFR 

122.34(d)(ii)]. Measurable goals are 

objectives and milestones that quantify 

the progress of program implementation 

and the performance of the MS4 BMPs, 

which EPA can use to track the progress 

and effectiveness of SWMPs in reducing 

pollutants to the MEP. 

EPA has recommended that 

measurable goals include, where 

appropriate, the following three 

components: (1) The activity, or BMP, to 

be completed; (2) a schedule or date of 

completion; and (3) a quantifiable target 

to measure progress toward achieving 

the activity or BMP.40 Measurable goals 

that include these three components 

and are easily quantifiable would allow 

EPA, states, tribes, territories, and MS4 

operators to assess the level of progress 

in reducing pollutants to the MEP. 

ii. Existing Program Reporting 

Requirements 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.42(c) 

require operators of large or medium 

MS4s and municipal separate storm 

sewer systems that have been 

designated by the Director of the 

regulatory authority under 

§ 122.26(a)(1)(v) to submit an annual 

program report. However, because stateissued MS4 permits vary significantly 

nationwide in areas such as the breadth 

and specificity of annual report 

requirements and because SWMPs are 

developed and implemented by 

different MS4s, there is tremendous 

variability in the content and quality of 

annual program reports. Additionally, 

these program reports are a mix of 

narrative and numeric information. EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 122.34(g)(3) 

require less information to be reported 

for small MS4s than for large and 

medium MS4s, and, except for the 

initial permit term for small MS4s, the 

regulation specifies small MS4 reporting 

to be every two years rather than the 

annual reporting frequency required for 

large or medium MS4 permittees. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46035 

iii. What would be required under the 

proposed rule and why? 

EPA solicits comment on having MS4 

permittees electronically submit their 

reports in a standardized format using 

divisible data elements (e.g., not PDF 

files) in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 

part 127, and 122.22. EPA is soliciting 

comment on changing 40 CFR 

122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c) to require 

regulated entities to electronically 

submit their MS4 reports in compliance 

with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 

127. Specific data elements proposed to 

be required for the MS4 reports are 

provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 

127. 

EPA is also not proposing to change 

the frequency of MS4 program 

reporting. Some MS4 permits may also 

include numeric benchmarks or 

numeric parameters that are not 

themselves effluent limits, but help to 

determine whether narrative effluent 

limits are met or whether BMPs are 

working effectively. Enhancements to 

NetDMR to include unscheduled 

reporting would allow for electronic 

collection of DMR effluent reporting 

from MS4s; currently, ICIS–NPDES 

provides for unscheduled DMR data to 

be manually entered in the database. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to allow 

states, tribes, and territories to add their 

own unique set of data elements, 

including document attachments (e.g., 

PDF) as needed. 

The MS4 program report should 

document the MS4 actions during the 

previous year, evaluate program results, 

and describe planned changes towards 

continuous improvement. Although 

generally program reports are written for 

the permitting authority, they can also 

be written for members of the 

community as a way of divulging 

progress made towards meeting water 

quality goals. Electronically collecting 

these program reports would allow 

compliance monitoring data to be more 

easily shared with EPA, states, tribes, 

territories, and the public. These 

changes would provide the public with 

the opportunity to observe and examine 

the progress made by various MS4 

programs towards controlling 

stormwater discharges. In particular, 

collecting MS4 program report data 

electronically would enable EPA, states, 

tribes, territories, and the public to more 

readily evaluate the effectiveness of 

MS4 stormwater control programs. 

Additionally, electronic collection of 

data would help permitting authorities 

to identify and share information on the 

most effective BMPs for controlling 

stormwater discharges and avoiding 

associated violations. Improved data 

availability through electronic reporting 

should improve the control of 

stormwater discharges by more quickly 

exchanging knowledge amongst 

permitting authorities and MS4s. 

iv. Additional Considerations 

In concert with state, tribe, and 

territory NPDES permit programs, EPA 

will likely need to adapt ICIS–NPDES to 

reflect current MS4 permitting practices. 

Specifically, some EPA Regions and 

states issue an individual MS4 permit to 

regulate multiple MS4s in a geographic 

area. For example, an MS4 permit 

issued to the San Francisco Bay Area 

covers multiple municipalities. 

Consequently, compliance for 

individual municipalities cannot 

adequately be tracked in ICIS–NPDES 

due to geospatial limitations. EPA 

would likely need to modify ICIS– 

NPDES to reflect a data structure more 

akin to a general permit, which allows 

for one permit to cover multiple 

facilities. This is particularly important 

when one MS4 permit includes multiple 

urban areas contributing to multiple 

different urban waters. 

2. Where an NPDES-Regulated Facility 

Should Send Its Data 

As previously noted, EPA is also 

soliciting comment on changing its 

regulations governing the standard 

conditions applicable to all NPDES 

permits by adding a new standard 

permit condition [see 40 CFR 

122.41(1)(9)] that would require NPDESregulated facilities to ensure that, for 

each type of electronic NPDES 

submission, the information is sent to 

the appropriate initial recipient, as 

identified by EPA, and as defined in 40 

CFR 127.2(b). Authorized NPDES 

programs would include this 

requirement in all permits and control 

mechanisms. See Section IV.K for the 

implementation plans for the proposed 

rule. The new standard permit 

condition at 40 CFR 122.41(1)(9) would 

ensure that NPDES-regulated facilities 

know where to send their NPDES 

compliance data electronically. 

The proposed rule also would require 

EPA to publish on its Web site and in 

the Federal Register a listing of the 

initial recipients for electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES regulated 

entities by state, tribe, and territory, and 

by NPDES data group. Some states, 

tribes, and territories are not authorized 

to implement all aspects of the NPDES 

program (e.g., pretreatment, biosolids) 

so not all states, tribes, and territories 

are capable of being the initial recipient 

of these electronic submissions (in 

addition to electronic reporting 

readiness on part of the state, tribe, or 

territory). EPA would update this listing 

on its Web site and in the Federal 

Register if a state, tribe, or territory 

gains authorization to administer a 

NPDES program and is also approved by 

EPA to be the initial recipient of NPDES 

electronic data submissions for that 

NPDES data group. See 40 CFR 127.27. 

3. Electronic Data Collection Tools 

The proposed rule would allow 

authorized NPDES programs to use their 

own electronic reporting tools provided 

that the tools meet all of the minimum 

federal reporting requirements in 40 

CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. States, 

tribes, and territories would be required 

to share the minimum set of federal 

NPDES data (Appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 127) that are collected through 

these electronic state reporting tools 

with EPA. This sharing of information 

could be easily accomplished through 

the NEIEN and EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange. States, tribes, and territories 

would be able to elect to use EPA’s 

electronic reporting tools or EPAapproved third-party software provider 

tools. NPDES regulated entities would 

be required to use an EPA-approved tool 

to electronically submit their data. 

When authorized NPDES programs or 

their electronic reporting tools are not 

compliant with EPA’s electronic 

reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 

122.22, and part 127) then NPDES 

regulated entities in that state, tribe, or 

territory would be required to 

electronically send their NPDES data to 

EPA. Regardless of whether a state’s, 

tribe’s, territory’s, or EPA’s, or a thirdparty electronic reporting tool is used, 

NPDES program data would be included 

in ICIS–NPDES and made available to 

the public through EPA’s Web site. 

4. Signature and Certification Standards 

for Electronic Reporting 

EPA seeks to ensure that electronic 

reporting has at least the same level of 

legal defensibility and dependability as 

information that EPA would obtain 

through hard-copy paper submission. 

The Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 

Regulation (CROMERR), promulgated 

October 13, 2005, provides the legal 

framework for electronic reporting 

requirements established under all EPA 

environmental regulations (40 CFR part 

3). CROMERR establishes signatory, 

certification, and security standards for 

information systems that receive reports 

and other documents electronically 

(including email, but excluding disks, 

CDs, and other magnetic and optical 

media). CROMERR establishes the 

electronic reporting criteria that must be 

met in order to ensure that a particular 

electronic reporting tool can provide 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46036 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

41CROMERR System Checklist, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/cromerr/tools.html. 

42Originally developed by Netscape, SSL is an 

internet security protocol used by online banking 

sites, internet browsers and web servers to transmit 

sensitive information. SSL later became part of an 

overall security protocol known as Transport Layer 

Security (TLS). 

electronic information to EPA that 

meets EPA’s needs. 

CROMERR applies to (a) regulated 

entities that electronically submit 

reports and other documents directly to 

EPA under Title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, and (b) states, 

tribes, and local governments that 

administer or seek to administer EPAauthorized programs under Title 40 and 

provide electronic information to EPA. 

Regulated entities should ensure that 

they use the electronic reporting tools 

designated by EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories to receive the specified 

information and meet the other 

CROMERR criteria set out in 40 CFR 

3.10. NPDES-authorized states, tribes, 

and territories (and local governments) 

that wish to continue or begin using 

electronic reporting of NPDES 

information to EPA must revise or 

modify those authorized programs and 

their electronic reporting tools, if 

applicable, as appropriate to incorporate 

CROMERR criteria, and apply for and 

receive CROMERR approval by EPA 

under 40 CFR part 3. 

At this time, several states have 

already developed or are developing 

electronic reporting tools for use by 

NPDES-regulated facilities. EPA has also 

developed electronic reporting tools, 

notably NetDMR. These electronic 

reporting tools, and other tools to be 

developed in the future, whether by 

EPA, states, tribes, territories, or the 

competitive marketplace, need to be 

CROMERR-compliant to ensure that 

they meet EPA’s data needs and 

requirements. 

EPA developed a CROMERR system 

checklist 41 that EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories and other electronic tool 

developers can use to identify the key 

features to be included in an electronic 

reporting system for it to be CROMERRcompliant. The checklist contains, 

among other things, requirements for a 

registration process which identityproofs the registrant, to ensure that the 

individual using the electronic tool and 

signing the electronic documents has 

been determined with sufficient legal 

certainty, and to establish a subscriber 

agreement or electronic signature 

agreement. The CROMERR checklist 

also contains requirements for the 

signature process, the submission 

process, and the creation of a copy of 

record. Additional details may be found 

in the CROMERR checklist, or in the 

regulatory text or preamble of 

CROMERR itself (40 CFR 3.10; 70 FR 

59848). Recently, EPA has initiated a 

workgroup with states to streamline the 

CROMERR approval process. EPA also 

notes that the transaction cost for 

authentication has dropped from tens of 

dollars per user to less than pennies per 

user (e.g., DCN 0035). 

NetDMR is an example of a 

CROMERR-compliant electronic 

reporting tool, described previously in 

Section IV.E.1.a in the context of DMRs. 

Among other features ensuring 

CROMERR compliance by this tool, 

NetDMR utilizes a subscriber agreement 

with a designated signatory authority for 

the NPDES permittee, a password, 

required responses to security 

questions, and Secure Socket Layer 

(SSL) communications.42

One person should be clearly 

designated as the signatory authority for 

the electronic reporting of particular 

NPDES information. The federal 

regulations at 40 CFR 122.22 describe 

the appropriate management level for 

anyone designated as a signatory 

authority for permit applications and 

reports. If the signatory authority plans 

to have someone else sign and submit 

the electronic DMRs, for example, then 

this individual must be a duly 

authorized representative of that 

signatory authority in accordance with 

40 CFR 122.22(b). Under CROMERR, 

electronic systems that accept electronic 

signatures must be able to effectively 

prove that those electronic signatures 

are valid and were created with an 

electronic signature device that was not 

compromised. The use of a personal 

identification number (PIN) or password 

in combination with a requirement for 

the user to answer one or more security 

questions (e.g., a ‘‘challenge’’ question 

from a set of questions for which the 

user provided answers previously [e.g., 

during registration]) helps to ensure that 

the person submitting the information is 

who they claim to be and that the data 

is being sent on behalf of the 

appropriate NPDES permittee. The use 

of SSL communications, or the use of 

Transport Layer Security (TLS), is 

another key way of ensuring the 

integrity of the information. TLS and 

SSL make significant use of certificate 

authorities and provide the means to 

check that the certificate comes from a 

trusted party, is currently valid, and has 

a relationship with the site from which 

it is being sent. 

5. Temporary Waivers or Exemptions 

From Electronic Reporting for NPDESRegulated Facilities 

A key decision in this proposed rule 

is determining whether electronic 

reporting requirements would be 

relatively easy to meet for most of the 

NPDES-regulated universe of facilities. 

For example, 50 percent of rural 

residents have broadband (see DCN 

0030). Although not a necessity, 

broadband access makes it easier to 

submit NPDES reports that would be 

required under this proposed rule. 

Therefore, broadband access or other 

measures of the availability of sufficient 

upload speed may serve as reasonable 

indicators regarding possible computer 

access difficulties, particularly in the 

more remote rural areas. 

In the development of this proposed 

regulatory requirement for electronic 

reporting by NPDES-regulated facilities, 

EPA has considered a number of 

alternatives (described in the paragraph 

below) for possible temporary waivers 

or exemptions based on certain criteria. 

Such a waiver or exemption from 

electronic reporting of NPDES 

information would be temporary in that 

it would remain valid only until the 

condition(s) meriting the exemption 

changed or for one year, whichever 

occurs first, during which time the 

permittee would still have the 

requirement to submit the required 

NPDES information non-electronically 

to EPA, the authorized state, tribe, or 

territory. EPA is proposing that these 

temporary waivers may be granted by 

EPA, states, tribes, and territories that 

have received authorization to 

implement the NPDES program. EPA 

solicits comment on the granting and 

duration of these temporary waivers. 

For example, EPA has considered, 

and is seeking comment on, whether to 

automatically grant temporary waivers 

from NPDES electronic reporting 

requirements to each NPDES-permitted 

facility that is physically located (i.e., 

not just a post office box) within one of 

the counties or zip codes for which less 

than 10 percent of the households have 

broadband access, based on the 

aforementioned February 2010 FCC 

report or subsequent similar official 

reports. 

As another alternative, EPA has 

considered whether it should grant 

temporary exemptions for each NPDESpermitted facility which meets criteria 

demonstrating that such electronic 

reporting of NPDES information would 

pose an unreasonable burden or expense 

to the NPDES-permitted facility; this is 

the same concept that the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC) [17 CFR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46037 

232.202(a)] has applied to its (rare) 

granting of continued hardship 

exemptions for electronic filing. The 

process of applying to the SEC for a 

continued hardship exemption is 

described in 17 CFR 232.202. This 

process requires the submission of a 

written request made at least ten 

business days before the required due 

date of the submission. As identified in 

17 CFR 232.202(b), this written request 

shall include, but not be limited to: 

• The reason(s) that the necessary 

hardware and software are not available 

without unreasonable burden and 

expense; 

• The burden and expense associated 

with using alternative means to make 

the electronic submission or posting, as 

applicable; and/or 

• The reasons for not submitting the 

document, group of documents or 

Interactive Data File electronically, or 

not posting the Interactive Data File, as 

well as the justification for the 

requested time period. 

The application for the continued 

hardship exemption is not deemed 

granted until the SEC notifies the 

applicant. 

Although the SEC has successfully 

required electronic reporting from 

various size companies for the majority 

of its reports since 1993, it is still 

possible that a certain subset of NPDESpermitted facilities might claim that 

they either do not have computers onsite, do not have computer-savvy 

individuals available, or are a 

considerable distance away from a 

location where they could get computer 

access. EPA is considering the possible 

use of temporary waivers from 

electronic reporting of NPDES 

information for such facilities, although 

technological advances and computer 

access are such that there may be few 

valid instances of such situations. EPA 

may consider establishing a similar 

procedure for such temporary waivers if 

the criteria for such temporary waivers 

are broadened, in response to 

comments, beyond that in the proposed 

rule. 

In addition to these possible 

temporary continued hardship 

exemptions for NPDES-regulated 

facilities from electronic reporting, EPA 

also recognizes that there may be a need 

for incident-specific one-time waivers or 

other adjustments for situations that are 

beyond the control of the reporting 

facility (e.g., tornados, floods, EPA or 

state data system failures). In 17 CFR 

232.201, the possibility of a temporary 

hardship exemption from electronic 

reporting to the SEC is described. In the 

SEC regulations, under this temporary 

hardship exemption, the electronic filer 

may instead file a written copy of the 

report. The SEC also will encourage the 

use of a one-time change to the filing 

due date rather than rely upon a 

temporary hardship exemption where 

the situation is beyond the control of the 

filer. EPA proposes to utilize one-time 

changes to due dates rather than waivers 

from electronic reporting in these types 

of emergency situations. 

At this time, EPA solicits comment on 

the need for such temporary waivers or 

exemptions as well as which criteria 

should apply for the granting of such 

temporary exemptions. This proposed 

rule includes provisions for temporary 

waivers extending up to a maximum of 

one year, but comments are sought on 

all of these options or any other viable 

options which might be suggested 

during the official comment process. For 

comparison, EPA’s recently proposed 

rule (August 13, 2010) regarding Toxic 

Substance Control Act (TSCA) Inventory 

Update Reporting Modifications did not 

include a provision for waivers or 

exemptions from electronic reporting; 

however, the preamble for that proposed 

rule did request comment on whether 

there are any circumstances in which a 

company may not have Internet access 

to report the required data 

electronically. EPA also solicits 

comment on whether EPA should also 

grant waivers to NPDES regulated 

entities with religious objections to 

using modern innovations such as 

electricity and computers. 

6. EPA Consideration of Other 

Electronic NPDES Reporting by 

Permittees, but Not Included in This 

Proposed Rule 

As described in more detail in Section 

IV.B, during summer 2010, EPA 

conducted concurrent technical 

analyses, which examined various 

aspects of possible electronic reporting 

of NPDES information for NPDESpermitted facilities. Based on these 

analyses, EPA decided what should and 

should not be included as requirements 

in this proposed rule. 

Among the NPDES reporting 

requirements that EPA considered but 

did not include in this proposed rule are 

the following: 

• Electronic submission of 

applications for individually-issued 

NPDES permits; 

• Electronic submission of annual 

compliance certifications; 

• Electronic submission of certain 

program reports for vessels; 

• Electronic submission of program 

reports for pesticide applicators; 

• Electronic submission of all followup reports required under 40 CFR 

122.41(l)(6) and (7). 

Each of these is discussed briefly 

below. 

a. Electronic Permit Application 

Information and Possible Electronic 

Permit Generation 

EPA examined the feasibility of 

requiring permit application 

information to be submitted 

electronically and of electronically 

creating the NPDES permit. This 

analysis focused on the individuallyissued NPDES permits rather than on 

NPDES general permits; therefore, 

approximately 46,000 facilities would 

comprise the universe of facilities that 

might be covered by such a requirement 

to electronically submit permit 

application information. 

EPA has developed particular permit 

application forms to be completed by 

facilities seeking individual EPA-issued 

NPDES permits. However, there is 

considerable state, tribe, and territory 

variability in permit application forms, 

data sought, ‘‘boilerplate’’ language, and 

templates used in the creation of the 

permit. There are extensive attachments 

to the permit application forms, 

including maps, flow charts, monitoring 

information, etc. Furthermore, the 

permit application information is not 

the only information used in 

constructing a permit. The complex 

permit writing process utilizes a variety 

of additional information, such as water 

quality information and background 

pollutant concentration data, beyond 

that provided in the permit application 

itself; such information would have to 

be integrated in or easily accessible by 

an electronic permit writing tool. 

Given the complexity of the 

permitting process, the significant 

degree of state, tribe, and territory 

variability, and the extensive 

attachments that accompany permit 

application forms, it would be difficult 

to economically construct and maintain 

an electronic tool for permit application 

form submittals that would be 

nationally-consistent and could create 

an individual NPDES permit. The Office 

of Water previously attempted to 

develop such a national electronicpermitting (i.e., e-permitting) tool. That 

effort was adversely impacted by high 

costs to develop and maintain the tool 

and by the significant state, tribe, and 

territory variability that must be 

addressed. 

Based on EPA’s analysis for this 

proposed rule, EPA has decided not to 

include in this proposed rule (1) 

requirements for electronic submission 

of nationally-consistent permit 

application information from facilities, 

and (2) implementation relying upon 

the availability of a nationallyVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:02 Jul 29, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JYP2.SGM 30JYP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46038 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

consistent electronic tool to generate 

individual NPDES permits by the states, 

tribes, territories, or EPA Regions. 

Therefore, for facilities covered by 

individually-issued NPDES permits, 

EPA would require authorized states, 

tribes, and territories to provide EPA 

with the key facility and permit 

information. Comment is sought on the 

feasibility of developing a nationallyconsistent electronic tool that can be 

used by multiple states, tribes, and 

territories to obtain permit application 

information electronically from the 

permittees and to generate the 

individual NPDES permit. Comment is 

also sought on whether EPA should 

require electronic submission of the 

EPA-developed permit application 

forms from facilities seeking coverage 

under EPA-issued individual NPDES 

permits. In addition, EPA seeks 

comment on the feasibility of thirdparty software vendor development of 

such tools. 

b. Consideration of Annual Compliance 

Certifications 

Not every facility covered by a NPDES 

permit has an existing requirement to 

submit self-monitoring information in 

the form of a DMR or similar report. 

Furthermore, not every facility covered 

by a NPDES permit has an existing 

requirement to submit a program report 

regarding its compliance status (e.g., 

industrial stormwater, active 

construction sites) (see DCN 0021). 

Annual compliance certifications could 

help address facilities that do not have 

a requirement to submit self-monitoring 

information, or a program report 

regarding its compliance status. This 

would constitute new regulatory 

requirements for reporting and 

recordkeeping, and would require new 

Information Collection Requests (ICRs) 

identifying the estimated burden hours 

to submit, process, and analyze these 

certifications; therefore, EPA has not 

included this new requirement in the 

proposed rule. However, comment is 

sought on the usefulness of this concept 

of electronic submission of annual 

compliance certifications by permitted 

facilities that do not have DMR 

submission requirements and program 

report submission requirements. 

c. Vessels Program Reports 

EPA’s NPDES vessels program 

regulates incidental discharges from the 

normal operation of vessels. The 

centerpiece of the NPDES vessel 

program is the EPA Vessel General 

Permit (VGP). The VGP is a general 

permit that is issued and implemented 

by EPA. The 2008 VGP regulates 

discharges incidental to the normal 

operation of vessels operating in a 

capacity as a means of transportation 

(see 29 December 2008; 73 FR 79473). 

All vessel-related requirements are in 

the VGP. EPA estimates that 

approximately 61,000 domesticallyflagged commercial vessels and 

approximately 8,000 foreign-flagged 

vessels may be affected by this permit. 

The 2008 VGP identifies information 

that must be sent to EPA. These 

requirements include: 

• The Notice of Intent (NOI) form (see 

Appendix E of the VGP); 

• Annual report of noncompliance 

(see section 4.4.1 of the VGP); 

• Additional reporting 

(noncompliance which may endanger 

health or the environment) (see section 

4.4.3 of the VGP); and 

• A one-time permit report (see 

section 4.4.4 of the VGP). 

EPA collects the NOI information for 

vessels electronically, and has built a 

system to collect the one-time vessel 

permit report electronically. The 2008 

VGP does not require the use of the 

eNOI system, nor does it require any 

DMRs or one-time reports to be 

submitted electronically. Although the 

vessel eNOI information EPA currently 

receives is not available through ICIS– 

NPDES or PCS, EPA plans to adapt 

ICIS–NPDES and ECHO to make such 

information available to the public. 

EPA’s 2008 VGP currently contains 

monitoring, reporting, inspection, 

operation and maintenance 

requirements pertaining to vessels. EPA 

is not proposing to use this proposed 

rule to make any changes to NPDES 

regulations that would be specific to the 

vessels program. EPA anticipates that 

any electronic reporting for vessels 

would be required through a new 

version of the VGP. EPA solicits public 

comment on this approach. 

d. Pesticide Applicators Program 

Reports 

On October 31, 2011, EPA issued a 

final NPDES Pesticide General Permit 

(PGP) for point source discharges from 

the application of pesticides to waters of 

the United States. While the permit 

requirements must be met as of October 

31, 2011, operators will be covered 

automatically under the PGP without 

submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for 

any discharges before January 12, 2012. 

To continue coverage after January 12, 

2012, those Operators who are required 

to submit NOIs will need to do so at 

least 10 days (or 30 days for discharges 

to National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern) 

prior to January 12, 2012. For the first 

120 days that the permit is in effect, 

EPA will focus on providing compliance 

assistance and education of the permit 

requirements, rather than on 

enforcement actions. 

The Agency’s final PGP covers 

Operators that apply pesticides that 

result in discharges from the following 

use patterns: (1) Mosquito and other 

flying insect pest control; (2) weed and 

algae control; (3) animal pest control; 

and (4) forest canopy pest control. The 

permit requires permittees to minimize 

pesticide discharges through the use of 

pest management measures and monitor 

for and report any adverse incidents. 

Some permittees are also required to 

submit NOIs prior to beginning to 

discharge and implement integrated 

pest management (IPM)-like practices. 

Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements will provide valuable 

information to EPA and the public 

regarding where, when, and how much 

pesticides are being discharged to 

waters of the U.S. Pesticide application 

use patterns not covered by EPA’s 

Pesticide General Permit may need to 

obtain coverage under an individual 

permit or alternative general permit if 

they result in point source discharges to 

waters of the U.S. 

This general permit will provide 

coverage for discharges in the areas 

where EPA is the NPDES permitting 

authority, which include four states 

(Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 

New Mexico), Washington, DC, most 

U.S. territories and Indian country 

lands, and many federal facilities (for 

details, click here (PDF) (5 pp, 239K)). 

In the remaining 46 states (and the 

Virgin Islands), the states are authorized 

to develop and issue the NPDES 

pesticide permits. 

At this time, prior to the effective date 

of the requirement for these discharges 

from pesticide applications to be 

covered under a NPDES permit, EPA 

does not envision the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule making any changes to 

NPDES regulations that would be 

specific to such discharges. Given the 

various implementation approaches, 

compliance and reporting requirements 

that may be contained in EPA’s final 

PGP as well as in the NPDES-authorized 

state-, tribe-, or territory-issued permits, 

any changes that EPA might make with 

respect to electronic reporting for 

discharges from pesticide applications 

could be made through the notice and 

comment process of the pesticide 

general permit. EPA solicits public 

comment on this approach. 

e. Electronic Reporting of All 5-Day 

Non-Compliance Reports Identified in 

40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7) 

NPDES regulations require permittees 

to report any noncompliance which may 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46039 

endanger health or the environment. See 

40 CFR 122.41(l)(6). These regulations 

require both an oral report and written 

report within 24 hours and 5 days, 

respectively, from the time the 

permittee becomes aware of the 

circumstances. Existing NPDES 

regulations also require permittees to 

report all instances of noncompliance 

not otherwise reported elsewhere at the 

time monitoring reports are submitted. 

See 40 CFR 122.41(l)(7). 

This proposed regulation amends the 

existing regulation at 40 CFR 

122.41(l)(6) for combined sewer 

overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, 

and bypass incidents to require these 

follow-up reports to be submitted 

electronically within 5 days from the 

time the permittee becomes aware of the 

circumstances. This proposed regulation 

also would require electronic reporting 

of CSOs, SSOs, and POTW bypasses that 

are in noncompliance per 40 CFR 

122.41(l)(7). 

EPA solicits comment on whether it 

should expand electronic 

noncompliance reporting to other forms 

of noncompliance that are not already 

addressed in the above referenced 

proposed changes incorporated into 

today’s proposed regulation. 

F. Data Submissions From Authorized 

State, Tribe, or Territory NPDES 

Programs 

Historically, EPA has relied upon the 

permitting authority for submission of 

the NPDES information in EPA’s 

national NPDES data systems. With this 

proposed rule, as currently drafted and 

subject to public comment, EPA would 

require permittees to submit a large 

portion of that NPDES data 

electronically, which would 

significantly reduce the amount of 

information that would otherwise be 

required from the authorized state, tribe, 

or territory NPDES programs. 

Nevertheless, under the approach 

described in this proposed rule, EPA 

would still require NPDES information 

from authorized state, tribe, or territory 

NPDES programs, particularly 

information linked to the 

implementation activities and 

responsibilities of the authorized state, 

tribe, or territory NPDES programs. The 

types of NPDES information EPA would 

require to be reported by the states, 

tribes, and territories with authorization 

to implement the NPDES program 

would include: 

• Facility information for 

individually-issued NPDES permits; 

• Permit information for individuallyissued NPDES permits and master 

general permits [including information 

specific to subprograms such as CAFOs, 

CSOs, SSOs, pretreatment, biosolids, 

stormwater, cooling water intakes, and 

thermal variances; 

• Compliance monitoring and 

inspection activities; 

• Compliance determination 

information; 

• Enforcement action information; 

• Other NPDES information required 

to be submitted electronically from 

permittees or other regulated entities, 

but routed by the electronic reporting 

tools to the states, tribes, or territories 

initially rather than to EPA; and 

• Other NPDES information listed in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 that 

permittees submit non-electronically to 

their authorized state, tribe, or territory. 

Each of these NPDES data types are 

described further in the sections that 

follow. 

A. Why Require This Information From 

Authorized States, Tribes, and 

Territories 

The states, tribes, and territories 

which have received authorization to 

implement the NPDES program are the 

entities that have the primary 

responsibility to issue permits, perform 

inspections, make compliance 

determinations, and take enforcement 

actions. Most of the data that this 

proposed rule, as currently drafted and 

subject to public comments, would 

require the authorized NPDES programs 

to submit to EPA would be generated 

during the course of those activities. As 

such, the authorized NPDES programs 

are the unique and appropriate sources 

to provide these types of NPDES data to 

EPA and to be responsible for the 

quality and accuracy of that data. 

Another key part of this proposed rule 

is ensuring that, if submissions of 

NPDES information are sent by the 

NPDES-regulated facilities to the states, 

tribes, or territories initially rather than 

to EPA, the states, tribes, and territories 

would provide that information 

electronically to EPA. In turn, EPA 

would provide the states, tribes, and 

territories with NPDES information it 

receives from the NPDES-regulated 

facilities. In either case, the key would 

be to ‘‘complete the circuit’’ 

electronically through the NEIEN, so 

that all of the required information 

submitted by the NPDES-regulated 

facilities would be available, timely, 

accurate, complete, in a nationally 

consistent manner for use by EPA, 

states, tribes, and territories, and for 

presentation to the public. 

B. What Data Would Be Required and 

Why From Authorized States, Tribes, 

and Territories? 

For the proposed rule, as currently 

drafted and subject to public comment, 

the types of information that would be 

required to be submitted to EPA 

electronically by the states, tribes, and 

territories authorized to implement the 

NPDES program are described briefly 

below. Rather than establish different 

timeliness criteria for different types of 

data, EPA proposes that the required 

NPDES data be provided by the states, 

tribes, and territories to EPA within 30 

days of the date of permit issuance, date 

of inspection, date of violation 

determination, date of enforcement 

action, or date of receipt of the 

information electronically (or nonelectronically under a temporary 

waiver) from the permittee, as 

applicable. EPA invites comment on the 

30-day timeliness criterion. 

C. Facility Data From Authorized States, 

Tribes, and Territories 

In EPA’s NPDES national data 

systems, it is necessary to create a 

facility record before other information 

may be entered or otherwise made 

available. Therefore, this core set of 

basic facility data, as identified in an 

attachment to the 1985 PCS Policy 

Statement (as amended), are essential to 

EPA national data systems in order to 

create a facility record to which other 

NPDES information may be linked, such 

as permit information, compliance 

status, inspection information, violation 

determinations, enforcement action 

information, etc. 

Through this proposed rule, as 

currently drafted and subject to public 

comment, the types of basic facility 

information that the states, tribes, and 

territories would be required to provide 

EPA for the facilities covered by NPDES 

individually-issued permits would 

include information regarding the 

facility itself (such as the site name of 

the facility and the type of ownership), 

information regarding the facility’s 

location (such as address, city, state, zip 

code, and information meeting EPA’s 

data standards associated with latitude 

and longitude), and information 

regarding a contact for that facility (such 

as name, title, address, etc.). The 

complete list of such basic facility 

information that would be required 

through this proposed rule is identified 

in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. 

Much of this basic facility information 

already exists in EPA’s national NPDES 

data systems, particularly for major 

permittees, and some of the information 

not found in the national data system, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46040 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

particularly regarding nonmajor 

permittees, may be found in state, tribe, 

or territory NPDES data systems. This 

proposed rule would require states, 

tribes, and territories to provide EPA 

with such basic facility information for 

all facilities covered by individuallyissued NPDES permits and to update 

that information as appropriate, in 

accordance with stated quality 

assurance and quality control 

procedures (see 40 CFR part 127). 

Unless otherwise specified in a permit, 

or unless the permit is modified 

significantly, EPA anticipates that such 

facility data would generally be updated 

only once per permit cycle, which 

generally means every five years, if that 

often, because this type of basic facility 

data rarely changes. 

Under the approach described in the 

proposed rule, if, for whatever reason, 

facilities covered by NPDES general 

permits do not provide the NOI data 

electronically by the compliance 

deadline, then the authorized NPDES 

programs would be responsible for also 

ensuring that basic facility information 

for facilities operating under general 

permits is provided electronically to 

EPA. 

D. Permit Data From Authorized States, 

Tribes, and Territories 

Through this proposed rule, as 

currently drafted and subject to public 

comment, the type of permit 

information that the states, tribes, and 

territories would be required to provide 

EPA for the facilities covered by NPDES 

individually-issued or general permits 

would consist of: 

• Basic permit information; 

• Information regarding designated 

outfalls or permitted features; 

• Information regarding the 

applicable limit sets; 

• Information regarding the 

applicable effluent limitations; 

• Information regarding narrative 

conditions and permit schedules; and 

• Information relevant to specific 

NPDES subprograms, such as CAFOs, 

CSOs, SSOs, pretreatment, biosolids, 

stormwater, cooling water intakes, and 

thermal variances. 

Basic information regarding the 

permit refers primarily to some of the 

key identifier information for that 

permit. Such information includes the 

permit number or other identifier, the 

permit type, the program components 

covered by the permit, the permit status 

and key dates related to application and 

issuance, information regarding whether 

the facility is a major permittee, 

industrial classification codes indicating 

the type of facility, the permit issuing 

organization, applicable effluent 

guidelines, and the permittee’s name 

and address. See Appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 127 for a complete list of required 

data. 

Under this proposed rule, information 

would also be required regarding the 

permitted features or outfalls identified 

in the permit. Such information 

includes the design flow and actual flow 

from such outfalls, an identifier for such 

outfalls, the type of permitted feature, 

the receiving waterbody, and the 

physical location (latitude and 

longitude) of such permitted features. 

See Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 for 

a complete list of required data. This 

information is essential in compliance 

tracking because permit limits and limit 

sets are identified for specific outfalls or 

permitted features. 

Under this proposed rule, as currently 

drafted and subject to public comment, 

to enable electronic reporting and 

evaluation of DMRs, information would 

also be required regarding the specific 

set of numerical or narrative limits, and 

the limits themselves, identified for 

each permitted feature identified in the 

permit. The proposed rule would 

require the permitting authority to 

provide NPDES permit limits (e.g., 

numerical limits) and NPDES permit 

limits set types (e.g., seasonal or interim 

limits) for major and nonmajor 

permittees (including general NPDESregulated facilities) to EPA into the 

national data system. Permit limits 

information would include the 

monitoring location, the start and end 

dates for such limits, the limit type, 

information regarding all permit 

modifications to such limits, 

information regarding enforcement 

actions which may have imposed 

enforcement action limits, the regulated 

pollutant parameter, the months that the 

limit applies, a text description of the 

limit (e.g., 30-day average), an 

arithmetic qualifier (e.g.,‘‘<’’), the actual 

numeric limit, the quantity or 

concentration units specified for that 

limit, and information regarding if a 

particular limit has been stayed. See 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 for a 

complete list of required data. 

Information regarding permit limits 

sets would include a text description of 

the limit set (e.g., summer limits), the 

type of limits (e.g., scheduled), the 

number of months that the limit set 

applies, the initial monitoring date, the 

due date for monitoring reports, the 

number of months for each monitoring 

period, the frequency of monitoring 

report submission, whether that set of 

limits is active, and a start date 

associated with that limits set. See 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 for a 

complete list of required data. 

Under this proposed rule, information 

would also be required from the 

narrative conditions or permitcontained schedules, including such 

information as the type of narrative 

condition, an identifier code or 

description of the permit schedule 

event, the scheduled and actual dates 

for the achievement or occurrence of 

that event, and the received date for the 

report which documented that 

achievement or occurrence. As an 

example, such narrative conditions or 

permit schedules frequently impose a 

permit requirement that a particular 

type of report be sent to the permitting 

agency on a specific repeating schedule 

(e.g., annually). See Appendix A to 40 

CFR part 127 for a complete list of 

required data. 

In addition, this proposed rule, as 

currently drafted and subject to public 

comment, would also require permitrelated data from the NPDES permit 

application. This permit application 

data includes information on particular 

NPDES subprograms such as biosolids, 

SSOs, pretreatment, CSOs, stormwater, 

CAFOs, cooling water intakes, and 

thermal variances. The complete list of 

data that would be required through this 

proposed rule is identified in Appendix 

A to 40 CFR part 127. Additionally, 

some facilities seeking coverage under a 

general permit will submit similar data 

to their permitting authority. 

Authorized states, tribes, and territories 

would be required to share these 

facility-supplied data with EPA. 

a. Inspection Data From Authorized 

States, Tribes, and Territories 

Historically in the NPDES program 

and in accordance with existing policy, 

the authorized programs implementing 

the NPDES program have been expected 

for several decades to provide the basic 

inspection information to EPA for major 

permittees and for nonmajor permittees. 

For example, in the PCS Policy 

Statement (as amended), EPA indicated 

that the states, tribes, and territories are 

expected to provide a core set of such 

basic inspection data to EPA through 

PCS. 

As discussed previously in this 

preamble, in addition to information 

submitted by the NPDES-regulated 

facilities, some NPDES data, including 

inspection information, is also needed 

from the states, tribes, and territories. 

EPA, states, tribes, and territories 

perform these inspection activities, and 

therefore they are the unique source of 

the inspection information provided to 

EPA. 

These inspections could identify the 

compliance status of the facilities, 

potential remedies needed, and changes 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46041 

from the permit application 

information. Through receipt of such 

facility-specific information regarding 

inspections, EPA is interested in 

determining how well the NPDESauthorized state, tribe, or territory is 

implementing the inspection 

responsibilities associated with NPDES 

program authorization, better evaluating 

potential targeting of inspections, better 

characterizing and addressing the 

compliance status of the facilities, and 

identifying common problems that 

occur at the NPDES-regulated facilities. 

Through this proposed rule, as 

currently drafted and subject to public 

comment, the type of basic inspection 

information that the states, tribes, and 

territories would be required to provide 

EPA would include the end date of such 

a compliance monitoring activity, the 

facility inspected, the type of 

compliance monitoring, the reason for 

such compliance monitoring, the lead 

office for such compliance monitoring, 

and the law sections evaluated and 

potentially violated at the facility (e.g., 

pretreatment). The complete list of such 

basic inspection information that would 

be required through this proposed rule 

is identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 127. 

In addition to the basic information 

that would be required for any NPDES 

inspection, required compliance 

monitoring information also would 

include information specific to the 

NPDES subprograms. For example, there 

are specific items that would apply if a 

CAFO facility had been inspected, or for 

pretreatment, CSOs, SSOs, etc. The 

complete list of such subprogramspecific inspection information that 

would be required through this 

proposed rule is identified in Appendix 

A to 40 CFR part 127. 

This proposed rule would require 

authorized states, tribes, and territories 

to provide EPA with inspection 

information for all NPDES-regulated 

facilities, in accordance with stated 

quality assurance and quality control 

procedures. EPA anticipates that such 

inspection data would be provided at a 

reporting frequency approximating the 

inspection frequency specified in the 

EPA Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

(October 2007 or as subsequently 

revised), or as delineated in alternative 

inspection strategies contained in EPAstate, EPA-tribe, or EPA-territory 

agreements. 

b. Compliance Determination 

Information From Authorized States, 

Tribes, and Territories 

In the existing federal regulations [40 

CFR 123.26(e)(2) and (4)], states, tribes, 

and territories that have received 

authorization to implement the NPDES 

program ‘‘shall have procedures and 

ability for’’: 

• Initial screening (i.e., preenforcement evaluation) of all permit or 

grant-related compliance information to 

identify violations and to establish 

priorities for further substantive 

technical evaluation; and 

• Maintaining a management 

information system which supports the 

compliance evaluation activities of this 

part. 

Under the existing data reporting 

structure, if the DMRs for the NPDES 

major permittees and the relevant 

numeric effluent limitations from the 

NPDES permit requirements are in 

EPA’s national data systems, the data 

systems can automatically identify 

violations of numeric effluent 

limitations. These violation 

determinations, which can be made for 

individual pollutants and at the facility 

level, also identify what would 

constitute Category I and Category II 

noncompliance based upon the 

regulations at 40 CFR 123.45 and EPA’s 

national guidance and policy [see EPA’s 

Enforcement Management System 

(EMS), DCN 0037]. These 

determinations can then be used in the 

creation of the required quarterly and 

annual noncompliance reports to track 

the compliance status of NPDESregulated facilities (see 40 CFR 123.45). 

In addition, if the appropriate due dates 

and milestone dates have been entered 

by the states, tribes, or territories, EPA’s 

national NPDES data systems have also 

been designed to identify whether 

reports are late and whether milestones 

have been missed in permit schedules 

or in compliance schedules. These 

additional violation determinations 

could determine whether a facility is in 

noncompliance for reporting violations 

or for schedule violations. 

Violation determinations may also be 

made based upon other information 

available to the states, tribes, territories, 

or EPA, such as inspection information, 

review of program report information, 

public complaints, information 

collection requests, incident reports, etc. 

For these identifications of 

noncompliance, EPA has developed 

guidance (the ‘‘PCS Single Event Data 

Entry Guide’’, May 2006, and the ‘‘ICIS– 

NPDES Single Event Violation Guide’’, 

October 2008) on how to track such 

violations [referred to as single event 

violations (SEVs)] in the NPDES 

national data systems. 

SEVs include one-time events as well 

as violations with longer durations. 

SEVs may be used by the states, tribes, 

territories, and EPA to report the 

compliance status of a facility for permit 

or regulatory violations that are not 

automatically flagged by the database. In 

the case of unpermitted facilities, SEVs 

may be entered in response to violations 

of CWA NPDES regulations. 

Since 1988, SEVs identified by EPA, 

states, tribes, and territories are 

expected to be entered into EPA’s 

national NPDES databases by the 

authorized NPDES program for major 

NPDES-regulated facilities and facilities 

covered by EPA’s General Pretreatment 

Standards (40 CFR part 403). A joint 

memorandum from the EPA Office of 

Compliance and Office of Civil 

Enforcement issued in October 2008 

clarified the expectation that EPA 

regional offices to enter into PCS or 

ICIS–NPDES all SEVs discovered by 

EPA regional offices for other nonmajor 

permits/facilities, starting in FY 2009. 

These compliance determinations are 

one of the many responsibilities and 

activities of the states, tribes, and 

territories with NPDES program 

authorization. The availability of such 

compliance determination information 

from states, tribes, territories, and EPA 

is critical to determining the compliance 

status of NPDES-permitted facilities. 

This information is needed on a facilityspecific basis to better identify potential 

problems; ensure that appropriate action 

is taken to address noncompliance; 

better quantify national or state 

noncompliance rates; and to provide a 

more complete and transparent picture 

to permitting authorities, the public, 

Congress, and other stakeholders of the 

overall implementation and 

effectiveness of the NPDES program. 

EPA has facility-specific information 

regarding the compliance status of 

NPDES-regulated facilities for only a 

very small percentage (less than 1 

percent of the total NPDES universe; i.e., 

essentially the major permittees). 

Therefore, through this proposed rule, 

EPA would require this compliance 

determination information to be 

provided to EPA by the states, tribes, 

and territories with NPDES program 

authorization for all major and 

nonmajor NPDES-regulated facilities, 

whether covered by an individuallyissued permit or by a general permit. 

EPA notes that the list of minimum 

Federal data (Appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 127) only includes construction 

stormwater inspection data from the 

authorized state, tribe, or territory when 

the authorized program identifies 

violations and completes a formal 

enforcement action (i.e., authorized 

state programs are not required to report 

construction stormwater inspection data 

to EPA for inspections that do not 

identify violations). EPA made this 

distinction based on the large number of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46042 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

facilities in this segment of the NPDES 

universe (approximately new 200,000 

facilities each year). EPA solicits 

comment on this approach. 

The list of information that would be 

required under this proposed rule, as 

currently drafted and subject to public 

comment, includes such basic items as 

the start and end dates for the 

violations, the type of violation, which 

agency identified the violation, when 

noncompliance was identified, and 

when it was resolved. In addition, some 

compliance-related data are tracked at 

the basic permit level, including 

whether noncompliance tracking is 

occurring automatically in EPA’s 

NPDES national data system, and the 

noncompliance status and fiscal 

quarters of noncompliance. A complete 

listing of these data is provided in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. The 

proposed rule also updates 40 CFR 

123.26 to reflect the new electronic 

reporting requirements. 

c. Enforcement Action Information 

From Authorized States, Tribes, and 

Territories 

One of the key activities for states, 

tribes, and territories implementing the 

NPDES program is taking enforcement 

actions as appropriate to address and 

remedy noncompliance by the NPDESregulated facilities. Historically in the 

NPDES program and in accordance with 

policy, the states, tribes, and territories 

have been expected to provide basic 

information regarding enforcement 

actions (whether formal or informal) to 

EPA for major permittees. In the PCS 

Policy Statement (as amended) and the 

ICIS Addendum to the Appendix of the 

1985 Permit Compliance System 

Statement, EPA indicated that the states, 

tribes, and territories were expected to 

provide a core set of such basic 

enforcement action data for major 

permittees to EPA through PCS and 

ICIS–NPDES. 

In addition to information submitted 

by the NPDES-regulated facilities, some 

NPDES data, including enforcement 

action information, are also needed from 

the states, tribes, and territories, as they 

are the unique source of the 

enforcement action information. 

In the context of the State Review 

Framework (a tool to evaluate state 

enforcement program performance) and 

development of the ANCR, several states 

have voiced concerns that EPA did not 

fully recognize and credit the extent to 

which states rely on compliance 

achieved through the issuance of 

informal enforcement actions, including 

a variety of enforcement actions which 

do not impose a compliance schedule. 

These states expressed concern that 

without such information regarding 

informal enforcement actions, EPA and 

the public did not have a complete 

picture of the state efforts to obtain 

compliance by the NPDES-regulated 

facilities. EPA has made efforts to 

ensure that information from the states 

regarding such informal enforcement 

actions is considered and made 

available. Similarly, this proposed rule 

would require states, tribes, and 

territories to provide EPA with facilityspecific information regarding formal 

and informal enforcement actions for all 

NPDES-regulated permittees. 

As indicated in this proposed rule, 

the type of basic information that the 

states, tribes, and territories would be 

required to provide EPA regarding 

enforcement actions would include the 

type of enforcement action, information 

specific to final orders (administrative 

or judicial), penalty information, 

information regarding permit schedules 

or compliance schedules, and 

information regarding milestones or 

sub-activities identified in permit 

schedules or compliance schedules. The 

complete list of enforcement action 

information that would be required 

through this proposed rule is identified 

in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. 

d. Authorized States, Tribes, and 

Territories NPDES Data Transmissions 

to EPA 

In addition to the NPDES information 

related to implementation and 

enforcement activities by the regulatory 

authorities, the proposed rule, as 

currently drafted and subject to public 

comment, would also require that the 

regulatory authorities ensure that the 

information submitted to the regulatory 

authorities by the NPDES-regulated 

facilities would then be provided to 

EPA in a timely, accurate, complete, and 

nationally-consistent manner. The 

requirements regarding timeliness, 

accuracy, completeness, and national 

consistency for these data submissions 

to EPA are defined in 40 CFR 127.23. 

This concept of ‘‘completing the 

circuit,’’ for the NPDES information, is 

critical to ensuring that the regulatory 

authority and EPA have access to the 

permittee’s information. This 

requirement to share such NPDES 

information from the regulatory 

authority to EPA (and vice versa) would 

be created under the proposed rule even 

if the electronic reporting tool provides 

permittee information only to the 

regulatory authority or if the permittee 

supplies hard-copy information under 

the terms of a temporary waiver. 

E. Additional Considerations 

Although 46 states and the Virgin 

Islands have authorization to implement 

the NPDES program as of October 2011, 

not all of these authorized programs 

implement the entire NPDES program. 

For example, 10 of these states and the 

Virgin Islands have not received 

authorization to implement the 

pretreatment program. As another 

example, only eight states have received 

authorization to implement the NPDES 

biosolids program. EPA expects states, 

tribes, and territories to provide EPA 

with the required NPDES information to 

the extent that those authorities have 

received NPDES program authorization. 

States, tribes, and territories that do not 

have authority to implement particular 

parts of the NPDES program would not 

be expected to provide information on 

those parts of the program. 

Similarly, certain states, tribes, and 

territories may not have a particular 

type of facility within their boundaries. 

For example, several states do not have 

any combined sewer systems (CSSs) 

within their states; therefore, EPA 

would not expect to receive any CSS 

information from those particular states. 

Other states, tribes, or territories may 

have too few of a particular type of 

facility to warrant the expense of 

developing electronic reporting systems 

by the regulatory authority to capture 

data from those facilities. As an 

alternative, electronic reporting tools 

would be made available by EPA and by 

third-party software vendors. These 

tools must fully meet EPA’s electronic 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 

122.22, and part 127. EPA seeks 

comment on whether, in such instances 

where only a few of a particular type of 

facility exist within a particular 

regulatory authority, EPA should allow 

the regulatory authority to decide 

whether their permittees should report 

to EPA electronically using a national 

tool, or report in a hard-copy format to 

the regulatory authority, in which case 

the regulatory authority would then 

assume the responsibility for processing 

the data into electronic form and 

providing that information to EPA. 

It is conceivable that some regulatory 

authorities may not have implemented 

certain portions of the NPDES program 

that are included in these 

authorizations; nonetheless, EPA would 

expect to receive the required NPDES 

information regarding each of those 

subprograms included in their NPDES 

authorized program. 

Regardless of the regulatory 

authority’s current level of electronic 

reporting from permittees or data system 

development, the regulatory authorities 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46043 

43See 50 FR 34649. 

44New NPDES Non-Municipal Permit Rating 

Worksheet, June 27, 1990, DCN 0049. 

45The Enforcement Management System (1989), 

DCN 0037. 

are still required to meet their 

responsibilities to implement and 

enforce the NPDES program, to issue 

permits, to conduct inspections, to make 

compliance determinations, and to issue 

enforcement actions. Therefore, EPA 

and the public should still expect that 

the required NPDES information 

regarding such activities would be 

provided to EPA by the regulatory 

authorities in a timely, accurate, 

complete, and nationally-consistent 

manner (i.e., in conformance with 

national data standards, in consistent 

units of measure, and in a format 

compatible with the NPDES national 

data system). 

G. Changes to QNCR, Semi-Annual 

Statistical Summary Report, and ANCR 

(40 CFR 123.45) 

1. Background 

On August 26, 1985, EPA 

promulgated final revisions to 

regulations for the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit program to require Quarterly 

Noncompliance Reports (QNCR) to be 

prepared and submitted by the states, 

tribes, and territories that are authorized 

to implement the NPDES program and 

by EPA regions for states, tribes, and 

territories not yet authorized. Those 

revised regulations are found in 40 CFR 

123.45 and include two types of 

noncompliance which must be reported 

on the QNCR for major facilities, 

Category I and Category II. The 

regulations at 40 CFR 123.45 also 

require semi-annual noncompliance 

reports for major facilities and 

summary-level annual noncompliance 

reports for nonmajor facilities. 

As reflected in this proposed rule, as 

currently drafted and subject to public 

comment, the Agency is proposing to 

modify these requirements in 40 CFR 

123.45 of the NPDES regulations to 

more accurately reflect the technological 

environment of the 21st century that 

includes the new e-reporting 

requirements being proposed today and 

the evolution of the NPDES regulatory 

program over the last 25 years. Today’s 

proposed rule would remove 

requirements for obsolete paper reports 

that can instead be generated from data 

in EPA’s data systems through 

electronic reporting. By removing 

obsolete reports, the proposed rule 

would lessen state, tribe, and territory 

burden, while also updating the 

regulations to allow all authorized 

programs and EPA to more effectively 

track activities within the broader 

NPDES universe. The changes will make 

NPDES information easier to 

understand, and will provide the public 

with a complete inventory of violations 

that are self-reported by permittees or 

identified by regulatory agencies. The 

changes will also support EPA’s 2009 

Clean Water Act Action Plan goals of 

improving public transparency, 

identifying the most serious violations, 

and informing reviews of EPA, state, 

tribe, and territory enforcement 

programs. 

Data collection for the NPDES 

program should be updated to reflect 

currently available technologies and the 

current NPDES universe and thus 

facilitate improved public transparency. 

The NPDES universe has grown and 

diversified substantially since the 1980s 

and now includes approximately one 

million diverse point sources of which 

only approximately 6,700 are majors. 

Focusing the QNCR only on majors 

excludes more than 99 percent of the 

regulated NPDES universe from more 

rigorous facility-level public 

accountability. Many regulated point 

sources—such as stormwater discharges, 

concentrated animal feeding operations, 

mines, and raw sewage overflows—are 

considered to be significant contributors 

to water quality impairment and human 

health risks today (DCN 0045, 0070, 

0071, 0072, 0073, and 0074). However, 

because many of these sources do not 

meet the NPDES definition of major 

facilities, they have been excluded from 

the QNCR. This has set up a situation 

where there is very robust tracking, 

management, and public accountability 

for a very small subset (major facilities) 

of the NPDES regulated universe, but 

very little public information on 

locations, types of violations, and 

enforcement by authorized states, tribes, 

and territories regarding these other 

nonmajor facilities. As a result, EPA 

currently has difficulty accurately 

assessing the effectiveness of NPDESauthorized states, tribes, and territories, 

as well as its own activities, in these 

other important NPDES sectors and is 

not able to provide more complete 

NPDES noncompliance and 

enforcement information to Congress 

and the public. 

EPA has also received feedback from 

states and public data users that the 

existing terminology and nomenclature 

for cataloguing violations is too 

confusing. This proposed rule seeks to 

simplify and improve the transparency 

and utility of violation information 

including facilitation of EPA’s, states’, 

tribes’, and territories’ abilities to focus 

on the problems of greatest concern. 

2. Purpose of Existing Regulations 

The existing annual, semi-annual, and 

quarterly reporting requirements are 

aimed at organizing violation 

information to facilitate EPA’s 

assessment of the effectiveness of EPA, 

state, tribe, and territorial compliance 

activities and thereby best determine 

how to manage or oversee program 

activities.43 EPA uses this information 

to provide noncompliance information 

to Congress and the public. 

The primary purpose of the QNCR is 

to provide facility-specific information 

used to identify patterns of 

noncompliance by the largest 

contributors of pollutants (i.e., the major 

facilities as defined and emphasized in 

the 1970s and 1980s) and to assess state 

and EPA regional enforcement 

activities. The QNCR is used solely for 

reporting purposes and does not dictate 

what constitutes a violation of permit 

conditions or whether EPA, states, 

tribes, or territories will take an 

enforcement action. 

The Annual Noncompliance Report 

(ANCR) uses similar definitions as the 

QNCR, but was designed as a summary 

(not facility-specific) view of violations 

and enforcement response by the 

regulatory authority for nonmajor 

facilities. At the time the existing 

regulations were written, technology 

limitations required that monthly DMRs 

be entered into the data system 

manually one at a time by state and EPA 

regulators. The data entry burden for 

entering all DMR reports for major and 

nonmajor facilities with individual 

permits (over 45,000 facilities) was too 

high, so EPA required DMR data entry 

by the authorized states, tribes, and 

territories into the national data systems 

(PCS and ICIS) only for the major 

facilities. EPA and authorized NPDES 

states developed the major facility 

definition through guidance to screen 

and identify those facilities with the 

largest environmental footprints and 

thus deemed at the time to be most 

important to track for violations at the 

facility level.44 The thorough data 

requirements for major facilities also 

dove-tailed with the Enforcement 

Management System (EMS); guidance 

developed by EPA which describes 

appropriate enforcement responses for 

violations at NPDES facilities.45

The ANCR summary report provides 

summary information about the number 

and types of violations and enforcement 

responses at nonmajor facilities during 

a one-year reporting period in a 

particular state, tribe, or territory. Over 

the last several years, the ANCR has 

shown that in many states, the rate of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46044 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

46Forty percent over an effluent limit for 

conventional pollutants and 20 percent over the 

limit for toxic pollutants, as identified in Appendix 

A to 40 CFR 123.45, for two months in a six month 

period. 

violations at nonmajor NPDES facilities 

where detailed DMR information is 

provided to EPA’s data systems is more 

than twice as high as those where the 

states have provided only summary 

information. 

With the transition to electronicallyreported DMRs directly from facilities 

into the national data system or to 

existing state, tribe, or territory data 

systems, the need to maintain separate 

reporting formats and requirements for 

major facilities and nonmajor facilities 

are no longer relevant to the program. 

Furthermore, the proposed NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule allows EPA to 

remove the burden of producing these 

reports from the states; instead, EPA 

would be able to automatically produce 

the reports and make them available for 

use by states, tribes, territories, and the 

public. 

The QNCR (for major facilities) and 

the ANCR (for nonmajor facilities) use 

identical numeric calculations to place 

violations into two categories. 

Violations that exceed certain 

thresholds of time, magnitude, or 

frequency of occurrence are specified in 

the regulations at 40 CFR 123.45 as 

being significant. ‘‘Category I’’ 

noncompliance involves applying 

certain specific ‘‘technical review 

criteria’’ or ‘‘TRC’’ 46 to certain 

violations of effluent limits for 

pollutants listed in Appendix. Category 

I noncompliance also includes specific 

criteria for violations of enforcement 

orders, compliance schedules, and 

required reports. ‘‘Category II’’ 

noncompliance includes effluent limit 

violations that do not rise to Category I, 

as well as unauthorized bypasses, 

unpermitted discharges, pass through of 

pollutants that cause or have the 

potential to cause a water quality or 

health problem, failure of a POTW to 

implement its approved pretreatment 

program, violations of interim 

compliance schedule milestones, 

incomplete required reports, violations 

of narrative requirements (e.g., failure to 

develop Spill Prevention and 

Countermeasure Plans and implement 

Best Management Practices), and other 

violations or group of permit violations 

of substantial concern to the State, 

Tribe, or Territory Director or EPA 

Regional Administrator. 

One additional consideration that 

EPA, states, tribes, and territories 

discussed at length under the Clean 

Water Act Action Plan was whether the 

existing Technical Review Criteria 

(TRC) identified in Appendix A to 40 

CFR 123.45 for categorizing the severity 

of violations should be maintained. EPA 

has not proposed changing these 

violation determinations. Many of the 

EPA and state participants in the Clean 

Water Act Action Plan thought that the 

existing thresholds were useful and 

should be retained. However, there are 

some gaps that are addressed in this 

proposed rule. 

3. Relationship Between Enforcement 

and Proposed Regulatory Changes to 40 

CFR 123.45 

The existing regulations do not 

determine the type of enforcement 

response required to be taken by the 

state, tribe, territory, or EPA. Title 40, 

Code of Federal Regulations, section 

123.45 is a reporting regulation— 

focused on aligning key information that 

can assist with both enforcement 

priority-setting and transparency. 

Enforcement policy remains under the 

discretion of EPA and the permitting 

authority and outside the scope of this 

proposed rule. Over the past 25 years, 

EPA has developed policy and guidance 

documents that utilize information via 

the regulations to prioritize violations 

and determine appropriate responses. 

EPA wants to clarify that the proposed 

changes do not alter its enforcement 

expectations for the states, tribes, 

territories, or EPA regions. Any 

revisions to enforcement response 

guidelines would be accomplished via 

updates to existing guidance or policy, 

such as the EMS. The changes outlined 

in this proposed rule will make the 

NPDES data more inclusive and easier 

to use, and inform any future 

enforcement policy changes that are 

envisioned under the Clean Water Act 

Action Plan. 

4. Overview of Proposed Regulatory 

Changes 

Given the evolving NPDES program, 

advancing technology, and the updated 

reporting mechanisms and requirements 

included in this proposed rule, EPA is 

seeking comment on changes to 40 CFR 

123.45, entitled, ‘‘Noncompliance and 

program reporting by the Director.’’ The 

purposes of these changes are to: (1) 

Provide a more accurate and 

comprehensive report of known 

violations using a more complete set of 

noncompliance information that would 

be flowing as a result of the NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule; (2) improve 

EPA’s ability to analyze, track, and 

manage violations; (3) ensure the full 

universe of NPDES sources is 

considered in tracking, analyzing, and 

managing compliance and enforcement 

programs; (4) establish a better process 

to ensure EPA is focused on the most 

serious pollution problems and can 

keep pace with changes to the 

permitting program and new limit types; 

and (5) reduce state, tribe, and territory 

reporting burden by removing or 

phasing out requirements for existing 

hard-copy reports or other reports than 

can be produced by EPA from NPDES 

national data systems. Based on a date 

three years after the effective date of the 

final rule, the existing regulatory text in 

40 CFR 123.45 would be replaced by the 

proposed new text for that section. 

5. Proposal To Establish a NPDES 

Noncompliance Report 

To accomplish these changes, EPA is 

proposing to reorganize noncompliance 

information and establish a new public 

inventory of all reported violations 

based on existing reporting 

requirements and other new 

requirements that would be phased in 

under this proposed rule. The content of 

the inventory would be very similar to 

what is currently provided by EPA on 

the Internet in the ECHO Web site, but 

will include reported violations from 

the broader universe of NPDESregulated sources. The proposed rule 

establishes an EPA-generated NPDES 

Noncompliance Report (NNCR) that 

would include a complete, simplified 

listing of all recorded violations at major 

and nonmajor facilities. The report 

would incorporate the existing content 

of the QNCR and the ANCR (e.g., 

reviewed facilities, violations, serious 

violations, enforcement taken), and 

would add other data that are required 

elsewhere under the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule (for example, 

information regarding inspections, 

informal enforcement actions, and 

penalties assessed). The NNCR is 

essentially a quarterly, facility-based 

view of compliance monitoring, 

violations, and enforcement activity 

which would replace the QNCR and the 

ANCR. 

The proposed rule is not designed to 

limit EPA’s flexibility in providing data 

more frequently than quarterly. So, for 

example, if inspections or violations 

were identified one month after the 

official quarter ended, EPA would 

maintain the ability to provide that 

information prior to conclusion of the 

next official quarter. The NNCR 

provides a snapshot of the violation 

status within a quarter, which can be 

combined with other regulatory data, 

such as the frequency of inspection and 

follow-up enforcement action, to 

provide a full picture of compliance at 

a NPDES-regulated facility. The purpose 

of the NNCR is to provide regulators and 

the public with information about 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46045 

violations, including both numeric 

exceedances of effluent limits (e.g., as 

reported on DMRs) and other violations 

[such as violations of narrative permit 

requirements or single event violations 

(both one-time and long-term) including 

sewer overflows, failure to implement 

best management practices, failure to 

implement a pretreatment program, 

failure to report, or failure to apply for 

a permit]. Non-numeric (e.g., non-DMR) 

violations are used by EPA to maintain 

and report the compliance status of a 

facility for violations that are not 

automatically flagged by the national 

database. Methods of detection of nonnumeric violations include inspections; 

information collection requests; state, 

tribal, or territorial referrals; annual 

reports, noncompliance reports, and 

other program reports required under 

the permit enforcement order, or 

regulation; facility self-audits; and 

public complaints. Single event 

violations include one-time events and 

long-term violations (as described in 

Section IV.F.2.d). 

The listing of a facility on the NNCR 

for transparency purposes is not 

intended to dictate the appropriate 

enforcement response or in any way 

establish criteria for selecting 

enforcement actions. However, overall 

trends and rates (for example, the 

percent of facilities with violations) may 

be a useful tool for assessing violation 

trends on a regional or nationwide basis. 

Because EPA will produce the NNCR 

using data that are required to be 

reported to EPA electronically in a 

format compatible with ICIS–NPDES, 

there is no additional burden on states, 

tribes, or territories. In fact, in addition 

to eliminating the requirement for 

authorized programs to submit QNCR 

reports, EPA proposes to phase out the 

requirement that authorized programs 

submit semi-annual statistical and 

annual noncompliance reports (ANCRs). 

6. Categorizing Violations 

EPA’s system for categorizing 

violations on public Web sites is based 

upon the existing regulations within 40 

CFR 123.45. As indicated in the 

proposed rule, EPA is considering 

updating 40 CFR 123.45 to modify the 

definitions of Category I and Category II 

noncompliance to implement one of the 

Clean Water Act Action Plan objectives 

to improve how serious violations are 

categorized. As currently structured, the 

existing regulations do not sufficiently 

categorize violations based on severity 

and potential for water quality impacts. 

The existing regulation assumes that 

‘‘Category I’’ violations are considered 

more serious, while ‘‘Category II’’ 

violations are not as severe. EPA values 

classifying violations and that there is 

room for improvement in the existing 

regulation. Many of the most severe 

violations occurring in the today’s 

NPDES program do not currently qualify 

as ‘‘Category I.’’ EPA has recognized this 

within the EMS by considering certain 

Category II violations to be ‘‘significant 

noncompliance’’ or SNC (and must be 

reported on the QNCR). This has created 

several inconsistencies between 

publicly-released data and the 

underlying regulations. This proposed 

rule seeks to remedy this problem. EPA 

is proposing to include those more 

serious violations into Category I, while 

all other violations become Category II. 

EPA is proposing an option that will 

retain most historically-used definitions 

that would move a facility from 

Category II into Category I. EPA is also 

proposing to leverage the data that 

would be required electronically under 

this proposed rule so that the severity of 

violations is evaluated for all facilities— 

not just the major facilities. 

In addition to the establishment of a 

NNCR, there are two components to the 

proposed approach to classifying 

violations. The first component covers 

violation classification; applicability to 

regulatory entity types; and revisions to 

annual, semi-annual, and quarterly 

reporting. The second component sets 

up a procedure for EPA to regularly 

assess what pollutant types, limit types, 

and measurement types/frequency are 

considered in classifying the severity of 

violations. These components are 

described below. 

a. Component 1—Revise and Simplify 

the Existing System of Violation 

Classification 

EPA proposes to make adjustments to 

the existing regulation, while keeping 

the underlying concepts in place. First, 

the distinction between major and 

nonmajor regulated entities would be 

eliminated as it relates to 40 CFR 

123.45. Second, Category I 

noncompliance, as defined under the 

existing regulation, would be slightly 

expanded to include a subset of 

violations currently classified as 

Category II. These include Category II 

noncompliance that pose a specific 

threat to water quality, including those 

that adversely impact water quality, 

human health, or designated uses of 

surface waters. EPA would retain the 

existing TRC for Group I and Group II 

Pollutants in 40 CFR 123.45, Appendix 

A. These thresholds would be applied to 

both major and nonmajor facilities, as 

they are within the existing regulation, 

but would ensure that other types of 

NPDES-regulated facilities that do not 

regularly report DMRs become eligible 

to be placed in Category I due to water 

quality impacts. The proposed 

regulatory text reflects how this change 

would be accomplished. All NPDESregulated sources would be tiered into 

Category I if their effluent violations 

were significantly over the limit for a 

period of time, or if the violations are 

included in the existing definition of 

Category I (e.g., violations of a 

compliance schedule, etc.). Other 

violations (such as sewer overflows, 

failure to implement best management 

practices, failure to implement a 

pretreatment program, failure to report, 

or failure to apply for a permit) that are 

not ascertained through numeric limits 

in permits and DMRs, but are directly 

related to water quality impairment or 

are likely to cause water quality 

impairment (such as fish kills, oil 

sheens, beach closings, restrictions of 

beneficial uses, etc.), would also be 

classified as Category I. The detection of 

these non-numeric violations is by a 

variety of means, including, for 

example, inspections, or review of 

reports. The regulations also provide for 

listing of violations as Category I, if, in 

the discretion of the Director or 

Regional Administrator, that grouping of 

violations pose a water quality threat 

(e.g., geographic clusters or sectors of 

permittees with similar violations that 

are causing water quality issues). 

The proposed revisions to 40 CFR 

123.45 would simplify and improve the 

organization, completeness, and 

transparency of NPDES noncompliance 

information. EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories could utilize this improved 

information to inform future revisions to 

EPA’s national enforcement guidance 

and policies to identify, prioritize, and 

address the most serious CWA NPDES 

violations. 

b. Component 2—Developing a Process 

To Keep Pollutant Lists and Monitoring/ 

Permit Limit Types Up To Date 

As reflected in this proposed rule, 

EPA is considering adding a section to 

the existing regulation that requires EPA 

to establish a policy-making process 

with state, tribe, territory, and public 

involvement to add or delete pollutants 

that are subject to Category I 

classification for permit effluent limit 

violations, and to determine how 

criteria other than monthly average 

permit limit violations of a certain 

magnitude and frequency can be 

elevated to Category I classification. 

Pollutant Types That Can Be Elevated to 

Category I Violation Classification 

Under this proposed rule, as currently 

drafted and subject to public comment, 

EPA retains the existing lists of Group 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46046 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

47See Chapter VII, Part 2, Appendix III in The 

Enforcement Management System (1989), DCN 

0037. 48See DCN 0050. 

I and Group II Pollutants in Appendix 

A to 40 CFR 123.45 that are evaluated 

as part of the Category I and Category II 

definition for effluent limit violations. 

Periodic review and update of these lists 

is consistent with the original intent of 

the regulation (as specified on page 

34651 of EPA’s preamble for the final 

rule for 40 CFR part 123, NPDES 

Noncompliance and Program 

Reporting—FR, Vol. 50, No. 165, 

Monday, August 26, 1985). The 1985 

preamble describes the conventional 

and nonconventional/toxic pollutants 

and provided an expectation that new 

parameters may be added from time to 

time, and that EPA would provide a 

more detailed list of pollutants to 

authorized programs in guidance for 

preparing the QNCR. EPA has never 

added any new parameters to the list of 

pollutants currently in 40 CFR 123.45— 

in part due to the complexity of reopening the regulation to make such 

changes. EPA did, however, include a 

much more exhaustive list of Group I 

(conventional) and Group II (generally 

toxic) pollutant parameters found in 

Appendix III of its 1986 national 

guidance for preparation of quarterly 

and semi-annual noncompliance 

reports.47 This has resulted in a 

situation where a frequent cause of 

water impairment, pathogen pollution, 

(directly linked to NPDES pollutants 

such as fecal coliform and E. coli) is not 

listed in the regulations (see DCN 0038). 

Monitoring Frequency/Thresholds and 

Connection to Category I Violation 

Classification 

EPA proposes that the policy/ 

guidance process for adding pollutant 

types that are eligible for Category I 

classification for permit effluent limit 

violations can also be used as the 

process for identifying potential changes 

to the reporting thresholds (i.e., 

magnitude and frequency) that are used. 

For example, the current regulation 

focuses on monthly average effluent 

limit violations of a specified magnitude 

(20 percent or 40 percent above the 

applicable limit) and frequency (two or 

four months in a six-month period) 

because EPA believed that violations of 

monthly average permit effluent limits 

were indicative of more serious longterm noncompliance problems. EPA 

revised its management tool (i.e., EPA’s 

NPDES Significant Noncompliance 

Policy) in 1995 to also identify 

egregious NPDES violations of nonmonthly permit effluent limits that meet 

EPA’s criteria.48 EPA and authorized 

programs are also now using other types 

of limits (e.g., annual limits or seasonal 

limits) in some situations. Technical 

evaluation is needed to determine 

whether the existing magnitude and 

frequency reporting thresholds are 

viable for use for other types of limits. 

In summary, the policy and guidance 

process discussed here would provide a 

forum for updating/changing: (1) 

Pollutants subject to Category I 

classification for permit effluent limit 

violations; (2) measurement frequency 

examined for Category I classification 

for permit effluent limit violations; and 

(3) reporting thresholds used for 

existing or new pollutants or 

measurement frequency that are 

associated with Category I classification 

for permit effluent limit violations. 

These decisions would be established in 

EPA national guidance and policy (like 

the EMS), which may be updated as 

needed. 

c. Additional Changes 

The proposed rule incorporates 

several small changes, including the 

synchronization of reports on a Federal 

fiscal year basis. 

H. Changes to Biosolids Annual Reports 

by the States 

The existing federal regulations at 40 

CFR 501.21 require each authorized 

State, Tribe, or Territory Program 

Director to annually submit summarylevel information to the Regional 

Administrator regarding state sewage 

sludge management programs. This 

required information includes: (1) a 

summary of the incidents of 

noncompliance which occurred in the 

previous year and any details; and (2) 

information to update the inventory of 

all sewage sludge generators and sewage 

sludge disposal facilities submitted with 

the program plan or in previous annual 

reports. 

This proposed rule seeks comment on 

whether EPA should amend provision 

40 CFR 501.21, which would allow EPA 

to eliminate the requirement for 

authorized programs to report biosolids 

information to EPA. The rationale for 

such an amendment is that, if EPA’s 

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

requires sufficient information directly 

and electronically from these permittees 

and ensures that authorized programs 

and EPA share such information, then 

EPA could generate such a report based 

upon that information and alleviate 

biosolids reporting burden for this 

existing regulatory requirement from 

authorized programs. 

Ultimately, under this proposed rule, 

as currently drafted and subject to 

public comment, authorized programs 

would eventually no longer be required 

under this existing regulation to report 

on the status of their sewage sludge 

management programs, provide updates 

of their inventory to EPA of sewage 

sludge generators and sludge disposal 

facilities, or provide information on 

incidents of noncompliance, except for 

those identified during state biosolids 

inspections, because this requirement to 

supply information would fall on the 

facilities directly. Additionally, the 

electronic submission of this biosolids 

information from the permittees in 

accordance with the proposed rule will 

improve the timeliness, cost, and 

efficiency in the reporting of facility 

noncompliance and inventory data 

related to the biosolids subprogram. 

Therefore, based on these 

considerations, this proposed rule 

eventually would remove state biosolids 

reporting requirements pursuant to 40 

CFR 501.21, three years after the 

effective date of the final rule. EPA 

would be able to generate the reports 

based upon the available data provided 

directly from permittees, and 

supplemented by authorized program 

information regarding their biosolids 

program implementation activities, 

through the NPDES Electronic Reporting 

Rule. 

I. Enforceability 

For this proposed rule, as currently 

drafted and subject to public comment, 

the regulated entities are primarily the 

NPDES-regulated facilities [e.g., NPDES 

permittees, biosolids generators subject 

to 40 CFR part 503, significant 

industrial users (SIU), categorical 

industrial users (CIUs), approved 

pretreatment programs] and NPDESauthorized states, tribes, and territories. 

The tools available to EPA to ensure 

compliance with this rule would differ 

depending on whether compliance was 

sought from a NPDES permittee or from 

a NPDES-authorized state, tribe, or 

territory, but the overall objective— 

compliance with the rule—would 

remain the same. 

If NPDES-regulated facilities fail to 

comply with this federal regulation for 

electronic reporting of NPDES 

information, they may be subject to the 

same types of enforcement responses 

that are available for failure to submit 

written (paper-based) or oral reports. 

This proposed rule clearly identifies 

each report that must be electronically 

submitted to EPA or the authorized 

NPDES program. 

In response to such noncompliance, 

EPA and the authorized programs 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46047 

49See 40 CFR 123.62(e). 

would have available their full set of 

compliance and enforcement tools and 

actions to address the failure of a 

NPDES permittee to electronically 

submit required NPDES information, 

just as they do to address any other 

noncompliance by NPDES-regulated 

facilities. In addition, the public would 

also have the ability to initiate citizen 

suits under Section 505 of the CWA to 

ensure that noncompliance is remedied 

when there are violations of existing 

regulations, permit conditions, or 

requirements in enforcement actions. 

EPA also needs to ensure that our 

regulatory partners responsible for 

NPDES implementation are meeting 

Federal requirements as set forth in this 

regulation. EPA would have the full 

range of options available to ensure 

state, tribal, and territorial compliance 

with this rule, as it would to ensure 

state, tribal, and territorial compliance 

with any other aspect of the NPDES 

program. In particular, the proposed 

rule outlines the procedure for ensuring 

the completeness and timeliness of data 

submissions from states, tribes, or 

territories that have received 

authorization from EPA to implement 

the NPDES program. This procedure 

includes public notification of the 

initial recipient of NPDES compliance 

data for each state, tribe, and territory 

and the requirement that authorized 

NPDES programs must maintain the 

capacity to share all the required NPDES 

information with EPA through 

automated data transfers. Finally, this 

procedure outlines the corrective 

actions necessary to ensure the seamless 

electronic collection from NPDESregulated facilities and the sharing of 

NPDES compliance data with the 

public. 

J. Effective Date and Compliance Dates 

EPA is considering establishing the 

effective date for this regulation as 60 

days after the promulgation date for 

most parts of the final rule, except for 

some specified components of the rule. 

See Section IV.K for a description of the 

series of compliance dates that follow 

the initial effective date for this 

regulation (i.e., 60 days after the 

promulgation date for the final rule). 

Additionally, the effective date for the 

revisions to 40 CFR 123.45 (elimination 

of the QNCR, ANCR, and semi-annual 

statistical report; creation of the NNCR) 

would be three years after the effective 

date of the final rule. The reason for this 

separate effective date is that producing 

the quarterly and annual NNCR require 

at least one full year of electronic 

reporting for the complete set of NPDESregulated entities. As described in 

Section IV.I, the entire set of NPDES 

electronic submissions is proposed to 

begin two years after the effective date 

of the final rule. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 123.63, 

NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and 

territories as proposed to have one year 

after the effective date of the final rule 

to revise their NPDES program to 

comply with this rule through any 

necessary regulatory or policy changes 

and two years after the effective date of 

the final rule if statutory changes are 

needed to conform their programs to the 

requirements of the rule. Additionally, 

EPA is proposing to utilize a CWA 

request, conducted in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, to start 

collecting NPDES program data by one 

year after the effective date of the final 

rule (Phase 1 data) and two years after 

the effective date of the final rule (Phase 

2 data). States, tribes, and territories 

should review the ‘‘State Readiness 

Criteria’’ to determine the actions they 

need to take to ensure that facilities in 

their state, tribe, or territory would not 

need to report to EPA in addition to 

their authorized NPDES program. The 

rule implementation plan and 

compliance dates for NPDES-regulated 

facilities are described in Section IV.I. 

Given the significant potential data 

entry cost savings that the states, tribes, 

and territories could accrue by moving 

sooner toward electronic reporting of 

NPDES information by the permittees, 

there should be significant incentive for 

these governmental entities to move in 

that direction. EPA notes that there will 

be some initial start up costs to switch 

to electronic reporting. Some states, 

tribes, and territories may examine 

whether they could easily adopt the 

new rulemaking by reference or even 

make a blanket change to all of their 

NPDES permits to more timely facilitate 

a change to electronic reporting by 

NPDES-regulated facilities. States, 

tribes, and territories could also 

consider utilizing EPA’s database and 

electronic reporting tools as a cost 

savings measure. 

Under certain circumstances, and as 

described in Section IV.E.5, temporary 

waivers from electronic reporting may 

be granted to NPDES-regulated facilities, 

NPDES permit applicants, and 

industrial users located in cities without 

approved local pretreatment programs. 

These temporary waivers may be 

granted by the states, tribes, and 

territories that have received 

authorization to implement the NPDES 

program (including the applicable 

subprograms). In situations where EPA 

is the permitting authority, EPA may 

choose to grant such temporary waivers, 

using procedures similar to those 

described in this section. Temporary 

waivers are to extend no more than one 

year at which time the facility must 

reapply for a waiver. 

K. Rule Implementation Plan 

EPA notes that the proposed 

implementation plan would expedite 

the electronic submission of NPDES 

program data as compared to 

implementing electronic reporting 

through the permit renewal cycle. As a 

potential backstop, EPA is considering 

using its authority under CWA sections 

101, 304(i), 308, 402(b), and 501 to 

require the electronic collection and 

transfer of NPDES program data to EPA 

as part of this rule, where authorized 

states, tribes, and territories are not 

ready to implement electronic reporting. 

Under this proposal, EPA would utilize 

its existing authority under the CWA 

and current technology to allow 

everyone to more quickly realize the 

benefits of electronic reporting. 

The benefits of this proposal include 

accelerated resource savings that states, 

tribes, and territories would realize 

through reduced data entry burden and 

reduced effort in responding to public 

requests for data, consistent 

requirements for electronic reporting 

across all states, tribes, and territories, 

increased data quality, and more timely 

access to NPDES program data in an 

electronic format for EPA, states, tribes, 

and territories, regulated entities, and 

the public. Under the proposal, a 

complete set of information for the 

regulated universe covered by this 

proposed rule would be required two 

years after the effective date of the final 

rule. The Agency’s proposal to rely on 

its authority under the CWA to collect 

these data directly from NPDESregulated facilities is supported by the 

availability of technologies for 

electronic reporting, the needs of EPA 

states, tribes, and territories for 

complete NPDES program data, and the 

stated goal to make this data available 

to the public. 

By comparison, without this 

accelerated schedule, it would likely 

take at least until 2022 to make this 

information available electronically, 

including approximately seven years for 

states, tribes, and territories to update 

their statutes and NPDES permits to 

require electronic reporting (i.e., two 

years for the states, tribes, and territories 

to revise their programs if statute 

changes are needed, plus a five-year 

permit reissuance cycle or longer).49

EPA considered using the permit 

renewal cycle as a means to phase in 

electronic reporting but that approach 

would delay significant benefits such as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46048 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

state savings and expedited access to 

complete NPDES program data in an 

electronic format for EPA, states, tribes, 

and territories, regulated entities, and 

the public. Furthermore, given current 

technology, it would be unreasonable to 

take nearly a decade to convert from 

hard-copy reporting to electronic 

reporting. 

Given the different types of NPDES 

program data, EPA is proposing to phase 

in the electronic collection and transfer 

of NPDES program data on the following 

schedule. For NPDES-regulated entities 

that will use EPA’s electronic reporting 

tools, EPA will work closely with states, 

tribes, territories, and NPDES-regulated 

entities to provide sufficient training 

and registration support prior to the 

start of each implementation phase. In 

addition, EPA would also provide 

technical assistance and support to help 

states, tribes, and territories make this 

transition to electronic reporting. EPA 

will also use this schedule to switch 

from the ANCR and QNCR 

noncompliance reports to the NPDES 

Noncompliance Report (NNCR). See 

also Section IV.E.5 for a discussion of 

the waivers for some regulated entities 

in rural areas without access to 

broadband internet access. 

Phase 1 (One Year After Effective Date 

of Final Rule): EPA would electronically 

receive the basic facility and permit 

information from the authorized states, 

tribes, and territories and information 

from facilities covered by Federal 

general permits [e.g., notices of intent to 

discharge (NOIs), notices of 

terminations (NOTs), no exposure 

certifications (NECs), and low erosivity 

waivers (LEWs)]. EPA would also begin 

to electronically receive information 

from states, tribes, and territories 

regarding inspections, violation 

determinations, and enforcement 

actions. EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories would electronically receive 

DMR information from NPDES 

permittees. Prior to the start of Phase 1, 

states, tribes, and territories that can 

make changes to their NPDES program 

without enacting a statute would need 

to implement 40 CFR part 3 

(CROMERR), 40 CFR 122.22 (NPDES 

signature requirements), and 40 CFR 

part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting 

Rule within one year of the effective 

date of the rulemaking [see 40 CFR 

123.62(e)]. After changes to the NPDES 

program are made, these states, tribes, 

and territories (and EPA where EPA is 

the permit writer) will begin re-issuing 

existing permits [through permit 

renewals or minor permit modification 

(40 CFR 122.63)] or begin issuing new 

permits that include EPA’s electronic 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 

122.22, and part 127. EPA notes that 

some states, tribes, and territories may 

be able to make minor permit 

modifications to multiple permits 

through one action. EPA may also 

conduct such minor modifications for 

the NPDES permits it issues. EPA is the 

permit writer for all tribes and 

territories (except for the Virgin Islands) 

and four states that do not have 

authorized NPDES programs. States, 

tribes, and territories will also need to 

complete their updates to any needed 

NPDES data systems to accommodate 

the new information exchanges with 

EPA. Finally, during Phase 1, states, 

tribes, and territories that must make 

changes to their NPDES program, if 

applicable, by enacting a statute would 

be required to implement 40 CFR part 

3 (CROMERR), 40 CFR 122.22 (NPDES 

signature requirements), and 40 CFR 

part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting 

Rule within two years of the effective 

date of the final rule [see 40 CFR 

123.62(e)]. 

Phase 2 (Two Years After Effective 

Date of Final Rule): In this proposal, in 

addition to Phase 1 data, EPA, states, 

tribes, and territories would receive 

information from state, tribal, and 

territorial general permit covered 

facilities and program reports from all 

facilities (i.e., all NPDES program data 

identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 

127). Program reports are currently 

required by existing EPA regulations 

and include annual and episodic 

compliance reports from regulated 

entities to their permitting authority. 

These program reports include: 

Pretreatment Program Annual Reports, 

Industrial Users in Cities Without 

Approved Pretreatment Programs 

Periodic Compliance Monitoring 

Reports, Biosolids Program Annual 

Reports, CAFO Annual Reports, 

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

Systems (MS4) Annual Reports, and 

Sewer Overflow of Bypass Event 

Reports [Combined Sewer Overflows 

(CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows 

(SSO), and Bypass Event Reports] (see 

Section IV). 

During Phase 2, states, tribes, and 

territories that would be required to 

make changes to their NPDES program 

through enacting a statute would 

complete their changes to their NPDES 

program to implement 40 CFR part 3 

(CROMERR), 40 CFR 122.22 (NPDES 

signature requirements), and 40 CFR 

part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting 

Rule [see 40 CFR 123.62(e)]. After these 

states, tribes, and territories update their 

NPDES program, all new permits issued 

or existing permits re-issued after this 

date for the entire nation shall contain 

a permit condition requiring the 

electronic reporting requirements in 40 

CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. 

Regulated entities, which would then 

have the Federal electronic reporting 

requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, 

part 127) in their permit, would start (or 

continue) electronic reporting to the 

initial recipient (as defined in 40 CFR 

127.27) as of the effective date of their 

permit. Under both phases, EPA would 

continue to work with states, tribes, and 

territories to ensure the electronic flow 

of state NPDES program data from their 

systems to EPA’s national NPDES data 

system (e.g., ICIS–NPDES). 

Finally, at the end of Phase 2 (two 

years after effective date of final rule) 

EPA will replace the QNCR, ANCR, 

semi-annual statistical reports with the 

NNCR. See Sections IV. 

1. Phase 1 Implementation 

During Phase 1, EPA would require 

regulated entities to electronically send 

‘‘Phase 1 data’’ (i.e., DMRs, information 

from general permit covered facilities 

for Federally-issued general permits, to 

EPA, unless the state, tribe, or territory 

has met the ‘‘State Readiness Criteria’’ 

(see below). This proposed electronic 

reporting requirement is in addition to 

any pre-existing paper-based reporting 

requirements. EPA would commit to 

holding monthly teleconferences and 

webinars with authorized programs 

during this transition period to assist 

with data migration and reconciliation. 

However, EPA would exclude 

regulated entities from this CWA 

request if their authorized state, tribe, or 

territory meets all of the following 

‘‘State Readiness Criteria’’: 

(1) The authorized state, tribe, or 

territory has 90 percent acceptance rate 

by data group (i.e., NPDES-regulated 

entities submit timely, accurate, 

complete, and nationally consistent 

NPDES data using approved state, tribe, 

territory or third-party electronic 

reporting tools; and 

(2) The EPA, state, tribe, territory, or 

third-party electronic reporting tools 

used by the NPDES regulated entity 

meet all of the minimum Federal 

reporting requirements for 40 CFR part 

3 (CROMERR) and 40 CFR part 127 

(NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule); and 

(3) EPA lists the state, tribe, or 

territory as the initial recipients for 

electronic NPDES information from 

NPDES-regulated entities in that state 

on EPA’s Web site. Each authorized 

program will then designate the specific 

tools for these electronic submissions 

from their permittees. These 

designations are proposed to be made 

separately for each NPDES data group 

(see 40 CFR 127.2(c) and 127.27). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46049 

EPA encourages all authorized states, 

tribes, and territories to meet the ‘‘State 

Readiness Criteria,’’ and will provide 

support to these authorized programs. 

This approach will minimize the cases 

where regulated entities would need to 

report to their authorized state, tribe, or 

territory (as required by their NPDES 

permit) and also to EPA (as required by 

EPA’s CWA request). EPA will also 

exclude regulated entities from this 

CWA request if the regulated entity’s 

permit includes all the necessary 

language to ensure that any electronic 

reporting done by the permittee meets 

all of the minimum Federal electronic 

reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 

122.22, and part 127). If one or more of 

the above State Readiness Criteria are 

not met or if the applicable permit does 

not include all of the minimum Federal 

electronic reporting requirements (40 

CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127), then 

the regulated entity should report to 

both the state, tribal, or territorial 

permitting authority (if hard-copy paper 

reporting is required in the permit) and 

EPA (electronic reporting compliant 

with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, part 127) 

during this transition period. 

EPA proposes to make its initial 

recipient decisions by each authorized 

state, tribal, and territorial NPDES 

program and for each data group. For 

example, if more than 90 percent of 

NPDES-regulated facilities that are 

required to submit DMRs in a particular 

state do so in accordance with the State 

Readiness Criteria, then all NPDESregulated facilities in that particular 

state that are required to submit DMRs 

would not need to electronically report 

to EPA under the proposed rule. EPA 

notes that facilities that are exempt from 

electronic reporting through use of a 

temporary waiver would not be 

included in the 90 percent adoption rate 

percentage calculation. EPA solicits 

comment on the 90% threshold that it 

will use for each state, tribe, and 

territory by data group. EPA also solicits 

comment on the appropriate date after 

the effective date of the final rule when 

EPA should perform the 90 percent 

adoption rate percentage calculations 

prior to the start of the Phase 1 data 

collection (one year after effective date 

of final rule). 

EPA will work closely with states, 

tribes, and territories to identify the 

authorized programs that have met State 

Readiness Criteria and permittees that 

have all of the minimum Federal 

electronic reporting requirements in 

their permits. EPA will create a search 

feature on its Web page to identify for 

each NPDES permittee the data group it 

does and does not need to report to EPA 

(e.g., for example a POTW may be 

exempt from electronically reporting 

DMR data directly to EPA but may still 

be required to electronically report 

pretreatment, biosolids, and sewer 

overflow data to EPA and also continue 

their pre-existing hard-copy reporting 

requirements to their state permitting 

agency if required to do so by their 

permit). 

As proposed in 40 CFR 127.27(c), EPA 

would publish on its Web site and in 

the Federal Register a listing of the 

initial recipients for electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

entities by state, tribe, and territory and 

by NPDES data group. Regulated entities 

that must report Phase 1 data should 

consult EPA’s Web site and the Federal 

Register to determine whether EPA, the 

state, tribe, or territory is the initial 

recipient for the NPDES program data 

that they need to report. States, tribes, 

and territories will also update the 

language in new or re-issued NPDES 

permits to ensure that any electronic 

reporting done by the permittee meets 

all of the minimum Federal reporting 

requirements for 40 CFR part 3 

(CROMERR, 40 CFR 122.22 (NPDES 

signature requirements), and 40 CFR 

part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting 

Rule). 

Consequently, regulated entities that 

must report Phase 1 data should consult 

their permit to see if it requires 

electronic reporting in compliance with 

40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. 

Regardless of whether a federal, state, 

tribal, territorial, or third-party 

electronic reporting tool is used by the 

regulated entity, or whether data is 

provided to EPA by the state (computerto-computer transfer), NPDES program 

data from regulated entities would be 

included in ICIS–NPDES and be made 

available to the public through EPA’s 

Web site. EPA has accounted for this 

increased burden related to the 

concurrent reporting when a state, tribe, 

or territory does not meet the State 

Readiness Criteria in the supporting 

economic analysis and the ICR. See 

Section VII for more detailed discussion 

on savings and costs associated with 

this proposal. Additionally, during 

Phase 1, EPA expects states, tribes, and 

territories with NPDES program 

authorization to comply with 40 CFR 

123.62(e) by making appropriate and 

timely revisions to their programs by 

two years after the expected 

promulgation date of the final rule. That 

subsection of the regulations indicates 

that any approved State section 402 

permit program which requires revision 

to conform to this part shall be so 

revised within one year of the date of 

promulgation of these regulations, 

unless a State must amend or enact a 

statute in order to make the required 

revision in which case such revision 

shall take place within 2 years. 

As indicated above, existing 

regulations allow states one or two years 

(if statutory revisions are necessary) to 

make the required permit changes to 

their programs. In order to make these 

changes more efficiently, EPA is also 

proposing changes to 40 CFR 122.63 

(‘‘Minor modifications of permits’’) that 

would allow states to use the minor 

modification procedure with the 

consent of the permittee to change 

reporting of NPDES program data from 

a paper process to an electronic process. 

This proposed change to the minor 

modification process would ease the 

burden on states to update existing 

NPDES permits to include the electronic 

reporting requirements for regulated 

entities. Section V also solicits comment 

on an alternative approach to minor 

modifications of the permit; in this 

alternative approach, the consent of the 

permittee would not be required to 

convert the permit to require electronic 

reporting. 

Under this proposed rule, all NPDESregulated entities will electronically 

report Phase 1 data to their state 

permitting authority or EPA in 

compliance with this rulemaking after 

one year of the effective date of the final 

rule. This proposed rule would also 

update the standard permit conditions 

to include a requirement for NPDESregulated entities to ensure that their 

electronic submissions of DMR and 

other NPDES information (see 40 CFR 

127.27) are sent to the appropriate 

initial recipient, as identified by EPA, 

and as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b). 

2. Phase 2 Implementation 

During Phase 2, all data required to be 

reported (see Appendix A to 40 CFR 

127) by NPDES-regulated entities under 

this proposed rule would be 

electronically reported to the authorized 

program or EPA. NPDES program data 

from regulated entities would be 

included in ICIS–NPDES and be made 

available to the public through EPA’s 

Web site. It is expect that during Phase 

2 all states, tribes, and territories with 

NPDES program authorization will have 

made appropriate and timely revisions 

to their programs. EPA is proposing to 

retain authority to require regulated 

entities to send their NPDES program 

data to EPA when the authorized state, 

tribe, or territory does not meet the State 

Readiness Criteria. This proposed 

electronic reporting requirement is in 

addition to any pre-existing paper-based 

reporting requirements specified in 

permits. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46050 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

As proposed, during Phase 2, 

regulated entities should consult EPA’s 

Web site and the Federal Register to 

determine whether they should directly 

report to EPA. In a similar procedure as 

Phase 1, EPA will work closely with 

states, tribes, and territories to identify 

the authorized programs that have met 

State Readiness Criteria and permittees 

that have all of the minimum Federal 

electronic reporting requirements in 

their permits. EPA will create a search 

feature on its Web page to identify for 

each NPDES permittee the data group it 

does and does not need to report to 

EPA. It is important to note that existing 

EPA regulations allow some NPDESregulated facilities to obtain automatic 

coverage under a general permit without 

having to submit a NOI (see 40 CFR 

122.28). This regulation does not change 

this option for permitting authorities to 

allow for automatic coverage under a 

general permit. This also means that 

there is no burden for these NPDESregulated facilities associated with 

electronically submitting a NOI. States 

would also not necessarily need to 

provide information to EPA on these 

NPDES permittees that obtain automatic 

coverage under a general permit. States 

may need to provide inspection, 

compliance determination, and 

enforcement action data on these 

facilities. 

Under this proposed rule, all NPDESregulated entities will electronically 

report Phase 2 data to their authorized 

program or EPA after two years after the 

effective date of the final rule. NPDESregulated entities shall identify the 

initial recipient for their electronic 

submissions of NPDES information (see 

40 CFR 127.27). 

Finally, under this proposed rule, all 

new permits issued or existing permits 

re-issued after two years after the 

expected promulgation date of the final 

rule would contain a permit condition 

requiring the electronic reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, 

and part 127 [see 40 CFR 123.62(e)]. 

EPA has accounted for this increased 

burden related to the potential for 

concurrent reporting when a state, tribe, 

or territory does not meet the State 

Readiness Criteria in the supporting 

economic analysis and the ICR. See 

Section VII of the preamble for more 

detailed discussion on savings and costs 

associated with this proposal. 

TABLE IV.3—PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR RULE

Key milestones Due dates 

ICIS–NPDES batch functionality is completed and all states, tribes, and territories are migrated from PCS to ICIS– 

NPDES. 

December 2012 (completed). 

Phase 1 

Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule promulgated ................................................................................................... TBD. 

Collaborative forum between EPA and authorized states, tribes, and territories to develop data exchange protocols. Final Rule Published in 

Federal Register (start). 

EPA sponsored webinars, recorded training, and technical assistance to states, tribes, and territories to review and 

test data exchange protocols. 

Final Rule Published in 

Federal Register (start). 

NPDES authorized states, tribes, and territories identify for EPA the NPDES data groups for which they wish to be 

the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities. These authorized programs 

will provide a description to EPA of how their data system will be compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 

127, and the date or dates when the state, tribe, or territory would be ready to accept NPDES information from 

NPDES-regulated entities in a manner compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. These dates should 

not come after the start of the applicable implementation phase (e.g., states cannot propose to be the initial recipient of DMR data after the start of Phase1, states cannot propose to be the initial recipient of NPDES program reports after the start of Phase 2). 

120 days after the promulgation date for the final 

rule. 

EPA will publish on its website and in the Federal Register a listing of the initial recipients for electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated entities by state, tribe, or territory and by NPDES data group. This listing will 

provide NPDES-regulated entities the initial recipient of their NPDES electronic data submissions and the due 

date for these NPDES electronic data submissions. 

210 days after the promulgation date for the final 

rule. 

States, tribes, and territories begin submitting all required data elements associated with their implementation activities (e.g., permit issuance, inspections, violations, and enforcement actions. EPA will hold monthly teleconferences and webinars with authorized programs during this transition period to assist with data migration and 

reconciliation. 

Eight to nine months after 

promulgation date for the 

final rule. 

States, tribes, and territories make changes to their NPDES program to implement Federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, part 127) without amending or enacting a statute [see 40 CFR 123.62(e)]. 

These authorized programs may elect to modify existing permits through the minor modification process (40 

CFR 122.63) to include a requirement for electronic reporting that is compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and 

part 127. All new permits issued or existing permits re-issued after the authorized state, tribe, or territory incorporates Federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, part 127) into their authorized program shall contain a permit condition requiring the electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, 

and part 127. Regulated entities, which now have the Federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 

122.22, part 127) in their permit, shall start (or continue) electronic reporting to initial recipient (as defined in 40 

CFR 127.27) as of the effective date of their permit. Authorized NPDES programs must also update their 

NPDES data systems. 

One year after promulgation date for the final rule. 

EPA preparation before requiring direct reporting by NPDES permittees: 

—EPA updates website to allow permittees to determine if they do not need to report their data directly to EPA; 

—Improvements to ICIS–NPDES or existing tools; and 

—Registration (including any necessary subscriber agreements) of permittees for use of electronic reporting tools 

One year after promulgation date for the final rule. 

EPA requires NPDES-regulated entities to electronically send Phase 1 data (i.e., DMRs, general permit reports for 

Federally-issued general permits, to EPA if the states, tribes, or territories are not ready to implement Federal 

electronic reporting requirements. All NPDES-regulated entities subject to this proposed rule should assume that 

they will electronically submit their Phase 1 data to EPA unless otherwise noted in the Federal Register or 

EPA’s website. These electronic data submissions will be compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127 

One year after effective 

date for the final rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46051 

TABLE IV.3—PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR RULE—Continued 

Key milestones Due dates 

The remaining states, tribes, and territories make changes to their NPDES program to implement Federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, part 127) by amending or enacting a statute [see 40 CFR 

123.62(e)]. These authorized programs may elect to modify existing permits through the minor modification process (40 CFR 122.63) to include a requirement for electronic reporting that is compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 

122.22, and part 127. All new permits issued or existing permits re-issued after the authorized state, tribe, or territory incorporates Federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, part 127) into their authorized program shall contain a permit condition requiring the electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 

122.22, and part 127. Regulated entities, which now have the Federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR 

part 3, 122.22, part 127) in their permit, shall start (or continue) electronic reporting to initial recipient (as defined 

in 40 CFR 127.27) as of the effective date of their permit. Authorized NPDES programs must also update their 

NPDES data systems. 

Two years after promulgation date for the final rule. 

Phase 2 

EPA preparation before requiring direct reporting by NPDES permittees: 

—EPA updates website to allow permittees to determine if they do not need to report their data directly to EPA; 

—Improvements to ICIS–NPDES or existing tools; and 

—Registration (including any necessary subscriber agreements) of permittees for use of electronic reporting tools 

Twenty months after effective date for the final rule. 

All NPDES program data from regulated entities subject to the proposed rule electronically reported to their authorized state, tribe, or territory or EPA. NPDES program data from regulated entities would be included in ICIS– 

NPDES and be made available to the public through EPA’s website. EPA would retain authority to require regulated entities to send their NPDES program data to EPA until the state, tribe, or territory meets the State Readiness Criteria. These electronic data submissions will be compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. 

Two years after effective 

date for the final rule. 

EPA would also issue a Federal 

Register notice if it needs to delay or 

extend any aspect of implementation 

and make such determinations public in 

the initial recipient listing in the 

proposed 40 CFR 127.27(c). 

EPA also notes that it will be 

providing technical assistance and 

support to help states, tribes, and 

territories with this transition to 

electronic reporting. EPA is also open to 

considering other options for phasing 

the collection of the information under 

this proposed rule. Specifically, EPA 

would like to hear from authorized 

NPDES programs that have experience 

in implementing electronic reporting, 

especially their experience in phasing 

the implementation so that it is 

successful. EPA seeks additional data on 

alternative options that might reduce 

implementation costs on authorized 

NPDES programs and permittees while 

also preserving the proposed 

implementation schedule and benefits 

of electronic reporting. 

L. Procedure for Determining Initial 

Recipient of Electronic NPDES 

Information 

In this proposal, EPA identified the 

procedure for identifying the initial 

recipient of information from NPDESregulated entities. See 40 CFR 127.27. 

This procedure requires each authorized 

state, tribe, or territory to identify the 

specific NPDES data groups (e.g., DMR 

information from facilities, information 

from general permit covered facilities, 

program reports) for which the state, 

tribe, or territory would be the initial 

recipient of electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

entities, a description of how their data 

system will be compliant with 40 CFR 

part 3, 122.22, and part 127, and the 

date or dates when the state, tribe, or 

territory would be ready for accepting 

NPDES information from NPDESregulated entities electronically in a 

manner compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 

122.22, and part 127. 

The purpose of the initial recipient 

procedure is to ensure that the 

authorized state, tribe, or territory 

receiving NPDES program data from an 

NPDES regulated entity complies with 

the CROMERR signatory, certification, 

and security standards (40 CFR part 3) 

and the proposed NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 127). Built 

into the proposed procedure is an 

understanding that EPA will support 

any authorized state, tribe, or territory 

that wishes to be the initial recipient for 

electronically reported NPDES program 

data and will help the authorized state, 

tribe, or territory resolve any issues that 

temporarily prevent it from being the 

initial recipient of electronically 

reported NPDES program data. 

EPA would review these submissions 

and publish on its Web site and in the 

Federal Register a listing of the initial 

recipients for electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

entities by state, tribe, and territory and 

by NPDES data group. This listing 

would provide NPDES-regulated entities 

the initial recipient of their NPDES 

electronic data submissions and the due 

date for these NPDES electronic data 

submissions. EPA would update this 

listing on its Web site and in the 

Federal Register if a state, tribe, or 

territory is approved by EPA to be the 

initial recipient of NPDES electronic 

data submissions. 

A state, tribe, or territory that is 

designated by EPA as an initial recipient 

of electronic NPDES information from 

NPDES-regulated entities, as defined in 

40 CFR 127.2, must maintain this data 

and share all the required NPDES 

information with EPA through timely 

automated data transfers, as identified 

in 40 CFR 127.21(a)(1)-(5) and in 

Appendix A to this part, in accordance 

with all requirements of 40 CFR 3 and 

127. Timely means that the authorized 

state, tribe, or territory submit these 

automated data transfers (see the data 

elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 

127) to EPA within 30 days of the 

completed activity. For example, the 

data regarding a state inspection of a 

NPDES-regulated entity that is 

completed on October 15th shall be 

submitted automatically to EPA no later 

than November 14th of that same year 

(e.g., 30 days after October 15th). 

EPA would be the initial recipient of 

electronic NPDES information from 

NPDES-regulated entities if the state, 

tribe, or territory fails to collect data and 

consistently maintain timely automated 

data transfers in compliance with 40 

CFR part 3 and part 127. The regulatory 

text in 40 CFR 127.27 lays out the 

procedure for identifying and correcting 

problems preventing states, tribes, and 

territories from being the initial 

recipient of NPDES data. EPA would 

continue to work with the Director of 

the authorized NPDES program to 

remediate all issues identified by EPA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46052 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

that prevent the authorized NPDES 

program from being the initial recipient. 

When all issues identified by EPA are 

resolved, EPA would update the initial 

recipient listing in 40 CFR 127.27(c) and 

publish this listing on its Web site and 

in the Federal Register. 

V. Matters for Which Comments Are 

Sought 

The following sections identify 

specific issues on which EPA invites 

comment. In Section V.A, EPA 

discusses comment questions regarding 

the proposed rule. In section V.B EPA 

commits to publish a supplemental 

notice after the close of the comment 

period for this proposal should it 

receive substantial number of comments 

that significantly change the direction of 

this proposed rule. This will allow 

stakeholders to see how EPA addressed 

their comments and to provide further 

input on those sections generating 

significant number of comments. In 

Section V.C, EPA summarizes the 

various approaches identified in Section 

IV and for which EPA invites comment. 

In the remaining sections of Section V, 

EPA identifies other approaches for 

which EPA invites comment. 

A. Response to Early Public Comments 

Through the Clean Water Act Action 

Plan Discussion Forum and consultation 

with states, tribes, and stakeholders, 

EPA solicited ideas and comments on 

electronic reporting. EPA identified 

several misconceptions about the 

proposed rule. This section of the 

preamble identifies some of these 

misconceptions and provides 

clarification based upon the proposed 

rule, as currently drafted and subject to 

public comment. 

• The proposed rule would focus on 

existing collection and reporting 

requirements: The proposed rule is not 

an EPA effort to impose the collection 

of additional information beyond that 

which the permittee is already required 

to report and the state, tribe, or territory 

is already required to collect. The 

proposed rule changes the means by 

which the information is provided to 

EPA or to the authorized program, 

requiring electronic reporting rather 

than existing hard-copy reporting from 

the NPDES-regulated facilities. 

• The proposed rule would not 

require states, tribes, and territories to 

develop their own electronic tools for 

use by NPDES-regulated facilities or 

require states, tribes, and territories to 

develop their own electronic databases: 

In support of ICIS–NPDES and this 

proposed rule, EPA plans to develop 

national tools to allow NPDES-regulated 

facilities to provide NPDES information 

electronically to EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories. EPA plans to make those 

EPA-developed tools available for use 

within each state, tribe, and territory. 

Alternatively, a state (or tribe or 

territory) may choose to develop its own 

state-specific electronic tools or state 

data systems rather than utilizing what 

EPA makes available, or the electronic 

reporting tools could be developed by 

third parties. However, the proposed 

rule would require these new electronic 

reporting tools to provide the same basic 

nationally-consistent set of NPDES 

information required by EPA under this 

rule. Additionally, the new state, tribe, 

territory, or third-party electronic 

reporting tools would need to meet the 

requirements of EPA’s Cross-Media 

Electronic Reporting Regulation 

(CROMERR) (see 40 CFR part 3). 

• The proposed rule would not stop 

utilization of existing electronic 

reporting tools by states, tribes, and 

territories: The proposed rule would not 

require states, tribes, and territories to 

stop utilizing tools that they have 

developed to enable NPDES-regulated 

facilities to report electronically. 

However, EPA does seek to ensure that 

each electronic reporting tool utilized in 

the state, tribe, or territory would 

provide the same nationally-consistent 

set of NPDES information required by 

EPA, regardless of whether this was an 

existing or newly-developed tool. EPA 

also seeks assurance that such electronic 

reporting tools would meet the 

requirements of CROMERR. Therefore, 

states, tribes, and territories with 

existing electronic tools may need to 

modify them as appropriate to ensure 

that the tools obtain all required NPDES 

information and meet the necessary 

requirements. 

• The proposed rule does not specify 

particular electronic reporting tools: The 

proposed rule does not specify any 

details of what electronic tools would be 

developed or should be used to ensure 

that the required NPDES data would be 

provided in a timely, accurate, 

complete, and nationally consistent 

manner by permittees, states, tribes, and 

territories to EPA. The proposed rule 

focuses on establishing requirements for 

what types of NPDES data the NPDESregulated facilities would be required to 

report to EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories electronically; what facilityspecific information states would be 

required to provide to EPA regarding 

their implementation activities; and 

how these requirements would be 

implemented in a NPDES-authorized 

program. 

• The proposed rule does not 

mandate direct entry of NPDES data 

into ICIS–NPDES as the only means of 

compliance: The proposed rule 

establishes what data the permittees, 

states, tribes, and territories would be 

required to provide to EPA on a 

nationally consistent, timely, accurate 

and complete basis. Although EPA 

wants to ensure that the data is 

provided in a manner which is fully 

compatible with ICIS–NPDES, the 

proposed rule does not presume that 

direct data entry into ICIS–NPDES is the 

only approach that would meet the 

proposed requirements. 

• The proposed rule will provide 

significant benefits to states, tribes, and 

territories: Based upon results of the 

economic analysis, as summarized in 

Section VII, the proposed rule would 

provide long-term savings to the states, 

tribes, and territories, providing states, 

tribes, and territories the opportunity to 

reallocate or redistribute existing 

resources more efficiently. The nearterm costs are small in comparison to 

these savings, and the proposed rule 

would not impose significant costs upon 

the states, tribes, and territories in the 

long term. EPA would also be providing 

technical assistance and support to help 

states, tribes, and territories transition to 

this new cheaper and more accurate 

approach. 

• The proposed rule does not 

increase the reporting burden on state 

NPDES programs: As described in more 

detail in Sections IV and VII of the 

preamble, most of the data required for 

the NPDES program under the proposed 

rule (see Appendix A to 40 CFR part 

127) would be electronically provided 

by NPDES regulated entities. States, 

tribes, and territories would not need to 

key punch these data supplied by 

NPDES regulated entities into ICIS– 

NPDES. Also, many of the required data 

are required only for particular NPDES 

subprograms (e.g., CAFOs, pretreatment, 

etc.) and it is highly unlikely that any 

NPDES regulated entity would be 

covered by each and every one of these 

subprograms. Furthermore, over 60 

percent of these required data are 

required to be entered only once every 

five years or less frequently (particularly 

facility and permit information obtained 

from electronic notices of intent to 

discharge or individually-issued NPDES 

permits, but also where obtained from 

certain inspections). In addition, some 

of the data would rarely be used because 

they are conditional in nature, with 

their data entry contingent upon certain 

other unique conditions being present 

(e.g., removal credits in approved local 

pretreatment programs). Therefore, any 

calculation of the data entry resource 

burden on states, tribes, and territories 

which contains an assumption that 

every data element is required for every 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46053 

facility is incorrect. These concepts are 

explained in much more detail in the 

context of data entry considerations in 

Section IV.D. 

B. Supplemental Notice 

This proposed rule as currently 

drafted, subject to public comment, 

requires a conversion to electronic 

reporting of information from the 

majority of the NPDES regulated 

universe and from states, tribes, and 

territories authorized to implement the 

NPDES program. As such, this proposed 

rule will affect hundreds of thousands 

of NPDES-regulated entities and all 

states, tribes, and territories. The 

proposed rule will also impact the 

public, making more complete NPDES 

information available nationally for the 

first time. 

Given the large scope of this proposal, 

EPA commits to offer an additional 

opportunity for transparency and 

engagement should we receive public 

comments that require significant 

changes to the rule. If that occurs, EPA 

will issue a supplemental notice with its 

response to any public comments that 

prompted a change in direction, so that 

states, tribes, territories, permittees, and 

other stakeholders can review and 

comment on how EPA revised the parts 

of the proposed rule that generated 

significant amount of comment. EPA 

plans to publish the supplemental 

notice within 180 days after the public 

comment period for this proposed rule 

has closed. 

Although EPA is requesting comment 

on all aspects of the proposed rule, there 

are three specific areas for which EPA 

is particularly interested in getting 

comment from states, tribes, territories, 

permittees, and other stakeholders. The 

three areas include: governance of the 

data; phasing the implementation 

proposed under this rule; and the 

specific information the rule proposes to 

collect. 

1. Governance of the Data 

It is important that the governance 

processes surrounding the management 

and public release of data be clearly 

defined. The proposed rule relies on 

data that is currently required under 

existing regulations for the NPDES 

program. It also respects and does not 

change the role of authorized state, 

territorial, and tribal agencies as the 

primary implementors of the NPDES 

program or as data stewards for NPDES 

data within their jurisdiction. EPA 

invites comments from states, tribes, 

territories, permittees, and other 

stakeholders on the governance and 

management of data to be electronically 

reported to states and EPA under this 

proposed rule, including data 

stewardship and use of the information. 

2. Phasing the Data Collection 

Currently the proposed rule has two 

phases that will be implemented for 

collecting this information (see Section 

IV of the preamble for a detailed 

discussion on the phasing of the 

implementation of the rule). EPA will be 

providing technical assistance and 

support to help states, tribes, and 

territories with this transition to 

electronic reporting. EPA is also open to 

considering other options for phasing 

the collection of the information under 

this proposed rule. Specifically, EPA 

would like to hear from authorized 

NPDES programs that have experience 

in implementing electronic reporting, 

especially their experience in phasing 

the implementation so that it is 

successful. EPA seeks additional data on 

alternative options that might reduce 

implementation costs on authorized 

NPDES programs and permittees while 

also preserving the proposed 

implementation schedule and benefits 

of electronic reporting. 

3. Specific Information the Rule 

Proposes To Collect 

The proposed rule lists each data 

element proposed for electronic 

reporting. This information can be 

found in Appendix A of 40 CFR part 

127 of the proposed regulation text. The 

proposed rule explains throughout the 

preamble why the information is 

proposed to be submitted electronically. 

In particular, there is a detailed 

discussion for each data family by 

program area that can be found in 

Section IV of the preamble. 

Additionally, this proposed rule does 

not require the generation of new data 

that is not already required in the 

existing regulations for the NPDES 

program. 

EPA would like to hear from states, 

tribes, territories, permittees, and other 

stakeholders any comments for adding, 

changing, or deleting data elements 

from this proposed list. 

C. Summary of Items for Comment 

Identified in Section IV of This 

Preamble 

In Section IV, EPA identified several 

specific approaches on which comments 

are invited. These include: 

• Taking into account the limitations 

of broadband availability and 

technological capabilities, EPA is 

considering providing a temporary 

waiver to the electronic reporting 

requirements for facilities lacking 

broadband capability or high-speed 

internet access and invites comments on 

such an exception. 

• EPA invites comment on how to 

best address the variability in general 

permits issued by EPA, states, tribes, 

and territories. 

• EPA is considering the elimination 

of reporting ‘‘time’’ from the annual 

report for CAFOs [see 40 CFR 

122.42(e)(4)(vi)]. EPA estimates that the 

reporting of ‘‘date’’ of discharges is 

sufficient for permitting and compliance 

determinations. EPA invites comment 

on this considered change. 

• EPA is not considering requiring 

the electronic submission of LTCPs as 

these reports are unique to each POTW. 

EPA invites comment on this approach. 

• EPA invites comment on whether 

electronic sewer overflow event reports 

should be limited to sewer overflow 

events above a de minimis volume. 

• EPA invites comment on whether 

the list of minimum federal data for 

sewer overflow and bypass events 

(Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) 

provides sufficient distinction between 

the different types of sewer overflow 

and bypass events. 

• For the pretreatment reports not 

identified in this proposed rule, as 

currently drafted, for electronic 

submission, EPA invites comment on 

which other pretreatment reports (if 

any) EPA should require for electronic 

submission as electronic documents 

(e.g., searchable PDFs). 

• For the pretreatment reports, EPA is 

first focusing its efforts on collecting 

electronically annual reports from 

control authorities, acknowledging that 

these reports include summary data 

from IU reports, and collecting 

compliance reports from IUs in cities 

without pretreatment programs. EPA 

invites comment on whether EPA 

should re-examine this decision for the 

final rule. 

• EPA invites comment on the 

phasing out of reports currently 

required by 40 CFR 123.45 and 40 CFR 

501.21, the new provisions for the 

NNCR, and the retention of existing 

thresholds in Appendix A to 40 CFR 

123.45. 

• EPA’s VGP currently contains the 

monitoring, reporting, inspection, 

operation and maintenance 

requirements. EPA is not considering 

using this proposed rule, as currently 

drafted, to make any changes to NPDES 

regulations that would be specific to the 

vessels program. EPA invites public 

comment on this approach. 

• EPA is not considering using this 

proposed rule, as currently drafted, to 

make any changes to NPDES regulations 

that would be specific to the pesticide 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46054 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

50 In a separate rulemaking effort, EPA is drafting 

proposed regulatory language that may change 

reporting requirements associated with construction 

sites. At this time, it would be premature for EPA 

to speculate on what that proposed or final rule 

would contain. 

applicators program. EPA invites public 

comment on this approach. 

• EPA invites comment on whether it 

should expand electronic 

noncompliance reporting to other forms 

of noncompliance [see 40 CFR 

122.41(l)(6) and (7)], besides sewer 

overflow incidents and bypasses. 

• EPA notes that the list of minimum 

federal data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 

127) from states, tribes, and territories 

only includes construction stormwater 

inspection data when the authorized 

program identifies violations and 

completes a formal enforcement action 

(i.e., authorized state, tribe, and territory 

programs are not required to report 

construction stormwater inspection data 

to EPA for inspections that do not 

identify violations). EPA made this 

distinction based on the large number of 

facilities in this segment of the NPDES 

universe (approximately new 222,000 

facilities each year). EPA invites 

comment on this approach. 

• EPA invites comment on whether 

CAFO NOIs and NOTs should be 

included in Phase I of the rule 

implementation, as currently being 

considered, or in Phase II. 

• EPA is seeking comment on how it 

should evaluate, update, and revise the 

lists of pollutants in Appendix A to 40 

CFR 123.45. These lists are used to 

determine Category I (most serious) and 

Category II noncompliance. EPA’s 

preamble for the final rule for 40 CFR 

part 123, NPDES Noncompliance and 

Program Reporting (FR, Vol. 50, No. 

165, Monday, August 26, 1985) 

describes the conventional and 

nonconventional/toxic pollutants as 

lists of general types. It was expected 

that new parameters may be added from 

time to time. EPA has never revised 

these lists in part due to the complexity 

of re-opening the regulation to make 

such changes. This has resulted in a 

situation where, the most frequent cause 

of water impairment, pathogens, (which 

is directly related to pollutants such as 

fecal coliform and eColi) are not listed 

as pollutants that cause a Category I 

listing in the regulations. This means 

that a violation of a pathogen effluent 

limit alone (no matter how severe) is not 

required to be reported to EPA under 40 

CFR 123.45 and, therefore, will not 

automatically trigger evaluation of the 

violation for ‘‘significant 

noncompliance (SNC)’’ status. EPA also 

seeks comment on eliminating the need 

for pollutant specific lists such as the 

current one in Appendix A and instead 

requiring that all effluent limitations in 

NPDES permits be considered 

noteworthy when involving 

exceedances greater than a certain, 

specified amount and basing the 

threshold amounts on whether or not 

the limit is a water-quality based 

effluent limit or a technology-based 

limit. 

• In addition, when the 40 CFR 

123.45 noncompliance reporting 

requirement were originally developed, 

EPA believed that violations of monthly 

average permit effluents limits were 

indicative of more serious long term 

noncompliance problems. However, 

EPA’s thinking has evolved on this 

point and, in consultation with Regions 

and States, EPA revised its management 

tool (i.e., EPA’s NPDES Significant 

Noncompliance Policy) in 1995 to also 

identify egregious NPDES violations of 

non-monthly permit effluent limits that 

meet EPA’s criteria. EPA is specifically 

seeking comment on whether 

noncompliance reporting of permit 

effluent limits in 40 CFR 123.45 should 

be limited to monthly average permit 

limit violations and those violations that 

are of a specific magnitude and 

frequency. 

EPA invites comment on the 90 

percent threshold, currently considered 

in the proposed rule, that it will use as 

one of the State Readiness Criteria for 

each state, tribe, and territory by data 

group. EPA also invites comment on the 

appropriate date when EPA should 

perform the percent adoption rate 

percentage calculations prior to the start 

of the Phase 1 data collection. 

D. Possible Adjustments to the Universe 

of Facilities for Which Electronic 

Reporting Is Required 

1. Construction Sites With Potential 

Stormwater Issues 

Based upon preliminary EPA 

estimates, the number of facilities 

covered by NPDES permits to control 

stormwater discharges related to 

construction (approximately 200,000 

such facilities in any particular year) 

constitutes a very large percentage of the 

total universe of NPDES-permitted 

facilities in any given year. This 

universe of facilities changes as 

construction is completed. Based upon 

existing regulatory requirements,50 few 

of the construction stormwater permits 

require the submission of DMRs from 

these facilities; therefore, much of the 

available information regarding the 

compliance status of such facilities is 

based upon inspections rather than on 

self-reported effluent monitoring data. 

For these construction sites, NPDES 

permit coverage is provided through the 

construction site operator’s submission 

of a notice of intent (NOI) to be covered 

under a general permit issued by EPA or 

by the authorized state, tribe, or 

territory. The NOI information from the 

prospective NPDES-regulated facilities 

includes basic information regarding the 

facility and its discharges, and provides 

some basis for possible inspections and 

enforcement by authorized agencies. 

In the development of this proposed 

rule, as currently drafted, EPA has 

considered whether facility-specific 

data should be required only for those 

sites that had been inspected (rather 

than for the entire universe of such 

facilities) due to the transient nature of 

these sites. Based on the 2007 version of 

EPA’s Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

(CMS), EPA recommended annual EPAstate goals to inspect at least 10percent 

of NPDES-permitted construction sites 

greater than five acres in size (Phase I), 

and at least 5percent of construction 

sites which are 1–5 acres in size (Phase 

II). Adjusting data reporting 

requirements to only require 

information on the facilities inspected 

would provide facility data for a much 

smaller set of facilities. 

In discussions with states about 

reporting for potential wet-weather 

facilities such as construction sites, EPA 

has also considered requiring reporting 

on an even smaller subset of these 

construction sites, namely those sites 

that have been subject to a formal 

enforcement action, an administrative 

penalty order, or another informal 

enforcement action if that informal 

action addressed significant 

noncompliance. Closer tracking of these 

particular facilities would help ensure 

timely compliance and could help EPA 

to identify noncompliance patterns by 

particular companies across watershed 

or state, tribe, or territory boundaries, or 

nationally in scope. It is difficult to 

determine an accurate percentage of 

such facilities that may be subject to 

these future actions; however, as a 

preliminary estimate, EPA expects that 

only 1percent of such facilities would 

be the recipients of such enforcement 

actions in a given year. 

In this proposed rule, as currently 

drafted, every construction site seeking 

coverage under a NPDES general permit 

would be required to electronically 

submit a NOI form. Therefore, this rule 

would establish the initial universe for 

which construction site inspections 

would most likely be performed. There 

is no way of pre-determining which 

sites would receive such inspections or 

which sites will be subject to 

enforcement actions, so it makes more 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46055 

sense to include the entire universe of 

such facilities in the requirement to 

electronically submit an NOI. The 

states, tribes, and territories would then 

be required to provide EPA with 

inspection information, violation 

determination information, and 

enforcement action information only for 

those sites where such actions are taken 

by the states, tribes, or territories. For 

facilities that qualify for and receive low 

erosivity waivers (LEWs), this proposed 

rule, as currently drafted, requires the 

electronic submission of the date such 

waiver was approved by the authorized 

state, tribe, territory, or EPA. Comments 

are invited on viable alternatives to this 

approach that would provide sufficient 

facility-specific information regarding 

construction sites. 

2. Municipal Satellite Sanitary Sewer 

Systems (MSSSs) 

Some municipalities that do not have 

NPDES permits to discharge nonetheless 

have sanitary sewer systems (SSSs) 

which discharge their sewage to the 

collection system of a POTW that has a 

NPDES permit to discharge. This sewage 

system discharging to another NPDES 

collection system or POTW is referred to 

as a municipal satellite sanitary sewer 

system. Based upon preliminary EPA 

estimates, there are over 4,800 such 

municipal satellite SSSs in the nation. 

This figure represents approximately 24 

percent of the total number of SSSs in 

the entire nation. 

Not all of these satellite systems have 

applied for and received NPDES 

permits. Some amount of NPDES 

information is tracked by states, tribes, 

territories, and EPA for POTWs which 

have NPDES permits, particularly for 

those POTWs which were designated as 

major permittees. However, information 

regarding the non-permitted municipal 

satellite SSSs and their possible impacts 

is far less complete. 

Under CWA section 308, EPA could 

seek facility-specific information for 

each municipal satellite SSS facility as 

a point source; such information would 

include basic facility information, 

identification of the receiving NPDESpermitted POTW, incident report 

information, inspection information, 

and if applicable, violation information, 

enforcement information, and limits and 

monitoring data for each of these 

municipal satellite facilities. Detailed 

information regarding overflows from 

municipal satellite systems is critical to 

reducing water quality impairments 

attributable to overflows. 

In this proposed rule, as currently 

drafted, EPA is not considering new 

reporting requirements on permitting 

authorities regarding such municipal 

satellite SSSs. EPA is considering 

whether EPA’s needs may be served by 

receipt of information for municipal 

satellite systems which have been 

subject to a formal enforcement action, 

an administrative penalty order, or 

another informal enforcement action if 

that informal action addressed 

significant noncompliance, because 

closer tracking of these particular 

facilities, whether NPDES-permitted or 

a necessary party to ensuring 

compliance under an enforcement 

action, would help ensure timely 

compliance and more complete 

solutions to possible SSO violations. 

However, more complete information 

regarding the entire universe of 

municipal satellite systems may be very 

useful in evaluating the national 

compliance status of these facilities and 

in targeting. EPA invites comment on 

whether more specific information 

regarding municipal satellite systems, 

all or some defined subset, would prove 

useful and should be required by EPA 

from the states, tribes, and territories. 

3. Industrial Users 

As described in Section IV.E.1.e, in 

the absence of approved local 

pretreatment programs, EPA, the 

authorized state, tribe, or territory 

function as the control authority with 

the direct responsibility to oversee these 

industrial users. EPA estimates that 

there are approximately 1,400 industrial 

users located in cities without approved 

local pretreatment programs. 

Section IV.E.1.e describes the types of 

reports which categorical industrial 

users and other significant industrial 

users are required to provide to the 

control authority. EPA is considering 

industrial users located in cities without 

approved local pretreatment programs 

be required to send the industrial user 

reports required under 403.12(e) and 

403.12(h) electronically to EPA or 

pretreatment-authorized states, tribes, 

and territories. These self-monitoring 

reports will provide information similar 

to the information contained in DMRs 

from direct dischargers. Essentially, this 

would increase the universe for which 

self-monitoring results are required to 

be submitted electronically. Electronic 

submittal of these reports will give 

states, tribes, territories, and EPA better 

access to information concerning the 

pretreatment processes and compliance 

status of industrial users located in 

cities without approved local 

pretreatment programs. Comments are 

invited on this requirement and on 

whether to expand the requirement for 

electronic reporting of these reports to 

all industrial users. 

4. Facility Universe for Which Biosolids 

Annual Reports Are Required 

EPA’s biosolids regulations (40 CFR 

part 503) establish the same 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

POTWs and Treatment Works Treating 

Domestic Sewage (TWTDSs). However, 

EPA’s biosolids regulations only require 

annual reporting from POTWs with a 

design flow rate equal to or greater than 

one million gallons per day, POTWs 

that serve 10,000 people or more, and 

Class I sewage sludge management 

facilities (e.g., POTWs with design flow 

rates less than one million gallons per 

day that also have approved 

pretreatment programs) to the 

appropriate authorized state, tribe, 

territory or EPA region. These biosolids 

reporting requirements are described in 

Section IV.E.1.f. There are no existing 

reporting requirements for smaller 

POTWs (e.g., design flow rate less than 

one million gallons per day and serving 

less than 10,000 people) without 

pretreatment programs or for TWTDSs 

that are not identified by EPA or the 

authorized state, tribe, or territory as 

Class I sewage sludge management 

facilities. This proposed rule, as 

currently drafted, is not considering 

changing the applicability of EPA’s 

biosolids reporting requirements. 

EPA invites comment on expanding 

the biosolids reporting requirements 

(see 40 CFR 503.18, 503.28, 503.48) to 

all POTWs and TWTDSs. The increased 

availability of such biosolids 

information regarding all POTWs and 

TWTDSs would provide significant 

information regarding the effectiveness 

of the national, state, tribe, and territory 

biosolids programs, as well as key 

information regarding the effectiveness 

and compliance status of the regulated 

facilities. In particular, EPA notes that 

the existing reporting requirements 

apply to only a minority of POTWs and 

TWTDSs, although they have the vast 

majority of the flow volume compared 

to the smaller POTWs and TWTDSs. 

According to EPA’s 2008 Clean 

Watersheds Needs Survey, there are 

approximately 3,200 POTWs that have a 

design flow rate above one million 

gallons per day and 11,500 POTWs have 

a design flow rate below one million 

gallons per day. Consequently, there are 

many more facilities for which EPA, 

states, tribes, and territories have little 

information on hand to determine 

compliance with EPA’s biosolids 

regulations and no comprehensive way 

of conveying the biosolids management 

performance of these facilities to the 

public. As indicated in the proposed 

rule as currently drafted, expanding the 

reporting requirements to all POTWs 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46056 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

and TWTDSs will aid in producing a 

national consistent assessment of 

biosolids management, which is not 

available with the current reporting 

requirements (see DCN 0034). The 

efficiencies in electronic reporting will 

reduce the burden on POTWs, TWTDSs, 

states, tribes, territories, and EPA in 

reporting, receiving, reviewing, and 

maintaining these data. 

Finally, EPA notes that some POTWs 

use lagoons or impoundments for their 

wastewater treatment. These POTWs 

may not be discharging biosolids each 

year as these lagoons or impoundments 

are not necessarily annually dredged. 

Some lagoons or impoundments may be 

dredged on a frequency of once every 

five, ten, or more years. EPA invites 

comment whether to expand the 

biosolids reporting requirements to 

POTWs that use lagoons or 

impoundments and do not perform 

annual dredging. 

E. Quality Assurance and Quality 

Control Requirements 

This proposed rule, as currently 

drafted and subject to public comment, 

establishes quality assurance 

requirements to better ensure that the 

required NPDES data will be provided 

in a timely, accurate, and complete 

manner by each NPDES permittee and 

by each NPDES-authorized state, tribe, 

and territory. 

EPA has suggested establishing 

timeliness criteria of 30 days for 

permitting authorities to transmit 

NPDES data electronically to EPA. 

Suggested criteria for states, tribes, and 

territories regarding accuracy (at least 95 

percent of the data elements should be 

identical to data reported) and 

completeness (at least 95 percent of the 

expected data elements should be 

provided for each facility) are based on 

quality assurance targets identified in 

existing EPA guidance. 

In August 1992, EPA issued the 

‘‘Permit Compliance System (PCS) 

Quality Assurance Guidance Manual’’ 

as guidance for EPA regional offices and 

states toward the development of 

similar quality assurance procedures for 

PCS data entry. This guidance 

document described quality assurance 

and quality control (QA/QC) targets for 

the data entry of the Water Enforcement 

National Data Base (WENDB) data, the 

data identified (through the PCS Policy 

Statement, as amended) from EPA 

regional offices, states, tribes, and 

territories for PCS, and described how 

permitting authorities should develop 

and implement their own quality 

assurance plans to ensure that the data 

provided in PCS was timely, accurate, 

and complete. Although these criteria 

were developed as quality assurance 

guidelines for PCS, the NPDES national 

data system at that time, these longestablished quality assurance 

requirements would still be valid as 

criteria for timeliness, accuracy, and 

completeness of NPDES data that would 

be required through this proposed rule, 

as currently drafted, to be provided 

electronically in a manner fully 

compatible with EPA’s PCS replacement 

system, ICIS–NPDES. EPA is inviting 

comment on whether these quality 

assurance and quality control targets 

identified in the August 1992 guidance 

cited above should serve as the basis for 

similar regulatory requirements in this 

proposed rule, as currently drafted. 

Specifically, the 1992 EPA guidance 

sets timeliness targets (in numbers of 

working days since a specific trigger 

event) for the availability of NPDES data 

from states, tribes, and territories for 

specific data families, such as basic 

facility data, pipe schedule data, limits 

data, monitoring data, violation data, 

inspection data, program reports data, 

enforcement action data, compliance 

schedule data, etc. As an alternative 

approach to timeliness criteria 

identified in this proposed rule, as 

currently drafted, EPA could instead 

propose that these timeliness targets in 

the 1992 EPA guidance be instituted as 

timeliness deadlines. This approach 

would better ensure that the NPDES 

data required under this proposed rule, 

as currently drafted, would be provided 

by each NPDES permittee and by each 

authorized state, tribe, and territory to 

EPA in a nationally-consistent, timely, 

accurate, and complete manner fully 

compatible with EPA’s NPDES data 

system. A few examples of such 

timeliness deadlines are identified 

below: 

• For basic facility data, this 

information would be required from the 

permitting authority within five 

working days of receipt of an 

application for an individual NPDES 

permit; 

• For basic permit information, this 

information would be required from the 

permitting authority within five 

working days of the issuance of an 

individual permit; and 

• For enforcement action data, this 

information would be required from the 

permitting authority within five 

working days of the issuance of the 

enforcement action. 

Although electronic submission of 

NPDES information could certainly 

occur much more expeditiously for NOI 

data, DMR data, or program report data, 

if that data is sent electronically by the 

NPDES permittee to a permitting 

authority’s electronic reporting system 

for subsequent submission to EPA, the 

timeliness requirement for the 

permitting authority could be that: 

• The eNOI data would be available 

from the state, tribe, or territory to EPA 

within 5 working days of receipt of the 

eNOI; 

• The DMR data would be available 

from the state, tribe, or territory to EPA 

within 10 working days of receipt of the 

DMR; and 

• The program report data would be 

available from the state, tribe, or 

territory to EPA within 30 working days 

of receipt. 

EPA invites comment on whether to 

include QA/QC criteria for timeliness, 

accuracy, and completeness in the final 

rule. In addition, EPA invites comment 

on the alternative timeframes described 

here. 

F. Possible Use of Minor Modifications 

of Permits To Require Electronic 

Reporting, Without Requiring Consent of 

the Permittees 

In 40 CFR 122.63, federal regulations 

indicate the conditions under which 

minor modifications to existing NPDES 

permits could be made upon consent of 

the permittee. The existing regulations 

indicate that minor modifications to 

NPDES permits may be done to correct 

typographical errors, require more 

frequent monitoring or reporting, 

change interim compliance dates, 

indicate ownership or operational 

control changes, change new source 

construction dates, or incorporate 

conditions of an approved pretreatment 

program. 

EPA is very interested in facilitating 

the move toward electronic reporting by 

states, tribes, territories, and regulated 

entities and has examined the 

possibility of modifying the existing 

federal regulations regarding minor 

modifications to require electronic 

reporting by NPDES-regulated facilities. 

By including the incorporation of 

electronic reporting requirements as a 

minor modification, states, tribes, and 

territories could more easily change 

existing NPDES permits to require 

electronic reporting, while reducing the 

paperwork and process time that would 

normally be associated with modifying 

a permit. Therefore, in this proposed 

rule, as currently drafted, EPA has 

suggested adding, as a minor 

modification, the incorporation of 

electronic reporting requirements into 

existing permits. 

EPA invites comment specifically on 

whether such incorporation of 

electronic reporting requirements 

should be identified as a minor 

modification of a NPDES permit even 

absent the consent of the permittee. This 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46057 

possible change, which would reduce 

paperwork, facilitate electronic 

reporting and improve reporting 

efficiency, may either be added to 40 

CFR 122.63 or could be identified in 

another part of regulation. 

VI. Outreach 

A. Past Efforts 

As described previously in Sections 

II.E and III, EPA has recognized for 

many years the need to better track 

facility-specific NPDES information 

nationally, particularly to include 

nonmajor facilities which have merited 

increased attention (e.g., stormwater, 

CSOs, SSOs, CAFOs, biosolids and 

pretreatment) due to their potential 

impact on public health and the 

environment. In addition, computer 

technology has advanced significantly 

since the Permit Compliance System 

(PCS) was implemented in the 1980s as 

the NPDES national database of record. 

EPA has had extensive interactions 

with states in the design of the ICIS– 

NPDES system, in the identification of 

possible ICIS–NPDES required data, and 

in efforts to develop a draft ICIS–NPDES 

Policy Statement. 

1. PCS Modernization 

Since FY 2000, EPA has worked with 

the states in designing a modernized 

data system for the NPDES program, 

including the identification of critical 

data elements. In FY 2002, EPA and 36 

subject matter experts from the states 

developed recommendations identifying 

specific data needed to successfully 

implement and manage the NPDES 

program; these recommendations were 

distributed to the states and EPA 

Regions for review. 

Since then, EPA has worked closely 

with its state, tribe, and territory 

partners in an effort to modernize PCS 

as a NPDES component of ICIS, 

ensuring that the system could 

accommodate the NPDES program data 

needs identified by EPA and the state 

subject matter experts in FY 2002. In 

March 2004, an EPA-state workgroup 

developed a framework for the content 

and scope of an ICIS–NPDES policy 

statement. In addition, the PCS Steering 

Committee, comprised of EPA and state 

participants, served as the primary 

contact in the development of ICIS– 

NPDES and worked toward the 

development of the associated draft 

policy statement. 

EPA and authorized states began 

using ICIS–NPDES in 2006. Currently, 

all authorized states are either direct 

users of the ICIS–NPDES system or do 

some data entry directly and supply 

some data electronically from their own 

state databases into ICIS–NPDES. All 

EPA Regional offices use ICIS–NPDES 

for direct data entry of information 

related to their NPDES implementation 

activities; also, in their capacity as 

NPDES permitting authorities, they 

currently provide NPDES information 

from four states, two tribes, and nine 

territories or other jurisdictions. EPA 

has provided extensive training courses 

to states, tribes, territories, and EPA 

Regions to ensure a degree of national 

proficiency and familiarity with ICIS– 

NPDES. EPA also provides user support, 

national conference calls and meetings, 

and a national newsletter to personnel 

in states, tribes, territories, EPA Regions, 

and EPA Headquarters. 

2. ICIS–NPDES Draft Policy Statement 

At the request of the Environmental 

Council of States (ECOS), the PCS 

Steering Committee was expanded in 

late 2005 from 10 to 18 states to include 

representatives of ECOS and ACWA. In 

2006, three face-to-face multi-day 

meetings were held to discuss the 

development of a draft ICIS–NPDES 

Policy Statement, which would specify 

required data to be entered or otherwise 

made available by the states to EPA, and 

the timing considerations for such data 

entry requirements. 

In conjunction with those meetings, 

issue papers were developed by EPA 

and by the states, addressing EPA’s 

needs for the data and states’ proposals 

regarding alternative data availability. In 

an effort to better identify which data 

were being collected by states (whether 

or not those data were required to be 

entered into PCS), ACWA conducted a 

survey of states regarding each of the 

proposed required data. The specific 

states providing each response were not 

identified to EPA, preserving some 

anonymity in the responses but also 

inadvertently making it difficult for EPA 

to interpret the survey data and 

determine reasons for the responses. For 

example, it was not clear whether the 

fact that a particular state was not 

collecting biosolids information was 

because that state did not have the 

authority to implement and enforce the 

NPDES biosolids program. 

EPA also consulted with in-house 

subject matter experts and re-assessed 

and reduced the number of proposed 

required ICIS–NPDES data, making 

several of the data elements required to 

be entered only by EPA Regional offices. 

Within an EPA-state workgroup 

organized to examine data entry 

resources, EPA developed a fairly 

detailed Excel-based data entry estimate 

model to determine data entry estimates 

nationally, for roughly a dozen 

individual states, for specific NPDES 

subprograms, and for specific data 

families or data groupings. Another 

EPA-state workgroup focused on issues 

related to possible sequencing of data 

from specific program areas. 

These outreach efforts culminated in 

the development of a draft ICIS–NPDES 

Policy Statement issued by EPA for 

review and comment on April 30, 2007. 

State comments on that draft did not 

focus on specifics of the policy 

statement, or on the merits of particular 

approaches or data, but rather they 

raised general concerns regarding 

resource burden (beyond data entry) and 

federalism issues (e.g., possible 

increased EPA oversight). In response to 

the comments from some states, and in 

an effort to ensure broader participation 

by other interested parties (including 

environmental groups), EPA decided 

that it would be more appropriate to 

proceed with rulemaking instead of a 

final ICIS–NPDES Policy Statement. 

This intention was conveyed to ECOS in 

a letter in September 2007. 

3. Addendum to the PCS Policy 

Statement 

In December 2007, EPA issued an 

addendum to the PCS Policy Statement. 

This addendum identified those ICIS– 

NPDES data which were considered to 

be comparable to the required WENDB 

(Water Enforcement National Data Base) 

data in PCS, as well as data which are 

system-required in ICIS–NPDES (the 

entry of those data is required before the 

system will save the record). This 

addendum stated that these ICIS– 

NPDES data constituted the list of data 

which EPA expected to be entered by 

ICIS–NPDES users during the period 

until a federal regulation on such 

reporting was promulgated by EPA. 

4. Other Interactions—NetDMR, 

Alternatives Analysis 

EPA also worked with states on two 

efforts that were independent of the 

initial rulemaking, but impact possible 

implementation of this proposed rule. 

EPA has implemented the NetDMR tool 

which can be used to electronically 

transmit Discharge Monitoring Report 

(DMR) from regulated facilities directly 

into ICIS–NPDES. This tool has 

significant impacts on implementation 

of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, 

because approximately 90% of the 

estimated data entry burden associated 

with this proposed rule is linked 

specifically to the data entry of DMR 

information by the states, tribes, and 

territories. 

During a similar timeframe, EPA and 

authorized programs also implemented 

the recommendations of an alternatives 

analysis which assessed the best means 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46058 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

51EPA published a notice of this meeting in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 2010 

for providing state data electronically 

(i.e., those which will send NPDES 

information electronically from their 

own state data systems to ICIS–NPDES, 

without the necessity for direct data 

entry into ICIS–NPDES) to ensure that 

state data is available in ICIS–NPDES. 

5. Rule Development Process 

a. Early Interactions 

During the rulemaking process, EPA 

hosted a listening session with states 

and interested stakeholders in 

Washington, DC, on October 14, 2008. 

This session was announced in the 

Federal Register by a notice on 

September 17, 2008. In this meeting, 

which was complemented by a 

concurrent conference call and web 

access to materials that EPA presented, 

EPA provided states, tribes, territories, 

and stakeholders an opportunity to hear 

EPA’s rulemaking plans and an 

opportunity to provide comments on 

those plans. This effort included over 30 

participants, including representatives 

of several states. 

Later in the rulemaking process, EPA 

conducted a meeting in Washington, DC 

on March 9, 2009 with representatives 

from four states. A similar meeting was 

conducted by EPA in San Francisco on 

March 13, 2009 with an additional four 

states. The goal of these meetings was to 

seek individual state comment on a 

variety of options under consideration 

in the rulemaking to effectively reduce 

potential data entry burden. EPA then 

conducted two conference calls (on 

March 18, 2009 and April 8, 2009) with 

seven additional states to seek comment 

on those same options under 

consideration. This series of outreach 

events provided valuable input from a 

total of fifteen states from nine EPA 

regions regarding the feasibility of the 

implementation options under 

consideration for this proposed rule. 

b. Interactions Focused on Electronic 

Reporting—Directional Change 

Beginning in summer 2010, EPA 

conducted several outreach efforts 

focused primarily on electronic 

reporting. These efforts are described 

below. 

i. Meetings and Webinars 

On July 13, 2010, EPA conducted a 

meeting 51 in Washington, DC with over 

100 attendees to announce the 

electronic reporting approach to this 

proposed rule. Representatives from 

states, local and tribal governments, and 

industry and environmental 

associations participated in person and 

by web access. EPA provided attendees 

the opportunity to learn of EPA’s 

rulemaking plans for the NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule and to 

provide comments about those plans. 

Subsequent to this meeting, EPA 

hosted a series of 20 web sessions 

conducted from July 2010 through July 

2012. The goal of these meetings was to 

provide further opportunity for 

comment on the merits of the proposed 

rule. This effort included over 1,000 

participants with representation from 

many states and industry. As a result, 

EPA obtained valuable input. 

During this rulemaking, EPA also 

conducted additional meetings and 

consultations in order to comply with 

various statutes and executive orders 

that direct federal agencies, including 

EPA, to coordinate with organizations 

representing elected officials of states, 

counties, and municipalities, and 

consult, as required, with tribes and 

small businesses and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

The first of these meetings was held 

on September 15, 2010, and was 

attended by 11 state and local 

government organizations. The focus of 

this meeting was to comply with 

Executive Order 13132 (‘‘Federalism’’) 

which requires Federal agencies to 

consult with elected state and local 

government officials, or their 

representative national organizations, 

when developing regulations or policies 

that might impose substantial 

compliance or implementation costs on 

state and local governments. EPA 

received substantive feedback on the 

feasibility of the implementation 

options under consideration for this 

rulemaking. 

Additionally, EPA met with tribal 

entities to describe the rulemaking effort 

and to provide an opportunity for 

discussion in two separate meetings on 

November 9, 2010 with the National 

Tribal Caucus, and on November 10, 

2010, with the National Tribal Water 

Council. The National Tribal Caucus 

meeting was attended by 19 tribal 

representatives elected on a regional 

basis, who correspond with tribes in 

each of EPA’s ten regions. The Tribal 

Water Council consists of 19 tribal water 

professionals who represent a national 

tribal perspective. In addition, after 

mailing information to 563 nationallyrecognized tribal entities, EPA 

conducted follow-up conference calls 

on December 14 and December 16, 2010. 

The focus of these meetings was to 

provide an additional opportunity for 

consultation and thus comply with 

Executive Order 13175, which states 

that EPA may not issue a regulation that 

has tribal implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

the federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by tribal 

governments, or EPA consults with 

tribal officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation and 

develops a tribal summary impact 

statement. These calls did not raise any 

key issues from the participants, and, in 

particular, the likely availability of 

electronic reporting was not an issue 

from the participants. 

ii. Web Site 

In concert with these meetings and 

the series of web sessions, EPA also 

implemented a Web site in support of 

the NPDES Electronic Rule. The 

purpose of the Web site was to provide 

background information on the rule, 

status of rule development, 

announcements of upcoming 

stakeholder meetings, and a discussion 

forum with questions and topics. 

iii. State Working Group 

EPA has also engaged in a dialogue 

with a State Working Group to help 

explore the implementation issues 

related to this proposed rule. This 

technical working group’s focus was to 

help to identify issues, identify 

roadblocks to implementing various 

aspects of the proposed rule, and share 

information concerning how these 

issues could be best addressed in this 

context. EPA worked with ACWA and 

ECOS to identify a group of 11 states. 

From this group’s efforts, EPA was 

able to glean a sense of the concerns of 

individual states with this proposed 

rule. The individual states represented 

in this group supported the concept of 

electronic reporting and understood 

why many states would benefit from a 

rule, but some states expressed concern 

about the implementation requirements, 

funding, and available resources. As 

indicated in previous outreach 

opportunities, some states in the group 

requested that EPA explicitly identify 

the data that will be required and have 

a strong need for each item to be 

collected. In addition, some states in the 

group indicated that they wanted EPA 

to be cognizant, as EPA drafted the 

proposed rule, of the varying degrees of 

state readiness for electronic reporting. 

EPA has addressed these concerns by 

some states in the identification of 

required data (Section IV.B and 

Appendix A to Part 127), and in the 

implementation plan (Section IV.I). 

6. Plans for Future Outreach Efforts 

Upon proposal of this rule, EPA will 

provide a comment period and will 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46059 

52Note: References to specific products are for 

informational purposes only. EPA and the federal 

government do not endorse any specific product, 

service, or enterprise. 53See DCN 0051. 

54 Karkkainen, B. (2001). ‘‘Information as 

Environmental Regulation: TRI and Performance 

Benchmarking, Precursor to a New Paradigm?’’ 

Georgetown Law Journal 89: 257, DCN 0052. 

55Bennear & Olmstead, The Impacts of the ‘‘Right 

to Know’’ Information Disclosure and the Violation 

of Drinking Water Standards, JEEM Vol. 50, Iss. 2; 

pp. 117–130 (2008), DCN 0053. 

56Hu, W., et. al.; Effects of Red-Light Camera 

Enforcement on Fatal Crashes in Large U.S. Cities 

(Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; February 

2011), DCN 0054. 

likely conduct additional stakeholders 

meetings to further discuss and refine 

particular aspects of the rule prior to 

promulgation. Outreach to stakeholders 

will continue to be supported through 

the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

Web site; however, the Web site may be 

expanded to include more robust rule 

schedules as the rule nears 

promulgation, as well as additional rule 

documentation that may or may not be 

included as part of the formal docket 

library. Additionally, social media tools 

such as Twitter, Facebook and 

YouTube 52 will continue to be utilized 

to engage stakeholders. 

EPA would provide technical 

assistance and support to states, tribes, 

and territories during the transition to 

electronic reporting. Outreach from EPA 

to the states, tribes, and territories may 

be very useful in the identification of 

specific needs and the development of 

such assistance, support, and funding. 

EPA anticipates that the State 

Working Group may elect to continue its 

efforts through implementation of the 

rule in another possible phase of work. 

This proposed rule, as currently drafted 

and subject to public comment, includes 

a phase-in period for the 

implementation of the rulemaking; as 

such, the State Working Group may 

continue to explore implementation 

issues on a variety of selected topics. 

VII. Non-Monetary Benefits and 

Economic Analysis 

A. Non-Monetary Benefits From 

Electronic Reporting 

1. Overview 

A Presidential memorandum on 

regulatory compliance, issued on 

January 18, 2011, made the following 

observations: 

Greater disclosure of regulatory 

compliance information fosters fair and 

consistent enforcement of important 

regulatory obligations. Such disclosure is a 

critical step in encouraging the public to hold 

the Government and regulated entities 

accountable. Sound regulatory enforcement 

promotes the welfare of Americans in many 

ways, by increasing public safety, improving 

working conditions, and protecting the air we 

breathe and the water we drink. Consistent 

regulatory enforcement also levels the 

playing field among regulated entities, 

ensuring that those that fail to comply with 

the law do not have an unfair advantage over 

their law-abiding competitors. Greater agency 

disclosure of compliance and enforcement 

data will provide Americans with 

information they need to make informed 

decisions. Such disclosure can lead the 

Government to hold itself more accountable, 

encouraging agencies to identify and address 

enforcement gaps.53

In September 2011, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Analysis 

(OIRA) issued guidance encouraging 

agencies to provide individual 

consumers of goods and services with 

direct access to relevant information 

and data sets. The memo focused on 

‘‘smart disclosure,’’ defined as the 

timely release of complex data in 

standardized formats. The OIRA memo 

dovetails Executive Order 13563, signed 

by President Obama earlier in 2011, 

which encourages agencies to consider 

alternative regulatory approaches 

including the ‘‘provision of information 

to the public in a form that is clear and 

intelligible.’’ 

In this vein, the OIRA memo states: 

‘‘To the extent permitted by law, and 

where appropriate in light of 

government-wide policies . . . agencies 

should give careful consideration to 

whether and how best to promote smart 

disclosure.’’ 

Regulatory approaches harnessing the 

power of public disclosure to improve 

performance through public 

accountability can increase government 

effectiveness and efficiency and 

generate a variety of important benefits. 

Electronic reporting is one such 

approach. This proposed rule justifies 

itself on the cost/benefit analysis alone, 

but many qualitative benefits will also 

be realized. EPA anticipates that this 

proposed rule will save money for 

regulators and the regulated community 

and will contribute to increased 

compliance, improved water quality, 

and a fairer and more level playing field 

for regulated entities. These benefits are 

made possible through greater use of 

21st century technologies, of which 

electronic data submission is a 

cornerstone. 

This section describes EPA’s 

expectations, experience, and a variety 

of publicly accessible studies 

supporting the conclusion that 

electronic reporting—alone or as a 

component of broader monitoring and 

reporting programs—can improve 

compliance, reduce pollution, allow for 

better government and public decision 

making, and reduce paperwork-related 

costs for regulators and the regulated 

community alike. Even where it is 

difficult or impossible to isolate or 

apportion a specific share of overall 

program benefits to an electronic 

reporting component alone, the 

available literature, supporting 

evidence, and program experience all 

suggest that electronic reporting is often 

a significant contributor to the overall 

compliance and efficiency benefits these 

programs provide. This section also 

describes benefits from several 

additional approaches to public 

reporting of information. Although some 

of the cases described below do not 

involve electronic reporting, they all 

share the key characteristic of providing 

regulators and the public with 

performance information more 

efficiently or directly than was 

previously possible. 

Research and experience suggests that 

the benefits of making timely and 

accurate compliance and performance 

data available—whether through 

electronic reporting or other 

approaches—occur through at least two 

pathways. The first pathway is that, 

within each regulated entity, it brings 

information about compliance or 

discharge performance to the attention 

of personnel with the authority to 

address them. If the information 

indicates problems, those personnel can 

act promptly to minimize the impact. 

The associated ability to use 

performance monitoring and 

benchmarking information 

systematically as a regulatory tool has 

been described as a watershed event 

enabling and compelling facilities to 

monitor, compare, and improve their 

environmental performance.54

The second pathway is that by 

ensuring timely government and public 

access to compliance and performance 

information, regulated entities can be 

provided with powerful incentives to 

avoid the negative effects of government 

and public awareness of pollution. An 

example of this effect appears in the 

Bennear & Olmstead Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA) study.55 In this 

study, the researchers found that when 

larger utilities were required to mail 

annual Consumer Confidence Reports 

on water supplier compliance pursuant 

to the 1998 Safe Drinking Water Act 

amendments, total violations were 

reduced by 30–44% and more severe 

health violations by 40–57%. Examples 

in areas other than environmental 

enforcement include the documented 

effects of red-light camera enforcement 

on fatal crashes.56 This and previous 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46060 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

57Note: References to specific products are for 

informational purposes only. EPA and the federal 

government do not endorse any specific product, 

service, or enterprise. 

research establish that ‘‘Red light 

camera enforcement programs reduce 

the citywide rate of fatal red light 

running crashes and, to a lesser but still 

significant extent, the rate of all fatal 

crashes at signalized intersections.’’ The 

relevance of this approach to electronic 

reporting is that, like electronic 

reporting, it relies on technology and 

disclosure to positively influence 

compliance behavior. 

Electronic reporting can help identify 

problems that are now hidden in 

extensive paper reports. In the case of 

EPA’s NPDES program, some states, 

tribes, and territories are overwhelmed 

with the volume of data they receive, 

and are sometimes unable to process all 

of the reports in a timely manner. 

Electronic reporting by permittees 

substantially reduces the need for costly 

and time-consuming data entry by the 

states, tribes, and territories. Instead, 

permittee data will be received in a form 

that can be applied directly to the 

information systems, bringing that data 

into the open in a timely manner. As a 

result, electronic reporting will allow 

the states, tribes, territories, and EPA to 

quickly highlight important information 

and it will allow government and the 

public to identify, pursue, and address 

pollution problems. More accurate and 

timely data can help facilities and 

governments identify issues earlier and 

more accurately, which should save 

money and improve performance. 

Electronic reporting has also resulted in 

better private sector performance in 

unrelated areas, such as when the 

financial services sector revises its 

products and services based on data 

from industries they service. 

Electronic reporting of information 

facilitates the rapid and automated 

compilation and analysis of data to 

identify the most important, serious, 

chronic violators quickly and 

efficiently. This helps focus limited 

government and community resources 

on the most important compliance 

problems by targeting enforcement 

where it is most needed. 

Electronic reporting—and the timely 

and more accurate information it 

provides—can help provide the public 

with access to information on the 

performance of both regulated facilities 

and governments, and help them make 

government accountable for results. 

Electronic reporting also levels the 

playing field by giving the public, 

including other regulated entities, 

information they need in order to 

determine whether comparable 

violations are being treated similarly. 

Electronic reporting promotes facilityto-facility and government-togovernment learning by enabling crossfacility and government benchmarking, 

comparison of results, and the 

identification of the most effective 

compliance and performance strategies, 

thereby promoting the creation and 

transfer of innovation. It can help 

prevent minor self-reported violations 

from escalating into more serious 

problems by enabling immediate 

feedback on those violations. 

Electronic reporting also creates a 

potential for private sector development 

of reporting tools, as evidenced by the 

development and commercial success of 

products such as Tax-Cut and TurboTax.57 Having access to more timely and 

accurate information could also help 

promote pathways for private sector 

links and two-way communication to 

obtain compliance assistance for 

reported violations, as well as pursue 

opportunities to improve environmental 

performance and save money through 

innovations, such as improved 

wastewater treatment methods or energy 

efficiency. 

Electronic reporting can allow the 

comparison of electronic data with other 

information to better target government 

efforts. For example, it could facilitate 

comparing DMR data with ambient 

water pollution data to more readily 

identify the individuals or groups of 

sources contributing the most pollution 

in watersheds with impaired water 

quality. Electronic data can also be 

compared more readily with other 

information as a check on data accuracy. 

For example, the IRS can compare 

directly-reported taxpayer information 

with equivalent third-party information 

from employers or banks. Individuals 

and corporations know the IRS can 

make such comparisons, and, as a 

result, they tend to report more 

accurately. In a similar vein, EPA could 

explore potential new electronic 

reporting-supported options such as 

cross-checking DMR data with TRI data 

and data in public complaints. 

Electronic reporting has the potential 

to save cost and effort in simpler and 

more direct ways, too. One example 

would be by obviating the need for timeconsuming manual data entry, 

photocopying, and mailing of reports. 

Also, time and money that might 

otherwise have been spent correcting 

errors by facilities and states due to 

illegible entries and transcription issues 

could be saved. Immediate electronic 

feedback alerting or requiring facilities 

to check and correct decimal point 

placement and internally inconsistent 

entries could further save facilities and 

regulators time and costs. The 

secondary business costs of having to 

explain these types of errors to third 

persons such as financial institutions or 

the public could also be eliminated. 

Finally, governments could avoid 

wasting their time and money spent 

addressing apparent ‘‘violations’’ that 

were actually mistakes, such as 

someone writing down the wrong 

number on a form, or entering data 

incorrectly. Electronic reporting systems 

can be designed to identify many of 

these errors for correction during data 

entry. 

2. Supporting Cases 

As discussed above, the available 

studies and experiences all suggest that 

electronic reporting can help promote 

an array of tangible and significant 

compliance and efficiency benefits. The 

remainder of this section describes 

specific publicly available literature and 

studies documenting how electronic 

reporting can enhance the ability of 

regulators, firms, markets, and the 

public to access and use compliance or 

other data to: 

• Promote public confidence in 

regulatory programs; 

• Promote accurate and complete 

discharge data; 

• Improve compliance and reducing 

violations; 

• Reduce pollution; 

• Compel facilities to monitor, 

compare, and improve their 

environmental performance through 

benchmarking; 

• Enhance transparency and 

accountability to external parties; 

• Induce firms to become 

environmentally cleaner; 

• Decrease the time required to 

compile, verify, and analyze data; 

• Reduce the time between when 

regulators receive data and are able to 

make it publicly available; 

• Facilitate agency auditing and 

detection of erroneous data without 

costly site investigations or complex 

measurement; 

• Produce significant efficiency 

savings (time and resources) while 

increasing data quality; 

• Reduce paperwork-related costs for 

regulators and regulated community; 

• Enable regulators to shift staff 

resources away from data entry tasks; 

• Simplify regulators’ ability to crossreference e-reported data against other 

data sources to allow errors to be caught 

and corrected more efficiently; and, 

Enable governments, regulated 

communities, interest groups, and the 

public to be better informed for 

decision-making. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46061 

58Schakenbach, et al.; Fundamentals of 

Successful Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification 

under a Cap-and-Trade Program, J. Air & Waste 

Manage. Assoc., 56:1576–1583 2006), DCN 0055. 

59 DCN 0052. 

60Bui, L.; Public Disclosure of Private Information 

as a Tool for Regulating Environmental Emissions: 

Firm-Level Responses by Petroleum Refineries to 

the Toxics Release Inventory; Brandeis Univ. 

Working Paper Series (June 2005), DCN 0057. 

61 Karkanian, supra at 289, 336–37. 

62 Id. at f.n. 149. 63See DCN 0053, pp. 117–130. 

64See DCN 0041. 

65 ‘‘IRS E-File: It’s Fast, It’s Easy, It’s Time’’ at 

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/ 

0,,id=218319,00.html. 

66 Kopczuk, W., and C. Pop-Eleches (2007). 

‘‘Electronic Filing, Tax Preparers, and Participation 

in the Earned Income Tax Credit.’’ Journal of Public 

Economics 91: 1351–1367, DCN 0003. 

67 IRS; Advancing E-file Study Phase 1 Report— 

Achieving the 80% E-file Goal Requires Partnering 

with Stakeholders on New Approaches to Motivate 

Paper Filers (Sept. 30, 2008), DCN 0002. 

68Environmental Information Exchange Network: 

Exchange Network—Return On Investment And 

Business Process Analysis Final Report (Sept. 5, 

2006), DCN 0061. 

a. Acid Rain Program 

Standardized electronic reporting is 

one component of EPA’s Acid Rain 

Program and contributed to the ‘‘largest 

quantified human health benefits of any 

federal regulatory program implemented 

in the last 10 [years], with annual 

benefits exceeding costs by >40 to 1.’’ It 

did so by promoting ‘‘public confidence 

in the programs, highly accurate and 

complete emissions data, and a high 

compliance rate (>99% overall).’’ 58

b. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 

Under the Toxic Release Inventory 

(TRI), the systematic use of performance 

monitoring and benchmarking as a 

regulatory tool has been cited as a 

watershed event enabling and 

compelling facilities to monitor, 

compare, and improve their 

environmental performance. At the 

same time, it enhances transparency and 

accountability to external parties.59

Several studies have linked the public 

availability of TRI data to improved 

compliance and reduced pollution. For 

example, using a micro-level data set 

linking TRI releases to plant level 

Census data, one researcher found that 

the local and state governmental use of 

TRI disclosures helps induce firms to 

become cleaner.60

By decreasing the time required for 

EPA to compile, verify, and analyze 

data, e-reporting can reduce the lag 

times from when EPA receives data to 

when the Agency is able to make it 

publicly available. TRI electronic 

reporting, for example, achieves this by 

reducing costly and cumbersome 

paperwork for reporters while speeding 

EPA’s ability to make it publicly 

available.61 Electronic reporting reduces 

the error rates typically found in 

manually transcribed data and 

facilitates agency auditing and detection 

of erroneous data without costly site 

investigations or complex 

measurement.62

c. Enhanced Disclosure and 

Environmental Compliance Under the 

SDWA 

A prominent study of enhanced 

disclosure regulations and 

environmental compliance in the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) context 

linked enhanced disclosure to 

statistically significant compliance 

improvements. In that case, the 

disclosures were made by industry 

directly to consumers by mail (rather 

than to the government electronically), 

but, as is intended in this proposed 

electronic reporting rule, a key effect 

was to facilitate the delivery of 

compliance information to the public so 

as to motivate and better behavior from 

the regulated parties responsible who 

submitted the information. Bennear & 

Olmstead found that when larger 

utilities were required to mail annual 

Consumer Confidence Reports on water 

supplier compliance pursuant to the 

1998 Safe Drinking Water Act 

amendments reduced total violations by 

30%–44%. More severe health 

violations were reduced by 40–57%.63

d. Ohio EPA’s eDMR System 

As discussed in Section III.B.1.a, Ohio 

EPA launched its electronic discharge 

monitoring report (eDMR) system and, 

as of 2011, has achieved a 99% 

electronic reporting adoption rate by its 

permit holders. E–DMR systems allow 

stakeholders to report their discharge 

measurements online. According to 

Ohio EPA, based on interviews and data 

collection, their work demonstrates how 

electronic reporting in this instance 

produced significant efficiency savings 

(time and resources) while increasing 

data quality. In the opinion of Ohio 

EPA, this has led to more effective 

human health and environmental 

protection through improving its ability 

to monitor and enforce CWA 

compliance. (Case Study: Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report 

(eDMR) System Reaches 99% Adoption. 

http://eitlc.ross-assoc.net/images/4/4c/ 

Ohio_eDMRs_Case_Study_04_30

_10_FINAL.doc). In the Ohio EPA Case 

Study, the authors found that the 

automated compliance tools within its 

eDMR system informed permit holders 

if their discharge amounts exceeded 

authorized permit limits or were 

otherwise entered erroneously, and 

reduced errors from 50,000 to 5,000 per 

month. Permit holders were often able 

to quickly to correct their data, leaving 

the Ohio EPA with more accurate and 

robust data. Simultaneously, as the need 

for data entry and error checking 

diminished, Ohio EPA was able to move 

almost five full-time personnel away 

from those tasks and into other 

productive types of work. Id. 

e. Internal Revenue Service E-file 

The United States Internal Revenue 

Service’s E-file program was also 

mentioned in Section III.B.1.a.i. 

According to United States Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) officials, 

electronic reporting of digital data has 

simplified the Service’s ability to crossreference the e-reported data against 

other data sources, allowing errors to be 

caught and corrected more efficiently.64

The IRS notes that the error rate for 

electronically filed returns is less than 

1 percent, compared to an error rate for 

paper returns of about 20 percent.65 One 

explanation for the low error rate is that 

software for electronic reporting allows 

for automated calculations and can 

check for obvious transcription errors, 

such as unusually large numbers. 

Electronic filing has also expedited 

processing of tax payment and refunds. 

One study examined the empirical 

implications of electronic filing with 

regard to the earned income tax credit 

(EITC), which was substantially underutilized by qualifying households in the 

early 2000s. The authors found that 

access to electronic filing had a 

significant and positive effect on EITC 

claims.66 Given all of the above, 

benefits, the IRS has established an 

80%-of-taxpayers E-file goal.67

f. ECOS Exchange Network Return on 

Investment (ROI) and Business Process 

Analysis Project 

The Exchange Network Return on 

Investment (ROI) and Business Process 

Analysis Project, funded by the 

Environmental Council of the States 

(ECOS), was conducted to better 

understand the effects Exchange 

Network technologies have on the 

quality and efficiency of environmental 

data exchanges for states, tribes, 

territories, and local agencies.68

The analysis included an in-depth 

review of the four participating states’ 

specific business processes for up to five 

different data flows: Air Quality System 

(AQS); Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA); Safe Drinking 

Water Information System (SDWIS); 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46062 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

69See DCN 0062 

70See, e.g., FL DEP’s identical list of eDMR 

benefits at DCN 0063. 

71 ‘‘The Effect of EDGAR on the Market Reaction 

to 10–K Filings.’’ Journal of Accounting and Public 

Policy 20: 349–372, DCN 0036. 

72Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations 

Under Executive Order 12866, Office of 

Management and Budget, January 11, 1996, DCN 

0064. 

73 Id. 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI); and 

Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report 

(eDMR). The review compared the 

business processes for each data flow 

before and after the implementation of 

Exchange Network technologies in order 

to estimate the total cost savings as a 

result of the implementation. A return 

on investment model was then applied 

to all of the data flows. 

Overall, the results show a positive 

return for most of the data flows 

analyzed. Indeed, all participating states 

experienced a positive return on their 

investment in Exchange Network 

technologies to flow data. The coupling 

of electronic reporting systems with 

Exchange Network technologies 

produced particularly impressive 

savings. 

g. Michigan DEQ eDMR System 

Electronic reporting of environmental 

data is being increasingly adopted by 

states because of the positive 

environmental and financial benefits it 

provides. One example is Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality’s 

(DEQ’s) eDMR system for wastewater 

facilities. As Michigan DEQ reports on 

its Web page, the benefits of the state’s 

electronic reporting system include: (1) 

Saving compliance costs for wastewater 

discharge facilities through a 

streamlined reporting method and 

readily available computer tools; (2) 

saving program costs by reducing 

resources required for managing paperbased DMR reports; (3) improving the 

accuracy of compliance data by 

eliminating potential errors that might 

otherwise be introduced through nonelectronic data entry in the database; 

and (4) improving the DEQ wastewater 

program’s overall effectiveness with 

faster responses to data analyses, 

compliance assessment, and decisionmaking.69 Other states are increasingly 

adopting similar systems for the same 

reasons.70

h. DMR Electronic Reporting in 24 

States 

Twenty-four states currently have 

electronic reporting of DMR data, six of 

which began in 2010 and one of which 

is still in the testing stage. Of these, 13 

states transfer their DMR data for major 

and nonmajor entities to EPA. Most of 

these states offer electronic reporting as 

an option, but have not made it 

mandatory. Ohio is one exception to the 

norm. Ohio requires electronic reporting 

unless there is a verifiable reason why 

the permittee cannot do it, in which 

case they can continue to submit paper 

reports. 

States tend to have one of four types 

of electronically available systems in 

place: the e2 system (AL, FL, MI, OH, 

OK, PA, VA); Net DMR (AR, CT, HI, LA, 

TN, TX, UT); eDMR (IL, IN, MS, NC, 

WV, WY); or EFIS (ME, SC). Of these 

four systems, e2 is the oldest, having 

been implemented in Florida in 2001 

and Michigan in 2002. In addition to 

these four systems, California and 

Washington have each developed their 

own unique eDMR systems. The 

voluntary movement of a large number 

of states to electronic reporting of DMR 

data suggests the existence of potential 

net benefits. 

i. U.S. Security and Exchange 

Commission (SEC) Quarterly Financial 

Data 

The U.S. Security and Exchange 

Commission’s online system, EDGAR 

(the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, 

and Retrieval system), performs 

automated collection, validation, 

indexing, acceptance, and submittal of 

forms filed electronically with the SEC. 

Researchers evaluated the effect of 

making quarterly financial data 

available to all market participants at 

the same time versus the prior hardcopy filing (i.e., submittal) method that 

required an individual interested in the 

financial health of a company to request 

the data from the SEC or the firm itself. 

Using a random sample of firms, the 

researchers compared an electronic 

filing via EDGAR to a previous year’s 

filing via the traditional paper method. 

They did not find a market response to 

firm financial data when it was filed via 

the traditional method, but they did 

detect a discernible market response 

when the data were filed electronically 

via EDGAR. The authors found further 

that quarterly financial data are filed 

more quickly through EDGAR than was 

the case with the earlier method.71

B. Summary of the Economic Analysis 

1. Regulatory Requirements Addressed 

by the Economic Analysis 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires 

federal agencies to perform an economic 

analysis (EA) to give decision makers 

information to determine that: 

There is adequate information indicating 

the need for and consequences of the 

proposed action; The potential benefits to 

society justify the potential costs, recognizing 

that not all benefits and costs can be 

described in monetary or even in quantitative 

terms, unless a statute requires another 

regulatory approach; The proposed action 

will maximize net benefits to society 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, and 

other advantages; distributional impacts; and 

equity), unless a statute requires another 

regulatory approach; Where a statute requires 

a specific regulatory approach, the proposed 

action will be the most cost-effective, 

including reliance on performance objectives 

to the extent feasible; Agency decisions are 

based on the best reasonably obtainable 

scientific, technical, economic, and other 

information.’’ 72

E.O. 12866 defines the threshold for 

‘‘significant’’ rules as one that is 

expected to: 

Have an annual effect on the economy of 

$100 million or more or adversely affect in 

a material way the economy, a sector of the 

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities.’’ 73

The EA must address the following 

requirements: 

The EA that the agency prepares should 

also satisfy the requirements of the 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995’’ 

(Pub. L. 104–4). Title II of this statute 

(Section 201) directs agencies ‘‘unless 

otherwise prohibited by law [to] assess the 

effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the private 

sector . . .’’ Section 202(a) directs agencies 

to provide a qualitative and quantitative 

assessment of the anticipated costs and 

benefits of a Federal mandate resulting in 

annual expenditures of $100 million or more, 

including the costs and benefits to State, 

local, and tribal governments or the private 

sector. Section 205(a) requires that for those 

regulations for which an agency prepares a 

statement under Section 202, ‘‘the agency 

shall [1] identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and [2] 

from those alternatives select the least costly, 

most cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives of the 

proposed rule.’’ If the agency does not select 

‘‘the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome option, and if the requirements 

of Section 205(a) are not ‘‘inconsistent with 

law,’’ Section 205(b) requires that the agency 

head publish ‘‘with the final rule an 

explanation of why the least costly, most 

cost-effective, or least burdensome method 

was not adopted.’’ 

The ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ (Pub. L. 

96–354) requires Federal agencies to give 

special consideration to the impact of 

regulation on small businesses. The Act 

specifies that a regulatory flexibility analysis 

must be prepared if a screening analysis 

indicates that a regulation will have a 

significant impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The EA that the agency 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46063 

prepares should incorporate the regulatory 

flexibility analysis, as appropriate. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.) requires 

Federal agencies to review their 

proposed rules and regulations to 

determine if they will have ‘‘a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number’’ of small entities. 

But the RFA does not define ‘‘significant 

economic impact’’ or ‘‘substantial 

number.’’ In its regulatory flexibility 

analysis EPA adopted the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

definition of small entities, and used a 

threshold of 1% of revenue to determine 

economic significance. Using the SBA 

definition, EPA estimated that 108,000 

small entities would incur costs under 

the proposed rule. EPA estimates 

implementation costs for the regulated 

facilities to be no more than $258 per 

facility, most of which will occur within 

two years of the effective date of the 

rule. EPA also estimates that those small 

entities required to report electronically 

to EPA in 2014 and 2015 will each incur 

as much as $105 in additional annual 

costs. None of these costs is thought to 

exceed the threshold of 1% of annual 

revenue for any of the affected entities. 

For that reason EPA has determined that 

the proposed rule does not have a 

significant economic impact on any 

small entity. 

2. EPA’s EA Guidance 

EPA has issued internal guidance 

implementing each of the EO and 

statutory requirements applicable to the 

EA. EPA’s EA guidance instructs EPA 

personnel how to proceed, and what 

factors to take into account. Among 

other things, that guidance requires an 

EA of a rule with a multi-year impact to 

apply discount factors of three percent 

and seven percent as a way to gauge the 

sensitivity of the projections and the 

effects of inflation. The EA for this 

proposed rule has been conducted 

following the most recently issued EPA 

EA guidance. To simplify this summary 

of the EA, unless otherwise indicated, 

this document will use only data from 

the three percent discount version of the 

analysis. Tables at the end of this 

section provide summaries of both the 

three percent and seven percent 

discount versions. 

3. Economic Significance of This Rule 

According to the threshold set out in 

EO 12866, this proposed rule is not 

economically significant. The threshold 

for a finding of economic significance is 

an economic impact, either costs or 

savings, of $100 million annually. The 

EA for this proposed rule estimates the 

largest annual economic impacts to be 

$25.2 million in net costs in one year 

after promulgation of the rule, and $30.1 

million in net savings in three years 

after promulgation of the final rule 

(estimated based on a 3% discount rate). 

Because these economic impacts are less 

than $100 million, this rule is below the 

economic threshold of a significant 

federal mandate under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

Although this proposed rule does not 

meet the economic significance 

threshold, it does include most of the 

elements that would be required if the 

threshold were passed—a statement of 

the need for the rule, an examination of 

alternatives, and the costs and benefits. 

For the purpose, the statement of the 

need is located in Section III, and a 

description of the alternative 

approaches that were considered is 

located at Section IV. The non-monetary 

benefits were discussed in the first 

portion of Section VII. The balance of 

this section summarizes the estimated 

savings and costs of the selected 

approach. 

4. Overall Savings and Costs 

The EA for this proposed rule 

estimates savings and costs over a tenyear period, beginning on the date when 

the rule would become final. Three 

years after final rule, applying a 3% 

discount rate, and using 2012 dollars, 

the largest annual net savings are $30.1 

million in three years after final rule. 

Those savings continue indefinitely, but 

at a steadily declining dollar value as a 

result of discounting. During the tenyear period, the highest annual costs are 

$25.2 million in one year after the final 

rule. Annual costs are significantly less 

in all other years. 

Cumulative savings for the ten-year 

period are $290.2 million while 

cumulative costs are $69.9 million. As 

a result the overall economic effect of 

this rule is a net cumulative savings of 

$220.3 million over the ten years of the 

projection. 

5. Changes in Data Volume and 

Universe Coverage 

The proposed rule would reduce the 

data entry burden on the states, tribes, 

and territories while increasing the 

percentage of the NPDES universe for 

which data is available. Compared to 

the current reporting guidance, known 

as WENDB, the proposed rule would 

reduce the data entry burden on states, 

tribes, and territories by 25 percent, 

increase the number of NPDESregulated facilities for which NPDES 

data is available to EPA by several 

hundred percent, and expand the scope 

of the available data for all NPDESregulated facilities covered by this 

proposed rule. 

In contrast, a previously considered 

approach would have expanded the data 

set and the number of covered 

permittees, but, still relied on the states, 

tribes, and territories to supply all of the 

data. This approach would have 

expanded the state, tribe, and territory 

data entry burden by 500 percent. 

6. Major Factors Used in the EA 

The main elements of this EA are the 

reporting universe, reporting 

frequencies, required data, changes in 

who reports the data, systems and 

infrastructure changes to make the 

reporting possible, and the schedule for 

implementation. 

a. Estimated Universe of Potentially 

Affected Permittees 

This proposed rule would change the 

universe of permit types for which EPA 

will receive data. As described in 

Section II, the current reporting 

guidance instructs the states to provide 

EPA with data on the major dischargers 

(6,700 permittees) and nonmajor 

dischargers with individual permits 

(38,900 permittees). Some states provide 

data on a larger section of the permittee 

universe. 

Under this proposed rule, EPA would 

receive data on virtually the entire 

permittee universe (over 440,000 

permittees, not including pesticides 

applicators and vessels), as represented 

in Table VII.1. Due to the large number 

of stormwater permittees, the EA pays 

this part of the NPDES program 

particular attention by modeling the 

expected number of wet-weather 

incidents for each state, tribe, and 

territory. 

TABLE VII.1—UNIVERSE OF NPDES 

PERMITS

Subprogram Number of 

permits 

Major Individual Permits ............. 6,700 

Non-subprogram nonmajor Individual Permits ......................... 38,900 

Non-subprogram nonmajors covered by general permits .......... 31,800 

Stormwater MS4s ....................... 6,600 

Stormwater Industrial .................. 100,000 

Stormwater Construction (annual) ........................................ 222,000 

POTWs Submitting Biosolids Reports ........................................ 4,900 

POTWs with Approved 

Pretreatment Programs ........... 1,500 

POTWs with Separate Sanitary 

Sewers and SSOs .................. 15,600 

POTWs with Combined Sanitary 

Sewers and CSOs .................. 830 

CAFOs ........................................ 14,400 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46064 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

It should be noted that Table VII–1 

shows the types and estimated numbers 

of permits in each of the applicable 

categories. Note, however, that some 

facilities are subject to more than one 

type of permit or subprogram, in which 

case they are counted in each applicable 

group because that is the basis for 

regulation and reporting. For example, a 

POTW might have an individual permit 

as a major facility, a separate stormwater 

system, a pretreatment program, and be 

a biosolids generator. Also note that 

SIUs do not have an NPDES permit but 

are included in the EA. 

Changes in the reportable universe 

affect virtually every aspect of the EA, 

including data entry costs, training 

costs, the need for electronic signatures 

and training, savings in paper and 

postage, the impact of dual reporting, 

and notification to permittees. 

b. Data Elements and Data Systems 

Section IV describes how and why the 

inventory of reportable data is changed 

by this proposed rule. For the EA, the 

biggest impacts of the change in 

reportable data are the costs of 

enhancing the database structures to 

store the additional data and the costs 

of data entry. 

Estimating the cost of modifying the 

databases involves several factors, 

chiefly the number of additional data 

elements, the number of categories those 

data elements fall into (e.g., CAFO, 

biosolids, DMRs, etc.), the number of 

data entry screens that will be needed, 

and the completeness of various state, 

tribe, territory, and EPA data systems 

prior to the final rule. 

Based on the number of data elements 

and their planned structure, EPA 

developed a detailed estimate of its own 

costs to modify ICIS to accommodate 

the additional data elements. Because 

EPA does not have independent 

estimates of the comparable system 

costs for each state, tribe, and territory, 

EPA’s estimate of system costs for those 

NPDES-authorized programs is based on 

EPA’s costs to modify ICIS. 

Data entry costs are one of the major 

aspects of the EA, and involve several 

additional factors, such as who 

generates the data, changes in the need 

for the states, tribes, and territories to 

enter permittee-created data into an 

information system, the number of 

permittees to which each data element 

applies, the frequency with which each 

type of data element is reported, the 

time required to enter each type of data 

element, and the labor costs associated 

with data entry. 

c. Responsibility for Creating Data 

‘‘Responsibility for creating data’’ 

refers to the act of initially determining 

the value of any particular required data 

element and writing it on paper or 

entering it into an electronic storage 

system. Each data element required by 

this proposed rule has exactly one 

creator, although the identity of the 

creator can be affected by the nature of 

the permit. For example, DMR data is 

always created by a permittee, and 

enforcement data is always created by 

the permitting authority, but basic 

facility data might be created by either 

the permitting authority or the 

permittee, depending on the type of 

permit that will be used. 

The EA uses a detailed understanding 

of responsibility for data creation to 

estimate and assign data entry costs and 

savings for permittees, states, tribes, and 

territories. 

d. Changes in the Need for State, Tribes, 

and Territories To Enter PermitteeCreated Data 

Under the current system of 

operations, states, tribes, and territories 

are responsible for collecting data from 

their permittees and providing the 

WENDB data to EPA, and paper 

submissions are the primary means by 

which permittees submit data to the 

states, tribes, and territories. As 

described in Section II, this means the 

states, tribes, and territories are required 

enter large amounts of data created by 

permittees into the permitting 

authority’s information systems, or into 

ICIS–NPDES. Several types of reports 

are affected by this rule, but DMRs 

comprise a substantial majority of the 

permittee-created data that the states, 

tribes, and territories enter into data 

systems. As a result, a significant 

portion of the data collected is 

essentially being entered twice. The first 

is when permittees commit it to a paper 

form. The second is when the states 

enter the permittee-created data into an 

information system. 

One of the chief contributions of this 

proposed rule is that it virtually 

eliminates the need for such double 

entry of data in this sense: When DMRs 

and other reports are submitted 

electronically by permittees, these 

reports can be received electronically by 

the states, tribes, and territories, 

inserted directly into the applicable 

information systems, and shared with 

EPA through the NEIEN. 

The EA sees no difference between 

the time required for a permittee to fill 

out a paper form and the time required 

for them to enter the same data on an 

electronic form. Therefore, permittee 

data creation costs and savings are not 

affected by the move to electronic 

reporting. The permittees are required to 

supply the same data, regardless of the 

media in which is it reported. However, 

during the transition period, some 

permittees will incur some additional 

costs until electronic reporting is 

required without concurrent hard-copy 

reporting to the permitting authority. 

Those costs are estimated to range from 

zero to $104.64 per report submitted. 

The impact on the states, tribes, and 

territories is very different. Every data 

element a state, tribe, or territory does 

not have to enter into a data system is 

a saving compared to the current mode 

of operation. This does not mean, 

however, that every state, tribe, and 

territory will see the same savings from 

the rule. Some permitting authorities 

have already begun shifting to electronic 

reporting. Thirty-four states have either 

implemented an eDMR system or are at 

some point in the process of doing so. 

Some permitting authorities have also 

begun moving to e-reporting in other 

areas, such as NOI. However, 

participation in most of the state, tribe, 

or territory e-reporting systems is 

voluntary, so participation rates are 

highly variable. Ohio is thought to be 

the only state with a mandatory eDMR 

system and they have achieved 

participation of over 99%. Other states 

have indicated much lower 

participation rates, which mean they are 

bearing the costs of operating both 

paper-based and electronic reporting 

systems. The EA includes the best 

available information on all of these 

factors. 

e. Permittees Reporting Various Data 

Elements 

As described in Section II, the current 

reporting guidelines require states, 

tribes, and territories to provide EPA 

with data for only a portion of the 

permittee universe. This proposed rule 

expands the universe of permittees for 

which required reporting must be 

shared with EPA, primarily by requiring 

data on the so-called NPDES 

subprograms. This is a significant 

development because subprogram data 

elements are specific to the permittees 

in each of the subprogram universes. 

For example, the data elements 

applicable to CAFOs apply only to 

CAFO permittees, biosolids data 

elements apply only to biosolids 

permittees and so on. As a result of this 

and the electronic reporting of data 

directly from the NPDES-regulated 

facilities, under this proposed rule the 

total volume of data does not increase 

in direct proportion to the larger portion 

of the permittee universe covered or the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46065 

expanded required data set. EPA’s best 

understanding of all of these factors is 

included in the EA. 

f. Frequency of Data Element Reporting 

Another factor that affects the overall 

volume of data being submitted, and 

therefore the data entry costs and 

savings, is the variety of reporting 

frequencies. Reporting frequencies are 

dictated by the types of reports 

containing the data elements and the 

compliance monitoring strategy. DMR 

data elements are submitted on DMR 

forms, which are generally submitted 

monthly, thus explaining why they 

comprise the largest portion of total data 

volume, and why eliminating the need 

for the states, tribes, and territories to 

enter the data from DMRs produces 

most of the savings from the proposed 

rule. 

Facility data is submitted on initial 

permit applications or on NOIs, and 

might be reviewed and updated every 

five years when the permit is reviewed 

for reissuance. A large part of the 

facility data is never changed. Portions 

that are subject to change are generally 

addressed during the permit’s reviews. 

Permit data, such as limits and limit 

sets, are established when the permit is 

issued, and reviewed and possibly 

revised on a five-year cycle. Permit 

conditions are seldom revised except 

during the regular five-year reviews, or 

as a result of enforcement actions. 

Enforcement and compliance data are 

contained in specialized documents 

which are created on an as-needed 

basis. It is possible that some permittees 

will never have any enforcement actions 

against them, and therefore very little 

enforcement data associated with them. 

Subprogram data elements can be 

found on any of the major submissions, 

but are primarily contained in the 

applicable annual reports. 

Each of the data types and possible 

submissions has been evaluated and the 

frequencies assigned for proper 

mapping into the EA. 

g. Time Required to Enter Data Elements 

Understanding how long it takes to 

enter data elements is a critical piece of 

the EA. Nine states were surveyed to 

develop this information. Each 

respondent was asked to estimate the 

time it took them to enter various types 

of data elements. The respondents were 

grouped according to whether they were 

in a direct entry, batch entry or hybrid 

state, and average data entry times were 

computed for each data element within 

each group of states. 

The EA uses the data entry times from 

the survey to estimate how much data 

entry time states, tribes, and territories 

will spend entering different types of 

data elements. 

h. Labor Costs of Data Entry 

Labor rates for the rulemaking are 

taken from work produced by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Several 

hourly rates are used, depending on the 

type of work and whether the worker is 

a government or private sector worker. 

i. System Development Costs 

As described in Section IV, EPA 

intends to develop electronic reporting 

tools for each of the reports covered by 

this rule—DMRs, NOIs, and program 

reports. Those EPA-developed tools will 

be offered to all of the states, tribes, 

territories, and permittees for their use. 

The cost of developing those reporting 

tools by EPA and the infrastructure to 

accommodate them were calculated and 

documented in a series of technical 

reports, and comprise the majority of 

the EPA HQ implementation costs as 

reported by the EA. EPA also intends to 

encourage third-party development of 

electronic reporting tools. Ultimately 

each authorized state, tribe, and 

territory will decide whether to use, and 

allow their permittees to use, the EPAprovided electronic reporting tools or 

other tools. Each state, tribe, and 

territory has the option of adopting one 

or more of the EPA tools and rejecting 

the others. However, because EPA is 

building, and making available, a 

comprehensive set of tools, the EA does 

not include any estimate for state, tribe, 

and territory costs to develop 

comparable independent tools. 

The costs of modifying ICIS and the 

state, tribe, and territory NPDES data 

systems are somewhat different. Each of 

the authorized states, tribes, or 

territories either has its own data 

system, or uses ICIS–NPDES. All of 

these data systems are thought to need 

some degree of modification to accept 

the additional data elements, and in the 

case of state, tribe, and territory data 

systems, to share that data with EPA. 

EPA developed an estimate of its costs 

to modify ICIS. The EA includes those 

EPA costs, and uses those costs to 

estimate the cost of database changes in 

the states, tribes, and territories. The EA 

uses this approach because EPA does 

not have detailed information about the 

data structures in the states, tribes, and 

territories. The EA does take the 

available information about state, tribe, 

and territory data systems into 

consideration. 

All of these expenditures are included 

in the implementation costs of the rule, 

most of which are expended by EPA 

prior to rule promulgation and by the 

states, tribes, territories, and permittees 

one year after the effective date of the 

rule under the implementation schedule 

described in Section IV. 

The EA also estimates marginal 

operation and maintenance (O&M) costs 

for EPA and the states, tribes, and 

territories. Marginal O&M costs are the 

annual O&M costs, over and above 

current costs, to support the tools 

required by the rule. 

j. Permittee Notifications 

As described in Section IV, the entire 

permittee universe is assumed to receive 

initial notification of the rule by reading 

the Federal Register, from EPA’s Web 

site, or from reading about the rule in 

one or more trade publications. 

Accordingly, there are no unique costs 

for that notification in the EA. However, 

as work proceeds, EPA may determine 

that additional outreach is necessary. 

As described in Section IV, EPA will 

engage the states, tribes, and territories 

in a variety of forums to determine 

which permittees will be required to 

report directly to EPA under the rule, to 

notify those permittees of the 

requirement via the Federal Register 

and EPA’s Web site, and as appropriate 

to tell them when to stop reporting 

directly to EPA. Those costs are 

included in the EA. The EA assumes the 

majority of those notices will be 

delivered via EPA’s Web site. 

k. State, Tribe, Territory, and EPA 

Coordination 

Throughout the implementation 

process, EPA and the states, tribes, and 

territories should coordinate closely to 

minimize inconvenience to the states, 

tribes, territories, and permittees, and to 

ensure that concurrent electronic and 

hard-copy reporting of the same data by 

the same facility is minimized during 

the transition period. Those 

coordination efforts are described in 

Section IV. The EA assumes most of that 

coordination will be accomplished 

electronically—telephone, email, and 

webinars—with little or no travel by 

EPA HQ or the states, tribes, and 

territories. 

l. Permit Revisions 

In most states, tribes, and territories, 

permittees must follow the reporting 

requirements specified in their NPDES 

permits. And in most states, tribes, and 

territories, the permits cannot be 

changed unilaterally—i.e., there must be 

some form of notice and comment 

before amending a permit. For these 

reasons, EPA’s Office of Water has 

generally implemented permit changes 

in conjunction with the five-year permit 

review cycle. Using that approach, the 

permit changes are applied to each 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46066 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

permit as it comes up for review and 

there would be no separately 

identifiable costs associated with 

individual permit changes. 

However, if that approach were used, 

the rule would not be fully 

implemented until roughly 2020. Given 

current technology, it would be 

unreasonable to delay nearly a decade to 

achieve the benefits and savings 

available through electronic reporting. 

For that reason, the proposed rule uses 

a preferred two-year implementation 

strategy, as described in Section IV.I, 

and does impose some identifiable but 

modest near-term costs on the states, 

tribes, territories, and permittees, 

estimated in the EA. 

Permitting authority costs for permit 

changes are based on the assumption 

that some states, tribes, and territories 

will implement those changes with 

individual ‘‘minor modification,’’ which 

require separate notifications to, and 

possible dialog with, each permittee. 

The EA assumes some states, tribes, and 

territories will adopt other approaches, 

such as ‘‘mass minor modifications,’’ 

which involve the use of a form letter, 

or changes to statutes. Permittee costs 

for the permit change are estimated as 

the time required for them to read and 

respond to the permit change 

notification, regardless of its form. 

m. Changes in State Reporting 

Requirements 

When the rule is fully implemented, 

EPA would essentially have complete 

data on almost the entire NPDES 

universe of permittees. As a result, EPA 

HQ will have all of the data necessary 

to prepare the Annual Notice of NonCompliance, the Quarterly NonCompliance Report, and the SemiAnnual Statistical Summary Report, all 

currently required from NPDESauthorized states, tribes, and territories 

by 40 CFR 123.45. For that reason, the 

rule proposes to replace all of those 

reports with a single report generated by 

EPA HQ using the data in the data 

systems after implementation of the 

rule. The EA estimates the reduced 

burden on the states, tribes, and 

territories as a result of this reporting 

change. 

n. Paper and Postage Savings 

As described in Section II, the 

majority of permittee submittals are 

being sent to the states, tribes, and 

territories on paper. Each of those 

submittals therefore requires paper, an 

envelope, and postage. EPA estimates 

that there are more than 1 million 

permittee submittals sent by mail each 

year. 

Converting to electronic reporting 

under this rule will eliminate paper 

submittals of the covered reports for the 

vast majority of permittees. The EA 

estimates the percentage of permittees 

that will be required to use e-reporting, 

the number and mix of reports they 

submit annually, as well as the number 

of pages in each report, and the required 

postage. 

o. Electronic Signatures, Service 

Agreements and Training 

Instituting electronic reporting will 

entail some effort from the permittees. 

The EA assumes that every permittee 

will have to take certain steps in order 

to begin reporting electronically, 

whether they report directly to EPA or 

to their respective state, tribe, or 

territory. Permittees that are already 

reporting electronically will most likely 

not incur any additional costs at this 

time, but EPA does not have 

information as to which permittees are 

reporting electronically, and therefore 

has made the simplifying assumption 

that all permittees are affected. 

There are some differences in the 

costs to different permittees, based on 

the activities they are engaged in, and 

these differences have been included in 

the EA. All permittees will need to 

register with CDX. All permittees 

reporting anything other than NOIs will 

also need to have a CROMERR service 

agreement. Permittees that are required 

to submit DMRs will need DMR 

training. The EA assumes the training 

will be conducted by webinar. The EA 

estimates implementation costs for 

individual permittees of $258 or less. 

p. Reporting During the Transition 

Period 

As described in Section IV, each state, 

tribe, and territory, for each report or 

NPDES data group, will be evaluated 

against several criteria to determine 

whether its permittees will be required 

to electronically submit their reports to 

the authorized program or to EPA 

directly. If permittees are required to 

begin reporting directly to EPA, the EA 

assumes that they will also be required 

to continue hard-copy reporting to the 

state, tribe, or territory as stipulated in 

their NPDES permit. For that reason, the 

EA estimates the additional effort 

required by the affected permittees to 

create the second submittal at $105 or 

less per type of submittal. The EA uses 

the implementation schedule to 

estimate when the states, tribes, and 

territories will complete their own 

conversion to electronic reporting and 

the permittees will be released from 

reporting directly to EPA. 

q. State, Tribe, and Territory Costs for 

Statutory or Regulatory Revisions 

The EA does not attempt to estimate 

the costs the states, tribes, and 

territories will incur to revise their 

statutes or regulations to implement the 

changes required by this proposed rule. 

C. Summary of Costs and Savings 

The following tables summarize the 

EA cost and savings findings using the 

3% (Table VII–2) and 7% (Table VII–3) 

discount rates as required by EPA’s EA 

guidance. The entire EA uses 2012 

dollars. 

Each table is followed by a graph 

showing the annual costs and savings in 

bar form, and the cumulative costs and 

savings in line form. The point at which 

the two lines cross, sometimes referred 

to as the breakeven, is the point at 

which cumulative savings exceed 

cumulative costs. 

There are both qualitative and 

quantitative benefits associated with 

this proposed rule. EPA has estimated 

some of the benefits of this proposed 

rule by performing calculations based 

on: The reporting universe; reporting 

frequencies and required data; changes 

in who reports the data; systems and 

infrastructure changes to make the 

reporting possible; and the schedule for 

implementation. Using a 3% discount 

rate, and 2012 dollars, the annual total 

net benefits associated with reduced 

paperwork and management of 

information are approximately $29 

million, with 97% of those savings 

going to the states, tribes, and territories, 

due to approximately a 25% decrease in 

the amount of information they will be 

required to enter into data systems. 

In this section of the preamble, EPA 

described the qualitative benefits such 

as improved compliance, reduced 

pollution, allowing for better 

government and public decision making 

but was unable to monetize these 

benefits, 

The cost of implementing the 

proposed rule in the first three years 

after the effective date is approximately 

$51.0 million. The cost is estimated to 

drop to $2.9 million per year after that 

time period, when all regulated facilities 

will be converted to electronic 

reporting. However, two years after rule 

promulgation, annual savings greatly 

outweigh annual costs, by 

approximately $29 million per year. 

Also, the threshold for a finding of 

economic significance is an economic 

impact, either costs or savings, of $100 

million or more annually. The economic 

analysis for this rule estimates the 

largest annual net cost to be $25.2 

million one year after the effective date 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46067 

of the rule, and $30.1 million in net 

savings three years after the effective 

date of the rule; therefore, this proposed 

rule is not considered economically 

significant per Executive Order 12866. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30JY13.001</GPH>

Table VII-2. Ten-Year Projected Costs and Savings - 3% Discount Rate 

States. 

,000 $0 $0 

$920,000 $240,000 $20,330,000 

2 $880,000 $330,000 $2,790,000 

3 $850,000 $290,000 $1,890,000 

4 $820,000 $280,000 $1,830,000 

5 $800,000 $270,000 $1,780,000 

6 $780,000 $260,000 $1,730,000 

7 $750,000 $260,000 $1,680,000 

8 $730,000 $250,000 $1,630,000 

9 $710,000 $240,000 $1,580,000 

10 $690,000 $230,000 $1,530,000 

$ $ $ 

$ $ (740,000) $ (12,830,000) $ 

2 $ $ (800,000) $ (31,660,000) $ 

3 $ $ (810,000) $ (31,490,000) $ 

4 $ $ (780,000) $ (30,570,000) $ 

5 $ $ (760,000) $ (29,680,000) $ 

6 $ $ (740,000) $ (28,820,000) $ 

7 $ $ (720,000) $ (27,980,000) $ 

8 $ $ (700,000) $ (27,170,000) $ 

9 $ $ (680,000) $ (26,370,000) $ 

10 $ $ (660,000) $ (25,610,000) $ 

Graph VII-I. - Cost and Savings with Cumulative Breakeven - 3% Discount Rate 

Electronic Reporting Rule Savings and Costs (3% Discount Rate) $200,000,000 

$180,000,000 

$160,000,000 

(320, 

(1,290, 

(1,250, 

(1,210, 

(1,180, 

(1,140, 

(1,110, 

(1,080, 

(1,050, 

(1,020, 

_ $140,000,000 N a $120,000,000 N 

";; $100,000,000 

Savings 

-Total Costs ... 

::§ $80,000,000 

C $60,000,000 

$40,000,000 

$20,000,000 

$-

° 1 2 

Savings 

3 4 ~ar 6 7 8 9 10 
46068 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30JY13.002</GPH>

Table VII-3. Ten-Year Projected Costs and Savings - 7% Discount Rate 

$4,440,000 $0 $0 

1 $890,000 $240,000 $19,570,000 

2 $820,000 $300,000 $2,590,000 

3 $760,000 $260,000 $1,680,000 

4 $710,000 $240,000 $1,570,000 

5 $660,000 $220,000 $1,470,000 

6 $620,000 $210,000 $1,370,000 

7 $580,000 $200,000 $1,280,000 

8 $540,000 $180,000 $1,200,000 

9 $500,000 $170,000 $1,120,000 

10 $470,000 $160,000 $1,050,000 

$ $ $ 

$ $ (710,000) $ (12,350,000) 

2 $ $ (740,000) $ (29,340,000) 

3 $ $ (720,000) $ (28,090,000) 

4 $ $ (670,000) $ (26,250,000) 

5 $ $ (630,000) $ (24,540,000) 

6 $ $ (590,000) $ (22,930,000) 

7 $ $ (550,000) $ (21,430,000) 

8 $ $ (510,000) $ (20,030,000) 

9 $ $ (480,000) $ (18,720,000) 

10 $ $ $ 7,490, 

Grapb VII-2. - Cost and Savings with Cumulative Breakeven - 7% Discount Rate 

Electronic Reporting Rule Savings and Costs (7% Discount Rate) 

$200,000,000 

$180,000,000 

$160,000,000 

$140,000,000 

~ $120,000,000 N 

(1,190, 

(1,110, 

(1,040, 

(970, 

(910, 

(850, 

(790, 

(740, 

Savings 

-;;:;- $100,000,000 "-

III --Total Costs 

15 $80,000,000 

Q 

$60,000,000 

$40,000,000 

$20,000,000 

$-

° 1 2 3 456 

Year 

7 

Savings 

8 9 10 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46069 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ due to novel legal or policy 

issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB’s 

recommendations are documented in 

the docket for this action. 

In addition, EPA prepared a detailed 

analysis of the potential costs, savings, 

and benefits of this action. That 

analysis, the ‘‘Economic Analysis of the 

NPDES Electronic Reporting Proposed 

Rule,’’ can be found in the EPA docket, 

and is summarized in Section VII. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 2468.01. 

EPA is proposing this regulation to 

better utilize current technology to 

ensure that facility-specific information 

under the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) program is 

submitted to EPA, states, tribes, and 

territories on a nationally timely, 

consistent, accurate, and complete basis 

for national program management, 

oversight, and transparency. This 

regulation would require that most of 

this NPDES information be submitted 

electronically by the regulated facilities; 

this information will be supplemented 

by required information regarding 

NPDES implementation activities by 

EPA, states, tribes, and territories 

authorized to implement the NPDES 

program. 

The projected burden and cost of the 

regulation are summarized in Table 

VIII.1. Note that, consistent with the 

Information Collection Request (ICR), 

these estimates reflect the net burden 

and cost to regulated facilities and 

states, tribes, and territories over the 

first three years following promulgation 

of the rule. Although the proposed rule 

will result in long-term net burden 

reduction and savings, the burden 

[defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)] and cost 

associated with initial investment for 

electronic reporting to EPA for regulated 

facilities, training, one-time provision of 

facility information to EPA, data 

reconciliation, and data entry for states, 

tribes, and territories will initially 

outweigh burden reduction and cost 

savings in the first three years. Burden 

is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

TABLE VIII.1—PROJECTED BURDEN AND COST OVER THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Unit of analysis 

Affected entity 

Regulated facilities States, tribes, and 

territories 

Average Annual Number of Respondents (# of affected entities) 1 ........................................................ 233,166 47 

Average Annual Number of Responses (# of Permits for which entity must submit information × annual frequency of response) ................................................................................................................ 187,114 1,069,905 

Frequency of Response (range) .............................................................................................................. 1–36 1–36 

Total Burden (hours) ................................................................................................................................ 108,201 ¥298,493 

Total Cost ................................................................................................................................................ $6,249,803 ¥$17,758,888 

Average Annual Burden per Respondent ............................................................................................... 0.46 hrs ¥6,351 hrs 

Average Annual Burden per Response ................................................................................................... 0.58 hrs ¥0.28 hrs 

Average Annual Cost per Respondent .................................................................................................... $26.80 ¥$377,848 

Average Annual Cost per Response ....................................................................................................... $33.40 ¥$16.60 

1The average annual number of regulated facility respondents is based on the following: In the first year regulated facilities must check the 

EPA website, and some may incur savings associated with paper mailings. In the second year, some regulated facilities must dual report to EPA 

and some may incur savings associated with paper mailings. In the third year, fewer regulated facilities must dual report to EPA and a greater 

number incur savings associated with paper mailings. 

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 in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

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, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0274. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after July 30, 2013, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by August 29, 2013. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, a small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA’s) regulations at 

13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is the 

government of a city, county, town, 

school districts, or special districts with 

a population of less than 50,000 people; 

or (3) a small organization that is any 

‘‘not-for-profit enterprise which is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46070 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

74Note: ‘‘State and local officials’’ are defined 

narrowly under E.O. 13132 as ‘‘elected officials of 

State and local governments or their representative 

national organizations.’’ For purposes of E.O. 

13132, OMB defines representative national 

organizations as: National Governors Association, 

National Conference of State Legislatures, U.S. 

Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, 

Council of State Governments, International City/ 

County Management Association, National 

Association of Counties, County Executives of 

America, and National Association of Towns and 

Townships. As a policy matter, EPA also includes 

the Environmental Council of the States in this list. 

As noted in the Agency Guidance, for actions that 

have federalism implications, but do not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs or preempt State 

or local law, at a minimum you should consult with 

each of these organizations. 

75Representatives of State and local 

governments’’ include non-elected officials of State 

and local governments and any representative 

national organizations not listed in the previous 

footnote. 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field.’’ Note that 

under the RFA definition, states and 

tribal governments are not considered 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

the detailed analysis of small entity 

impacts see Chapter 5 of the following 

document in the rulemaking docket, 

‘‘Economic Analysis of the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Electronic Reporting Proposed 

Rule,’’ (see DCN 0040). 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The small entities directly 

regulated by this proposed rule are 

small businesses (e.g., industrial sectors, 

electricity generating facilities, and 

agricultural sectors) and small 

governmental jurisdictions (e.g., POTWs 

operated by municipalities). We have 

determined that 108,036 small entities 

(100 percent of the small entities 

considered in this analysis) will 

experience an impact of less than 1 

percent of revenues. 

Note that fewer facilities are 

considered in the small entity analysis 

than were estimated as the affected 

universe for the proposed rule (see 

Chapter Two of the Economic Analysis). 

Due to the magnitude and diversity of 

facilities and sectors affected by this 

rule, it was not possible to conduct a 

detailed analysis of parent entityspecific impacts. Because small entity 

status is based on industrial sector, the 

small entity analysis required data 

sources where industry sector (NAICS 

codes) of each facility could be 

identified. Although not a complete 

inventory of all potentially affected 

facilities, the universe of facilities 

currently in ICIS–NPDES and PCS was 

used. The assumption is made that 

facilities affected by the proposed rule 

but not currently in ICIS–NPDES and 

PCS would experience small entity 

impacts similar to the facilities 

currently in ICIS–NPDES and PCS. 

Although this proposed rule, as 

currently drafted and subject to public 

comment, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, EPA 

nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. In 

fact, this rule creates annual savings for 

small entity analyses through 

elimination of mailing and postage 

costs. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. In order to determine the 

burden on states, tribes, and territories, 

the workgroup conducted an economic 

analysis of what the cost may be. The 

analysis examined implementation 

using various options including the 

potential burden to state, tribal, and 

territorial governments. Preliminary 

indications suggest that the rule would 

not only cost states, tribes, territories, 

and local governments well below the 

threshold of $100 million, it will 

actually result in cost savings over time. 

Thus, this proposed rule is not subject 

to the requirements of Sections 202 or 

205 of UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements Section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Although this proposed rule will 

impose electronic reporting 

requirements on small governments 

such as municipalities as well as tribes, 

EPA does not expect these impacts to be 

substantial or sufficiently unique to 

meet the UMRA standards. According to 

EPA’s Interim Small Government 

Agency Plan, actions have a significant 

impact if the cost is above $100 million. 

As stated above, EPA does not expect 

this proposed rule to exceed that 

threshold. EPA guidance states that an 

action could uniquely affect small 

governments if it disproportionately 

affects small governments, requires the 

hiring of experts, requires sophisticated 

or expensive equipment, or requires 

offsite training. Preliminary small entity 

screening analysis for this proposed rule 

indicates that the cost to any of these 

entities, and additional requirements, 

will not exceed 1 percent of total costs. 

Additionally, although some computer 

access would be needed to comply with 

this rule unless a waiver is obtained, 

this proposed rule will not require 

purchase of sophisticated or expensive 

equipment. Furthermore, the proposed 

rule will not require significant offsite 

training; training associated with the 

proposed rule will be offered on-line by 

EPA rather than offsite. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 

13132, EPA may not issue an action that 

has federalism implications, that impose 

substantial direct compliance costs, and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

the Federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by state and 

local governments, or EPA consults with 

state and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

action. In addition, under section 6(c) of 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue an action that has federalism 

implications and that preempts state 

law, unless the Agency consults with 

state and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

action. 

EPA has concluded that this action 

may have federalism implications 

because it will impose electronic 

reporting requirements on states to 

provide certain NPDES information to 

EPA. However, because the largest 

annual impact on states is $12.0 million 

(occurring within the first year after the 

effective date), this action will not 

exceed the threshold of $25 million per 

year annually, nor will it preempt state 

law. Thus, the requirements of Sections 

6(b) and 6(c) of Executive Order 13132 

do not apply to this action. 

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA 

nonetheless consulted with state and 

local officials 74 and representatives of 

state and local governments 75 early in 

the process of developing the proposed 

action to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. As described in Section 

VI, EPA provided significant 

opportunities for such consultation in 

public meetings, a series of webinars, a 

state working group, and in a meeting 

on September 15, 2010 specifically 

linked to notifications and consultations 

required under this Executive Order. 

This meeting was attended by 11 state 

and local government officials and 

organizations. EPA received useful 

feedback in these meetings, with 

support for the concept of electronic 

reporting, comments on the feasibility of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46071 

various implementation options, and 

interest in developing details of how the 

rule would be implemented. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from state and local 

officials. EPA will continue to consult 

with state and local officials throughout 

the process of developing the proposed 

and final action to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. In addition to stakeholder 

outreach, EPA will contact elected 

representatives as well as appropriate 

organizations to ensure compliance with 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Subject to Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA may 

not impose requirements not required 

by statute unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

EPA consults with tribal officials early 

in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

Tribal Summary Impact Statement 

(TSIS). 

EPA has concluded that this action 

may have tribal implications. However, 

it will neither impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments 

nor will it preempt tribal law. Although 

no tribes have yet received approval 

from EPA to implement an authorized 

NPDES program, this proposed rule will 

impose electronic reporting 

requirements on tribal facilities and on 

facilities operating on tribal lands. 

EPA consulted with tribal 

representatives in developing this rule 

via conference calls and webinars with 

the National Tribal Caucus and National 

Tribal Water Counsel in November 

2010. For additional information, see 

Section VI. No concerns were raised 

during those consultations. 

In addition, EPA mailed information 

to 563 tribes regarding an opportunity to 

participate in two additional tribal 

outreach efforts in December 2010. 

Again, during these conference calls, no 

concerns were raised by participants 

during those consultations. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under Section 5–501 of the executive 

order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, and it is 

not a significant energy action. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

environmental monitoring or 

measurement. Consistent with the 

Agency’s Performance Based 

Measurement System (‘‘PBMS’’), EPA 

proposes not to require the use of 

specific, prescribed analytic methods. 

Rather, the Agency plans to allow the 

use of any method that meets the 

prescribed performance criteria. The 

PBMS approach is intended to be more 

flexible and cost-effective for the 

regulated community; it is also intended 

to encourage innovation in analytical 

technology and improved data quality. 

EPA is not precluding the use of any 

method, whether it constitutes a 

voluntary consensus standard or not, as 

long as it meets the performance criteria 

specified. 

The following are data standards that 

EPA recommends for use in this 

regulation: Enforcement and 

Compliance Data Standard, Standard 

No.: EX000026.2, July 30, 2008. This 

data standard should be used in this 

regulation because it identifies and 

defines the major areas of enforcement 

and compliance information that could 

be used for the exchange of data among 

environmental agencies and other 

entities. The purpose of the standard is 

to provide a common lexicon, so that 

information about functionally similar 

activities and/or instruments can be 

stored and to provide and receive data 

in a clearly defined and uniform way. 

EPA proposes to use the following 

data standards which were developed 

by the Exchange Network Leadership 

Council (ENLC), which governs the 

National Environmental Information 

Exchange Network (NEIEN). The ENLC 

identifies, prioritizes, and pursues the 

creation of data standards for those 

areas where information exchange 

standards will provide the most value in 

achieving environmental results. The 

ENLC involves tribes and tribal nations, 

state, and federal agencies in the 

development of the standards. More 

information about ENLC is available at 

www.exchangenetwork.net. 

Permitting Information Data 

Standard, Standard No.: EX000021.2, 

January 6, 2006. This data standard 

should be used in this regulation 

because it specifies the key data 

groupings necessary for the consistent 

identification of information pertaining 

to permits of interest to environmental 

information exchange partners. This 

data standard provides a minimum set 

of data, which need to be reported for 

permitting information such as permit 

name, number, type, organization or 

facility name, and affiliation type. 

Facility Site Identification Data 

Standard, Standard No.: EX000020.2, 

January 6, 2006. The purpose of this 

data standard is to identify a facility of 

environmental interest. This data 

standard should be used in this 

regulation because it provides for the 

unique identification of facilities 

regulated or monitored by EPA, states, 

tribes, and territories. Each facility is 

assigned a unique factory identification 

number, which identifies information 

for the facility specified. This standard 

provides and describes data groupings 

that are used to exchange facility site 

identification data and information. 

This standard helps EPA, states, tribes, 

and territories integrate and share 

facility information across multiple 

information systems, programs, and 

governments. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46072 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Contact Information Data Standard, 

Standard No.: EX000019.2, January 6, 

2006. This data standard should be used 

in this regulation because it provides 

information regarding the source of 

contact. This standard offers data 

groupings that are used to describe a 

point of contact, address, and 

communication information. For 

example, the data grouping ‘‘Point of 

Contact’’ subdivides to lower levels 

such as individual, affiliation, and 

organization. These intermediate data 

groupings are further defined at the 

elemental levels with Name, Title, Code, 

and Prefix. 

Representation of Date and Time Data 

Standard, Standard No.: EX000013.1, 

January 6, 2006. This data standard 

should be used in this regulation 

because it provides and describes data 

groupings that are used for exchange of 

Date and Time data and information. 

The standard provides information on 

the high level, intermediate, and 

elemental representation of date and 

time data groupings. 

Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, 

Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 

2006. This data standard should be used 

in this regulation because it establishes 

the requirements for documenting 

latitude and longitude coordinates and 

related method, accuracy, and 

description data for all places used in 

the data exchange transaction. Places 

include facilities, sites, monitoring 

stations, observations points, and other 

regulated or tracked features. This 

standard describes data and data 

groupings that are used to exchange 

latitude and longitude data and 

information. The purpose of the 

standard is to provide a common set of 

data to use for recording horizontal and 

vertical coordinates and associated 

metadata that define a point on the 

earth. 

SIC/NAICS Data Standard, Standard 

No.: EX000022.2, January 6, 2006. This 

data standard should be used in this 

regulation because it provides a 

common set of data groupings to specify 

a way to classify business activities, 

including industry classifications, 

product classifications, and product 

codes. This data standard provides 

information on business activity 

according to the Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) and North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS). 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 [59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)] establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This proposed rule 

offers substantial environmental justice 

benefits. As described in the context of 

non-monetary benefits, discussed in 

Section VII.A and described below, the 

proposed rule would significantly 

increase transparency and access to 

crucial information that is relevant to 

the protection of the health and 

environment of minority, low income, 

and tribal populations. 

Pollution sources addressed by the 

NPDES electronic reporting rule may 

release disease-causing pathogens, 

nutrients, or other contaminants that 

threaten public health, leading to public 

advisories against fishing and 

swimming. Disadvantaged and 

underserved communities are likely to 

suffer a wide range of environmental 

burdens based on their differential 

proximity and exposure to 

environmental hazards from these 

pollution sources. Analyzing 

cumulative effects on a community from 

multiple stressors allows a more 

realistic evaluation of a community’s 

risk to pollutants. For example, medical 

professionals can improve their capacity 

to identify the cause of acute and 

chronic disease symptoms through 

awareness of environmental exposures, 

thereby improving diagnosis, treatment 

and prevention. Improved access to 

NDPES data on releases, both permitted 

and unpermitted, would thus help to 

improve the health of minority, lowincome, and tribal populations. 

The proposed rule will also support 

meaningful participation by potentially 

impacted community members in 

regulatory proceedings, including 

permitting and compliance, designed to 

improve the ability of EPA, states, 

tribes, and territories to protect and 

preserve water quality. Regarding 

permitting, electronic notice of intent 

(eNOI) will provide minority, lowincome and tribal populations with 

information in a timely manner to assess 

the need for and mechanisms to seek 

public hearings and submit comments 

on NPDES permits proposed in their 

community. It will also facilitate their 

understanding of multiple NPDES 

discharges into the same water body 

which may affect permit limits. 

Regarding compliance, electronic 

discharge monitoring reports (eDMRs) 

will enable minority, low-income and 

tribal populations to determine whether 

permit limits have been violated and the 

length of time of such violations. In 

turn, this information can help these 

populations pursue appropriate 

recourse with regulatory agencies. 

Ultimately, increasing the availability 

and transparency of information 

resulting from this rule will enable 

overburdened communities faced with 

these water pollution issues to be better 

informed to engage in decision-making 

associated with the regulation of 

sources, and to take action to reduce 

risk. 

Although computer access to such 

information may be problematic in some 

situations, the rule will ensure that the 

information will be publicly available 

on-line and more accessible than it was 

in the past, when the information was 

only submitted in hard-copy form; this 

information would also be available 

through Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) requests. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 122 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Hazardous substances, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

40 CFR Part 123 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Hazardous substances, 

Indians-lands, Intergovernmental 

relations, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

pollution control. 

40 CFR Part 127 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Electronic reporting 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

40 CFR Part 403 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Compliance monitoring, 

Enforcement program and activities, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

40 CFR Part 501 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Indians-lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46073 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sewage disposal. 

40 CFR Part 503 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sewage disposal. 

Dated: July 15, 2013. 

Bob Perciasepe, 

Acting Administrator. 

For the reasons cited in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED 

PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL 

POLLUTANT DISCHARGE 

ELIMINATION SYSTEM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 122 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq. 

■ 2. Amend § 122.22 by adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 122.22 Signatories to permit applications 

and reports (applicable to State programs, 

see § 123.25). 

* * * * * 

(e) Electronic reporting. If documents 

described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section are submitted electronically by 

or on behalf of the NPDES-regulated 

facility, any person providing the 

electronic signature for such documents 

shall meet all relevant requirements of 

this section, and shall ensure that all of 

the relevant requirements of 40 CFR part 

3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting) 

and 40 CFR part 127 (Electronic 

Reporting Requirements for the NPDES 

Program) are met for that submission. 

■ 3. Amend § 122.26 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(15)(i)(A); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(15)(i)(C); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(iii). 

The revised text reads as follows: 

§ 122.26 Storm water discharges 

(applicable to State NPDES programs, see 

§ 123.25). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(15) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) The value of the rainfall erosivity 

factor (‘‘R’’ in the Revised Universal Soil 

Loss Equation) is less than five during 

the period of construction activity. The 

rainfall erosivity factor is determined in 

accordance with Chapter 2 of 

Agriculture Handbook Number 703, 

Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A 

Guide to Conservation Planning With 

the Revised Universal Soil Loss 

Equation (RUSLE), pages 21–64, dated 

January 1997. (This incorporation by 

reference was approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

Copies may be inspected at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030, or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. A copy may also be 

inspected at EPA’s Water Docket, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Washington, DC 

20460). An operator shall certify to the 

Director that the construction activity 

will take place during a period when the 

value of the rainfall erosivity factor is 

less than five; or 

* * * * * 

(C) For all certifications submitted in 

compliance with paragraphs 

(b)(15)(i)(A) and (b)(15)(i)(B) of this 

section after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 

127], or if required by the applicable 

POTW permit on or before [TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], all certifications 

submitted in compliance with this 

section shall be submitted electronically 

by the owner, operator, or their 

designated representative, in 

compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 

§ 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127, as well 

as with any additional requirements 

imposed by the Director. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Submit the signed certification to 

the NPDES permitting authority once 

every five years. For all certifications 

submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 

PART 127], or if required by the 

applicable POTW permit on or before 

[TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF 40 CFR part 127], all new and 

renewed certifications submitted in 

compliance with this section shall be 

submitted electronically by the owner, 

operator, or their designated 

representative, in compliance with 40 

CFR part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR part 

127, as well as with any additional 

requirements imposed by the Director. 

* * * * * 

4. Amend § 122.28 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 122.28 General permits (applicable to 

State NPDES programs, see § 123.25). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(v) and (b)(2)(vi) of this section, 

dischargers (or treatment works treating 

domestic sewage) seeking coverage 

under a general permit shall submit to 

the Director either a written or 

electronic notice of intent to be covered 

by the general permit. For all notices of 

intent submitted to the Director of an 

EPA-administered NPDES program after 

[one year after the effective date of 40 

CFR Part 127], or if required by the 

applicable general permit on or before 

[one year after the effective date of 40 

CFR Part 127], all new and renewed 

notices of intent submitted in 

compliance with this section shall be 

submitted electronically by the owner, 

operator, or their designated 

representative, in compliance with 40 

CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 

127, as well as with any additional 

requirements imposed by the Director. 

For all notices of intent submitted to the 

Director of an NPDES-authorized 

program (excluding EPA-administered 

NPDES programs) after [TWO YEARS 

AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 

CFR PART 127], or if required by the 

applicable general permit on or before 

[TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], all new 

and renewed notices of intent submitted 

in compliance with this section shall be 

submitted electronically by the owner, 

operator, or their designated 

representative, in compliance with 40 

CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 

127, as well as with any additional 

requirements imposed by the Director. 

(ii) The contents of the notice of 

intent shall be specified in the general 

permit and shall require the submission 

of information necessary for adequate 

program implementation, including at a 

minimum, the legal name and address 

of the owner or operator, the facility 

name and address, type of facility or 

discharges, and the receiving stream(s). 

General permits for stormwater 

discharges associated with industrial 

activity from inactive mining, inactive 

oil and gas operations, or inactive 

landfills occurring on Federal lands 

where an operator cannot be identified 

may contain alternative notice of intent 

requirements. All notices of intent shall 

be signed in accordance with § 122.22. 

Notices of intent for coverage under a 

general permit for concentrated animal 

feeding operations must include the 

information specified in § 122.21(i)(1) 

and the applicable information in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 127, 

including a topographic map. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 122.34 by revising 

paragraph (g)(3) introductory text to 

read as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46074 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 122.34 As an operator of a regulated 

small MS4, what will my NPDES MS4 storm 

water permit require? 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

* * * * * 

(3) Reporting. Unless you are relying 

on another entity to satisfy your NPDES 

permit obligations under § 122.35(a), 

you must submit annual reports to the 

NPDES permitting authority for your 

first permit term. For subsequent permit 

terms, you must submit reports in year 

two and four unless the NPDES 

permitting authority requires more 

frequent reports. For all annual reports 

submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 

PART 127], or if required by the 

applicable permit on or before [TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], all annual 

reports submitted in compliance with 

this section shall be submitted 

electronically by the owner, operator, or 

their designated representative, in 

compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, 

§ 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127, as well 

as with any additional requirements 

imposed by the Director. Your report 

must include: 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 122.41 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (l)(4)(i), 

(l)(6)(i), and (l)(7); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (l)(9); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (m)(3). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 122.41 Conditions applicable to all 

permits (applicable to State programs, see 

§ 123.25). 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) Monitoring results must be 

reported on a Discharge Monitoring 

Report (DMR) or forms provided or 

specified by the Director for reporting 

results of monitoring of sludge use or 

disposal practices. For all monitoring 

results submitted after [one year after 

the effective date of 40 CFR Part 127], 

or if required by the applicable permit 

on or before [one year after the effective 

date of 40 CFR Part 127], all monitoring 

results shall be submitted electronically 

by the owner, operator, or their 

designated representative, in 

compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, 

§ 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127, as well 

as with any additional requirements 

imposed by the Director. 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(i) The permittee shall report any 

noncompliance which may endanger 

health or the environment. Any 

information shall be provided orally 

within 24 hours from the time the 

permittee becomes aware of the 

circumstances. A written or electronic 

submission shall also be provided 

within 5 days of the time the permittee 

becomes aware of the circumstances. 

The written or electronic submission 

shall contain a description of the 

noncompliance (including, for discharge 

violations, the type, volume, and 

latitude and longitude of the discharge, 

and name of the waterbody most likely 

to receive the discharge) and its cause; 

the period of noncompliance, including 

exact dates and times (including the 

date and time of discovery, and the 

duration of the noncompliance event), 

and if the noncompliance has not been 

corrected, the anticipated time it is 

expected to continue; and steps taken or 

planned to reduce, eliminate, and 

prevent reoccurrence of the 

noncompliance. For noncompliance 

events related to combined sewer 

overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or 

bypass events, these submissions shall 

identify the data described above (with 

the exception of time of discovery) as 

well as the type of event (combined 

sewer overflows, sanitary sewer 

overflows, or bypass events), discharge 

volumes untreated by the POTW’s 

treatment works, and whether the 

noncompliance was related to dry or 

wet weather. All noncompliance events 

related to combined sewer overflows, 

sanitary sewer overflows, or bypass 

events occurring after [TWO YEARS 

AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 

CFR PART 127], or if required by the 

applicable permit on or before [TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be reported 

electronically by the owner, operator, or 

their designated representative, in 

compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, 

§ 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127, and any 

additional requirements imposed by the 

Director. 

* * * * * 

(7) Other noncompliance. The 

permittee shall report all instances of 

noncompliance not reported under 

paragraphs (l)(4), (5), and (6) of this 

section, at the time monitoring reports 

are submitted. The reports shall contain 

the information listed in paragraph (l)(6) 

of this section. For noncompliance 

events related to combined sewer 

overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or 

bypass events, these submissions shall 

contain the information described in 

paragraph (l)(6) of this section and the 

applicable required data in Appendix A 

to 40 CFR Part 127. All noncompliance 

events related to combined sewer 

overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or 

bypass events occurring after [TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by 

the applicable permit on or before [TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be reported 

electronically by the owner, operator, or 

their designated representative, in 

compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, 

§ 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127 and any 

additional requirements imposed by the 

Director. 

* * * * * 

(9) Identification of the Initial 

Recipient for NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Data. For an NPDES-regulated 

facility, the owner, operator, or their 

designated representative is required to 

electronically submit the required 

NPDES information (as specified in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 127) to the 

appropriate initial recipient, as 

determined by EPA, and as defined in 

§ 127.2(b). EPA shall identify and 

publish the initial recipient, as defined 

in § 127.2(b), and as designated in 

compliance with § 127.27(c), on an EPA 

Web site and in the Federal Register, by 

state and by NPDES data group [see 

§ 127.2(c)]. EPA shall update this listing 

on its Web site and in the Federal 

Register when a state, tribe, or territory 

newly gains authorization status to 

implement an NPDES program and is 

also approved by EPA to be the initial 

recipient of NPDES electronic data 

submissions for that program. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

* * * * * 

(3) Notice—(i) Anticipated bypass. If 

the permittee knows in advance of the 

need for a bypass, it shall submit prior 

notice, if possible at least ten days 

before the date of the bypass. All POTW 

anticipated bypass events occurring 

after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 

127], or if required by the applicable 

permit on or before [TWO YEARS 

AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 

CFR PART 127], shall be reported 

electronically by the owner, operator, or 

their designated representative, in 

compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, 

§ 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127 and any 

additional requirements imposed by the 

Director. 

(ii) Unanticipated bypass. The 

permittee shall submit notice of an 

unanticipated bypass as required in 

paragraph (l)(6) of this section (24-hour 

notice). All POTW unanticipated bypass 

events occurring after [TWO YEARS 

AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 

CFR PART 127], or if required by the 

applicable permit on or before [TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46075 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be reported 

electronically by the owner, operator, or 

their designated representative, in 

compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, 

§ 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127 and any 

additional requirements imposed by the 

Director. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 122.42 by revising 

paragraphs (c) introductory text, (e)(4) 

introductory text, and (e)(4)(vi) to read 

as follows: 

§ 122.42 Additional conditions applicable 

to specified categories of NPDES permits 

(applicable to State NPDES programs, see 

§ 123.25). 

* * * * * 

(c) Municipal separate storm sewer 

systems. The operator of a large or 

medium municipal separate storm 

sewer system or a municipal separate 

storm sewer that has been designated by 

the Director under 40 CFR 

122.26(a)(1)(v) of this part must submit 

an annual report by the anniversary of 

the date of the issuance of the permit for 

such system. All annual reports 

submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 

PART 127], or if required by the 

applicable permit on or before [TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be 

submitted electronically by the owner, 

operator, or their designated 

representative, in compliance with 40 

CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 

127 and any additional requirements 

imposed by the Director. The report 

shall include: 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

* * * * * 

(4) Annual reporting requirements for 

CAFOs. The permittee must submit an 

annual report to the Director. All annual 

reports submitted after [TWO YEARS 

AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 

CFR PART 127], or if required by the 

applicable permit on or before [TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be 

submitted electronically by the owner, 

operator, or their designated 

representative, in compliance with 40 

CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 

127 and any additional requirements 

imposed by the Director. The annual 

report must include: 

* * * * * 

(vi) Summary of all manure, litter and 

process wastewater discharges from the 

production area that have occurred in 

the previous 12 months, including, for 

each discharge, the date of discovery, 

duration of discharge, and approximate 

volume; and 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 122.43 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 122.43 Establishing permit conditions 

(applicable to State programs, see § 123.25). 

(a) In addition to conditions required 

in all permits (§§ 122.41 and 122.42), 

the Director shall establish conditions, 

as required on a case-by-case basis, to 

provide for and ensure compliance with 

all applicable requirements of CWA and 

regulations. These shall include 

conditions under §§ 122.46 (duration of 

permits), 122.47(a) (schedules of 

compliance), 122.48 (monitoring), 

electronic requirements of 40 CFR Part 

3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 

Regulation) and 40 CFR Part 127 

(Electronic Reporting Requirements for 

the NPDES Program), and, for EPA 

permits only, 40 CFR 122.47(b) 

(alternates schedule of compliance) and 

§ 122.49 (considerations under Federal 

law). 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 122.44 by revising 

paragraph (i)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 122.44 Establishing limitations, 

standards, and other permit conditions 

(applicable to State NPDES programs, see 

§ 123.25). 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(i)(4) and (i)(5) of this section, 

requirements to report monitoring 

results shall be established on a case-bycase basis with a frequency dependent 

on the nature and effect of the 

discharge, but in no case less than once 

a year. For sewage sludge use or 

disposal practices, requirements to 

monitor and report results shall be 

established on a case-by-case basis with 

a frequency dependent on the nature 

and effect of the sewage sludge use or 

disposal practice; minimally this shall 

be as specified in 40 CFR Part 503 

(where applicable), but in no case less 

than once a year. All monitoring results 

submitted after [ONE YEAR AFTER 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 

PART 127], or if required by the 

applicable permit on or before [ONE 

YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be 

submitted electronically by the owner, 

operator, or their designated 

representative, in compliance with 40 

CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 

127 and any additional requirements 

imposed by the Director. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 122.48 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 122.48 Requirements for recording and 

reporting of monitoring results (applicable 

to State programs, see § 123.25). 

* * * * * 

(c) Applicable reporting requirements 

based upon the impact of the regulated 

activity and as specified in 40 CFR Part 

3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 

Regulation), § 122.44, and 40 CFR Part 

127 (Electronic Reporting Requirements 

for the NPDES Program). Reporting shall 

be no less frequent than specified in 

§ 122.44. 

■ 11. Amend § 122.63 by adding 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 122.63 Minor modifications of permits. 

* * * * * 

(f) Allow the incorporation of 

electronic reporting requirements (to 

replace paper reporting requirements) 

including those specified in 40 CFR Part 

3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 

Regulation) and 40 CFR Part 127 

(Electronic Reporting Requirements for 

the NPDES Program). 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 122.64 by adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 122.64 Termination of permits 

(applicable to State programs, see § 123.25). 

* * * * * 

(c) Permittees that wish to terminate 

their permit shall submit a Notice of 

Termination (NOT) to their permitting 

authority. All NOTs submitted to the 

Director of an EPA-administered NPDES 

program after [ONE YEAR AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 

127], or if required by the applicable 

permit on or before [ONE YEAR AFTER 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 

PART 127], shall be submitted 

electronically by the owner, operator, or 

their designated representative, in 

compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, 

§ 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127 and any 

additional requirements imposed by the 

Director. All NOTs submitted to the 

Director of an NPDES-authorized 

program (excluding EPA-administered 

NPDES programs) after [TWO YEARS 

AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 

CFR PART 127], or if required by the 

applicable permit on or before [TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be 

submitted electronically by the owner, 

operator, or their designated 

representative, in compliance with 40 

CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 

127 and any additional requirements 

imposed by the Director. 

PART 123—STATE PROGRAM 

REQUIREMENTS 

■ 13. The authority citation for part 123 

continues to read as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46076 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq. 

■ 14. Amend § 123.22 by adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 123.22 Program description. 

* * * * * 

(g) A state, tribe, or territory that 

newly seeks to implement an NPDES 

program after [90 DAYS AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 

127] shall identify in its application 

whether the state, tribe, or territory is 

requesting to be the initial recipient of 

electronic NPDES information from 

NPDES-regulated facilities for specific 

NPDES data groups (see 40 CFR 127.2(c) 

and 127.27). In this application, the 

state, tribe, or territory shall identify the 

specific NPDES data groups for which 

the state, tribe, or territory will be the 

initial recipient of electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

facilities and how the electronic data 

system of the state, tribe, or territory 

will be compliant with 40 CFR Part 3, 

§ 123.26, and 40 CFR Part 127. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Amend § 123.24 by revising 

paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 123.24 Memorandum of Agreement with 

the Regional Administrator. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

* * * * * 

(3) Provisions specifying the 

frequency and content of reports, 

documents and other information which 

the State is required to submit to EPA. 

The State shall allow EPA to routinely 

review State records, reports, and files 

relevant to the administration and 

enforcement of the approved program. 

State reports may be combined with 

grant reports where appropriate. These 

procedures shall also implement the 

requirements of §§ 123.41(a) and 123.43 

and 40 CFR Part 127 (including the 

required data elements in Appendix A 

to 40 CFR Part 127). 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Amend § 123.25 by revising 

paragraph (a)(46) to read as follows: 

§ 123.25 Requirements for permitting. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * 

(46) 40 CFR part 3 (Cross-Media 

Electronic Reporting Regulation) and 40 

CFR part 127 (Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for the NPDES Program). 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Amend § 123.26 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2)(ii), 

(b)(2)(iii) and adding paragraph 

(b)(2)(iv); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (e)(1); 

■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(4); and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (f). 

The revised and added text reads as 

follows: 

§ 123.26 Requirements for compliance 

evaluation programs. 

* * * * * 

(b) State programs shall have 

inspection and surveillance procedures 

to determine, independent of 

information supplied by regulated 

persons, compliance or noncompliance 

with applicable program requirements. 

The State shall implement and 

maintain: 

(1) An automated, computerized 

system which is capable of identifying 

and tracking all facilities and activities 

subject to the State Director’s authority 

and any instances of noncompliance 

with permit or other program 

requirements (e.g., identifying 

noncompliance with an automated, 

computerized program to compare 

permit limits to reported 

measurements). State programs shall 

maintain a management information 

system which supports the compliance 

evaluation activities of this part (e.g., 

source inventories; compliance 

determinations based upon discharge 

monitoring reports, other submitted 

reports, and determinations of 

noncompliance made from inspection or 

document reviews; and subsequent 

violation notices, enforcement actions, 

and penalties) and is compliant with 40 

CFR part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic 

Reporting Regulation) and 40 CFR part 

127 (Electronic Reporting Requirements 

for the NPDES program). State programs 

may use EPA’s NPDES national data 

system for their automated, 

computerized system; 

(2) * * * 

* * * * * 

(ii) Verify the accuracy of information 

submitted by permittees and other 

regulated persons in reporting forms 

and other forms supplying monitoring 

data; 

(iii) Verify the adequacy of sampling, 

monitoring, and other methods used by 

permittees and other regulated persons 

to develop that information; and 

(iv) Protect surface waters and public 

health. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Maintaining a comprehensive 

electronic inventory of all sources 

covered by NPDES permits and an 

electronic schedule of reports required 

to be submitted by permittees to the 

State agency; 

* * * * * 

(f) A state, tribe, or territory that is 

designated by EPA as an initial recipient 

of electronic NPDES information, as 

defined in § 127.2, from NPDESregulated entities shall maintain this 

data and share all the required NPDES 

information with EPA through timely 

data transfers in compliance with all 

requirements of 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 

(including the required data elements in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). Timely 

means that the authorized state, tribe, or 

territory submits these data transfers 

(see the data elements in Appendix A to 

40 CFR part 127) to EPA within 30 days 

of when the state, tribe, or territory 

completed the activity or received a 

report submitted by a regulated entity. 

For example, the data regarding a state 

inspection of an NPDES-regulated entity 

that is completed on October 15th shall 

be submitted automatically to EPA no 

later than November 14th of that same 

year (e.g., 30 days after October 15th). 

EPA shall become the initial recipient of 

electronic NPDES information from 

NPDES-regulated entities if the state, 

tribe, or territory does not consistently 

maintain these timely data transfers or 

does not comply with 40 CFR parts 3 

and 127. See 40 CFR 127.2(b) and 

127.27 regarding the initial recipient. 

■ 18. Amend § 123.41 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 123.41 Sharing of information. 

(a) Any information obtained or used 

in the administration of a State program 

shall be available to EPA upon request 

without restriction. This includes the 

timely data transfers in compliance with 

all requirements of 40 CFR parts 3 and 

127 (including the required data 

elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 

127). If the information has been 

submitted to the State under a claim of 

confidentiality, the State must submit 

that claim to EPA when providing 

information under this section. Any 

information obtained from a State and 

subject to a claim of confidentiality will 

be treated in accordance with the 

regulations in 40 CFR part 2. If EPA 

obtains information from an authorized 

state NPDES program, which is not 

claimed to be confidential, EPA may 

make that information available to the 

public without further notice. Timely 

means that the authorized state, tribe, or 

territory submits these data transfers 

(see the data elements in Appendix A to 

40 CFR part 127) to EPA within 30 days 

of when the state, tribe, or territory 

completed the activity or received a 

report submitted by a regulated entity. 

For example, the data regarding a state 

inspection of an NPDES-regulated entity 

that is completed on October 15th shall 

be submitted automatically to EPA no 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46077 

later than November 14th of that same 

year (e.g., 30 days after October 15th). 

EPA shall become the initial recipient of 

electronic NPDES information from 

NPDES-regulated entities if the state, 

tribe, or territory does not consistently 

maintain these timely data transfers or 

does not comply with 40 CFR parts 3 

and 127. See 40 CFR 127.2(b) and 

127.27 regarding the initial recipient. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Amend § 123.43 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 123.43 Transmission of information to 

EPA. 

* * * * * 

(d) Any State permit program shall 

keep such records and submit to the 

Administrator such information as the 

Administrator may reasonably require to 

ascertain whether the State program 

complies with the requirements of CWA 

or of this part. This includes the timely 

data transfers in compliance with all 

requirements of 40 CFR part 127 

(including the required data elements in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Revise § 123.45 to read as follows: 

§ 123.45 Noncompliance and program 

reporting by the Director. 

EPA shall prepare public (quarterly 

and annual) reports as set forth here 

from information that is required to be 

submitted by NPDES-regulated facilities 

and the State Director. 

(a) NPDES Non-Compliance Reports 

(NNCR)—Quarterly. EPA shall produce 

an online report on a quarterly basis 

with the minimum content specified 

here. The Director shall electronically 

submit timely, accurate, and complete 

data to EPA that allows EPA to prepare 

these quarterly NNCRs. 

(1) Content. The NNCR shall include 

the following information: 

(i) A stratified list of NPDES-regulated 

entities in violation, including nonPOTWs, POTWs, Federal permittees, 

major facilities, and nonmajor facilities, 

as well as a list of CWA point sources 

that did not obtain NPDES permits 

authorizing discharges of pollutants to 

waters of the United States. 

(ii) For each identified NPDES point 

source in violation and with discharges 

of pollutants to waters of the United 

States: 

(A) The name, location, and permit 

number or other identification number, 

if a permit does not exist. 

(B) Information describing identified 

violation(s) that occurred in that 

quarter, including the date(s) on which 

violation(s) started and ended (if 

applicable). Where applicable, the 

information shall indicate the pipe, 

parameter, and the effluent limit(s) 

violated. Violations shall be classified as 

Category I and II as described in 

§ 123.45(a)(2). 

(C) The date(s) and type of formal 

enforcement and written informal 

enforcement action(s) taken by the 

Director to respond to violation(s), 

including any penalties assessed. 

(D) The status of the violation(s) (e.g., 

corrected or continuing, and the date 

that the violation(s) was resolved), 

which can be reported by linking 

violations to specific enforcement 

actions, or tracking noncompliance end 

dates. 

(E) Any optional details that may help 

explain the instance(s) of 

noncompliance as provided by the 

Director or EPA. 

(F) All violations shall be reported in 

successive quarterly reports until the 

violation(s) is documented as being 

corrected (i.e., the regulated entity is no 

longer in violation). After a violation is 

reported as corrected in the NNCR, that 

particular violation will not continue to 

appear in subsequent quarterly reports, 

although it will appear in the relevant 

annual report. 

(G) If the permittee or discharger is in 

compliance with an enforcement order, 

but has not yet achieved full compliance 

with permit conditions and/or 

regulations and has no new, additional 

violation(s), the compliance status shall 

be reported as ‘‘resolved pending’’ in 

the NNCR. The permittee/discharger 

will continue to be listed on the NNCR 

until the violation(s) is documented as 

being corrected. 

(2) Violation Classifications. A 

violation shall be classified as ‘‘Category 

I Noncompliance’’ if one or more of the 

criteria set forth below are met. All 

other types of noncompliance that do 

not meet the criteria for Category I 

Noncompliance shall be classified as 

‘‘Category II Noncompliance.’’ 

(i) Reporting Violations. These 

include failure to submit a complete, 

required report (e.g., final compliance 

schedule progress report, discharge 

monitoring report, annual report) within 

30 days after the date established in a 

permit, administrative or judicial order, 

or regulation. In addition, these also 

include any failure to comply with the 

reporting requirements at 40 CFR 

122.41(l)(6). 

(ii) Compliance Construction 

Violations. These include failure to start 

construction, complete construction, or 

achieve final compliance within 90 days 

after the date established in a permit, 

administrative or judicial order, or 

regulation. 

(iii) Effluent Limits. These include 

violations of interim or final effluent 

limits established in a permit, 

administrative or judicial enforcement 

order, or regulation that exceed the 

‘‘Criteria for Noncompliance Reporting 

in the NPDES Program’’ in Appendix A 

to § 123.45. 

(iv) Compliance Schedule Violations. 

These include violations of any 

requirement or condition in permits, or 

administrative or judicial enforcement 

orders, excluding reporting violations, 

compliance construction milestones and 

effluent limits. 

(v) Non-Numeric Effluent Limit 

Violations. These include violations of 

non-numeric effluent limits (e.g., 

violations of narrative permit 

requirements or requirements to 

implement best management practices) 

that caused or could cause serious 

impacts on water quality. Examples of 

such serious impacts on water quality 

include, but are not limited to, 

discharges that may have caused or 

contributed to exceedances in water 

quality standards, fish kills, oil sheens, 

beach closings, fishing bans, restrictions 

on designated uses, and pass through or 

interference with the operations of a 

POTW (see § 403.3 of this chapter). 

(vi) Other Violations. These include 

any violation or group of violations, 

which in the discretion of the Director 

or EPA, are considered to be of concern. 

These violations include repeat 

violations by a specific point source, 

geographic clusters of violations, 

corporations with violations at multiple 

facilities, or industrial sectors with 

identified patterns of violation that have 

a cumulative impact on water quality, 

but otherwise would not meet Category 

I criteria. EPA shall determine whether 

to issue policy or guidance to provide 

more specificity on identifying these 

types of violations and how to report 

them. 

(3) EPA shall provide an easy-to-use 

interface to facilitate public access, use, 

and understanding of the NNCR, 

including the ability to sort violations 

by duration, severity, frequency, 

detection method (e.g., self-reported 

effluent, monitoring, inspection), flow 

and pollutant loadings, type of 

discharger, waterbody receiving the 

discharge, proximity to impaired waters, 

and category of violation (I or II). EPA 

shall exclude from public release any 

confidential business information or 

enforcement-sensitive information 

associated with the NNCR. 

(b) NPDES Noncompliance Reports— 

Annual Summary (Annual). EPA shall 

prepare annual public reports that 

provide a summary of compliance 

monitoring and enforcement activities 

within each state, tribe, and territory, as 

well as summary information on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46078 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

violations identified in the four 

quarterly NNCRs for that federal fiscal 

year. EPA shall provide these annual 

reports by no later than March 1st of the 

following year. 

(1) Facility Types Covered by Reports. 

EPA shall produce, at a minimum, 

Annual Summary Reports for the 

following universes: individuallypermitted NPDES-regulated entities; all 

other NPDES-regulated entities that are 

not individually permitted; Clean Water 

Act point sources that had unauthorized 

discharge(s) of pollutants to waters of 

the US; and a combined report that 

includes totals across all three reports 

above. Individually-permitted facilities 

are defined in this subsection as those 

permits that are unique to the permittee, 

that include permitted effluent limits, 

and require the submission of discharge 

monitoring reports. 

(2) Content of Reports. Reports shall 

include applicable data for NPDESregulated entities: 

(i) The number of NPDES permittees; 

(ii) The number inspected by on-site 

inspections; 

(iii) The number reviewed in which 

permitted limits were compared to 

measured data to determine violations; 

(iv) The number evaluated by other, 

off-site compliance monitoring 

activities; 

(v) The number with any violations; 

(vi) The number with Category I 

violations; 

(vii) The number receiving paper or 

electronic written informal enforcement 

actions; 

(viii) The total number receiving 

formal enforcement actions with a 

compliance schedule; 

(ix) The total number receiving a 

penalty assessment; 

(x) The total amount of penalties 

assessed; and 

(xi) The number of permit 

modifications extending compliance 

deadlines more than one year. 

(c) Effective Dates. The quarterly and 

annual reports, noncompliance 

definitions, and other requirements of 

this subpart shall be effective starting 

[THREE YEARS AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 

127]. 

(d) Schedule for Producing NNCR 

Quarterly Information. (1) The Director 

has until 45 days from the end of the 

calendar quarter to update or correct 

NPDES data submissions in EPA’s data 

system for events that occurred within 

that calendar quarter covered by the 

NNCR. 

(2) EPA shall publish the NNCR in 

electronic form within two months after 

the end date of the calendar quarter: 

EPA SCHEDULE FOR QUARTERLY

NNCR 

Calendar quarter 

EPA NNCR 

Publication 

date for calendar quarter 

January, February, March ....... May 31. 

April, May, June ...................... August 31. 

July, August, September ......... November 

30. 

October, November, and December.February 28. 

■ 21. Amend Subpart C by adding 

Appendix A to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart C—Criteria for 

Category I Noncompliance Reporting in 

the NPDES Program 

This appendix describes the criteria for 

reporting Category I violations of NPDES 

permit effluent limits in the NPDES noncompliance report (NNCR) as specified under 

40 CFR 123.45(a)(2)(C). Any violation of an 

NPDES permit is a violation of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) for which the permittee is 

liable. As specified in 40 CFR 123.45(a)(2), 

there are two categories of noncompliance, 

and the table below indicates the thresholds 

for violations in Category I. An agency’s 

decision as to what enforcement action, if 

any, should be taken in such cases, shall be 

based on an analysis of facts, legal 

requirements, policy, and guidance. 

Violations of Permit Effluent Limits 

The categorization of permit effluent limits 

depends upon the magnitude and/or 

frequency of the violation. Effluent violations 

shall be evaluated on a parameter-byparameter and outfall-by-outfall basis. The 

criteria for reporting effluent violations are as 

follows: 

a. Reporting Criteria for Category I Violations 

of Monthly Average Permit Limits— 

Magnitude and Frequency 

Violations of monthly average effluent 

limits which exceed or equal the product of 

the Technical Review Criteria (TRC) times 

the effluent limit, and occur two months in 

a six-month period must be reported. TRCs 

are for two groups of pollutants. 

Group I Pollutants—TRC = 1.4 

Group II Pollutants—TRC = 1.2 

b. Reporting Criteria for Chronic Violations of 

Monthly Average Limits 

Chronic violations must be reported in the 

QNCR if the monthly average permit limits 

are exceeded any four months in a six-month 

period. These criteria apply to all Group I 

and Group II pollutants. 

Group I Pollutants—TRC = 1.4 

Oxygen Demand 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 

Chemical Oxygen Demand 

Total Oxygen Demands 

Total Organic Carbon 

Other 

Solids 

Total Suspended Solids (Residues) 

Total Dissolved Solids (Residues) 

Other 

Nutrients 

Inorganic Phosphorus Compounds 

Inorganic Nitrogen Compounds 

Other 

Detergents and Oils 

MBAS 

NTA 

Oil and Grease 

Other detergents or algicides 

Minerals 

Calcium 

Chloride 

Fluoride 

Magnesium 

Sodium 

Potassium 

Sulfur 

Sulfate 

Total Alkalinity 

Total Hardness 

Other Minerals 

Metals 

Aluminum 

Cobalt 

Iron 

Vanadium 

Group II Pollutants—TRC = 1.2 

Metals (all forms) 

Other metals not specifically listed under 

Group I 

Inorganic 

Cyanide 

Total Residual Chlorine 

Organics 

All organics are Group II except those 

specifically listed under Group I. 

■ 22. Add a new part 127 to Title 40 to 

read as follows: 

PART 127—NPDES PROGRAM 

ELECTRONIC REPORTING 

REQUIREMENTS 

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

127.1 Purpose and scope. 

127.2 Definitions. 

Subpart B—Electronic Reporting of NPDES 

Information From NPDES-regulated 

Facilities 

127.11 Types of data to be reported 

electronically by NPDES permittees, 

facilities seeking coverage under NPDES 

general permits or submitting stormwater 

certifications or waivers, and industrial 

users located in cities without approved 

local pretreatment programs. 

127.12 Signature and certification standards 

for electronic reporting. 

127.13 Requirements regarding quality 

assurance and quality control. 

127.14 Requirements regarding timeliness, 

accuracy, completeness, and national 

consistency. 

127.15 Temporary exemptions from 

electronic reporting. 

127.16 Time extensions for electronic 

reporting due to catastrophic unforeseen 

circumstances. 

127.17 Implementation plan and effective 

date. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46079 

Subpart C—Responsibilities of EPA and 

States, Tribes, and Territories Authorized 

To Implement the NPDES Program 

127.21 Types of data to be reported 

electronically to EPA by states, tribes, 

and territories. 

127.22 Requirements regarding quality 

assurance and quality control. 

127.23 Requirements regarding timeliness, 

accuracy, completeness, and national 

consistency. 

127.24 Responsibilities regarding review of 

temporary exemption requests and onetime extension requests from NPDESregulated facilities. 

127.25 Time for states, tribes, and territories 

to revise existing programs. 

127.26 Implementation plan and effective 

date. 

127.27 Procedure for determining initial 

recipient of electronic NPDES 

information. 

Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 127.1 Purpose and scope. 

(a) This part, in conjunction with the 

NPDES reporting requirements specified 

in 40 CFR parts 122, 123, 403, and 503, 

specifies the requirements for electronic 

reporting of information by NPDES 

permittees, facilities seeking coverage 

under NPDES general permits or 

submitting stormwater certifications or 

waivers, and industrial users located in 

cities without approved local 

pretreatment programs, to EPA or the 

states, tribes, or territories that have 

received authorization from EPA to 

implement the NPDES program. This 

part, in conjunction with 40 CFR parts 

123 and 501, also specifies the 

requirements for electronic reporting of 

NPDES information to EPA by the 

states, tribes, or territories that have 

received authorization from EPA to 

implement the NPDES program. 

(b) These regulations are not intended 

to preclude states, tribes, or territories 

from developing and using their own 

NPDES data systems. However, the 

states, tribes, and territories shall ensure 

that the required NPDES information 

regarding their permitting, compliance 

monitoring, and enforcement activities 

and required NPDES information 

electronically submitted by NPDES 

permittees, facilities seeking coverage 

under NPDES general permits or 

submitting stormwater certifications or 

waivers, and industrial users located in 

cities without approved local 

pretreatment programs is then shared 

electronically with EPA in a timely, 

accurate, complete, and nationallyconsistent manner fully compatible with 

EPA’s national NPDES data system. 

(c) Under 10 U.S.C. 130e, the 

Secretary of Defense may exempt 

Department of Defense ‘‘critical 

infrastructure security information’’ 

from disclosure under FOIA. NPDES 

program data designated as critical 

infrastructure security information in 

response to a FOIA request will be 

withheld from the public. In the 

instance where an NPDES program data 

element for a particular facility is 

designated as critical infrastructure 

security information in response to a 

FOIA request, a separate filtered set of 

data without the redacted information 

will be shared with the public; however, 

all NPDES program data will continue 

to be provided to EPA and the 

authorized state, tribe, or territorial 

NPDES program. 

§ 127.2 Definitions. 

(a) The definitions in 40 CFR parts 

122, 403, 501 and 503 apply to all 

subparts of this part. 

(b) Initial recipient of electronic 

NPDES information from NPDESregulated facilities (initial recipient) 

means the entity (EPA or the state, tribe, 

or territory authorized by EPA to 

implement the NPDES program) that is 

the designated entity for receiving 

electronic NPDES data. Section 127.27 

outlines the process for designating the 

initial recipient of electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

facilities. EPA shall become the initial 

recipient of electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

facilities if the state, tribe, or territory 

does not collect the data required in 

Appendix A to this part and does not 

consistently maintain timely, accurate, 

complete, and consistent data transfers 

in compliance with 40 CFR parts 3 and 

127. Timely means that the authorized 

state, tribe, or territory submits these 

data transfers (see the data elements in 

Appendix A to this part) to EPA within 

30 days of when the authorized program 

completed the activity or received a 

report submitted by a regulated entity. 

For example, the data regarding a state 

inspection of an NPDES-regulated entity 

that is completed on October 15th shall 

be submitted automatically to EPA no 

later than November 14th of that same 

year (e.g., 30 days after October 15th). 

(c) NPDES data group means the 

group of related data elements identified 

in Table 1 in Appendix A to this part. 

These NPDES data groups have similar 

regulatory reporting requirements and 

have similar data sources. 

(d) Regulatory authority means EPA 

or the state, tribe, or territory that EPA 

has authorized to administer all or part 

of the NPDES program; identifying the 

relevant regulatory authority must be 

done for each NPDES subprogram (e.g., 

NPDES core program, federal facilities, 

general permits, pretreatment, and 

biosolids). 

Subpart B—Electronic Reporting of 

NPDES Information From NPDESRegulated Facilities 

§ 127.11 Types of data to be reported 

electronically by NPDES permittees, 

facilities seeking coverage under NPDES 

general permits or submitting stormwater 

certifications or waivers, and industrial 

users located in cities without approved 

local pretreatment programs. 

(a) NPDES-regulated facilities shall 

electronically submit information for 

these NPDES reports (if such reporting 

requirements are applicable): 

(1) Discharge Monitoring Report [40 

CFR 122.41(l)(4)]; 

(2) Biosolids Annual Program Report 

[40 CFR part 503]; 

(3) Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operation (CAFO) Annual Program 

Report [40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)]; 

(4) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

System (MS4) Program Report [40 CFR 

122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c)]; 

(5) Pretreatment Program Annual 

Report [40 CFR 403.12(i)]; and 

(6) Sewer Overflow and Bypass 

Incident Event Report [40 CFR 

122.41(l)(6) and (7)]. 

(b) Facilities seeking coverage under 

an NPDES general permit, or indicating 

that such general permit coverage is not 

needed under existing regulations, shall 

electronically submit information for 

these NPDES notices, certifications, and 

waivers (if such reporting requirements 

are applicable): 

(1) Notice of intent (NOI) to discharge 

by facilities seeking coverage under a 

general NPDES permit (rather than an 

individually-issued NPDES permit), as 

described in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2); 

(2) Notice of termination (NOT), as 

described in 40 CFR 122.64; 

(3) No exposure certification (NEC), as 

described in 40 CFR 122.26(g)(1)(iii); 

and 

(4) Low erosivity waiver (LEW) as 

described in Exhibit 1 to 40 CFR 

122.26(b)(15). 

(c) Industrial users located in cities 

without approved local pretreatment 

programs shall electronically submit 

this information (if such reporting 

requirements are applicable): 

(1) Self-monitoring pretreatmentrelated information, as described in 40 

CFR 403.12(e) and 403.12(h). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(d) Specific data elements that are 

required to be submitted electronically 

by NPDES-regulated facilities are 

identified in Appendix A to this part. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46080 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 127.12 Signature and certification 

standards for electronic reporting. 

The signatory and certification 

requirements identified in 40 CFR part 

3 and 40 CFR 122.22 and 403.12(l) shall 

also apply to the electronic submission 

of NPDES information by NPDES 

permittees, facilities seeking coverage 

under NPDES general permits or 

submitting stormwater certifications or 

waivers, and industrial users located in 

cities without approved local 

pretreatment programs, as required in 

accordance with this part and Appendix 

A of this part. 

§ 127.13 Requirements regarding quality 

assurance and quality control. 

(a) Primary responsibility for the 

quality of the information provided 

electronically in accordance with this 

part by the NPDES permittees, facilities 

seeking coverage under NPDES general 

permits or submitting stormwater 

certifications or waivers, and industrial 

users located in cities without approved 

local pretreatment programs rests with 

the owners and operators of those 

facilities. Facilities shall use quality 

assurance and quality control 

procedures to ensure the quality of the 

NPDES information submitted in 

accordance with this part. 

(b) NPDES information required 

under this part from the NPDES 

permittees, facilities seeking coverage 

under NPDES general permits or 

submitting stormwater certifications or 

waivers, and industrial users located in 

cities without approved local 

pretreatment programs shall be 

submitted in accordance with the data 

quality requirements specified in 

§ 127.14. 

§ 127.14 Requirements regarding 

timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and 

national consistency. 

After [THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 

CFR PART 127], each NPDES permittee, 

facility seeking coverage under NPDES 

general permits or submitting 

stormwater certifications or waivers, 

and industrial user located in a city 

without an approved local pretreatment 

program, if required to submit the types 

of information specified in § 127.11, 

shall comply with all requirements in 

this part and electronically submit all 

applicable NPDES information 

identified in Appendix A to this part in 

the following nationally-consistent 

manner: 

(a) Timely, in the electronic 

submission to the appropriate initial 

recipient, as defined in § 127.2(b), of 

NPDES information described in 

§ 127.11 and in Appendix A to this part, 

including but not limited to this 

information: 

(1) Measurement data (including 

information from discharge monitoring 

reports, self-monitoring data from 

industrial users located outside of 

approved local pretreatment programs, 

and similar self-monitoring data). The 

electronic submission of this data is due 

when that monitoring information is 

required to be reported in accordance 

with statutes, regulations, the NPDES 

permit, another control mechanism, or 

an enforcement action. 

(2) Program Report Data. The 

electronic submission of this data is due 

when that program report data is 

required to be reported in accordance 

with statutes, regulations, the NPDES 

permit, another control mechanism, or 

an enforcement action. 

(b) Accurate, means identical to the 

actual measurements taken; 

(c) Complete, means all required data 

elements (see Appendix A to this part) 

are electronically submitted to the data 

system of the initial recipient, as 

defined in § 127.2(b); and 

(d) Consistent, means all required 

data elements (see Appendix A to this 

part) are electronically submitted in 

compliance with EPA data standards 

and in a form (and measurement units) 

that is fully compatible with EPA’s 

national NPDES data system. 

§ 127.15 Temporary waivers from 

electronic reporting. 

(a) Temporary waivers from electronic 

reporting may be granted by the 

regulatory authority (EPA, or states, 

territories, and tribes that have received 

authorization to implement the NPDES 

program), in accordance with this 

section and § 127.24, to NPDES 

permittees, facilities seeking coverage 

under NPDES general permits or 

submitting stormwater certifications or 

waivers, and industrial users located in 

cities without approved local 

pretreatment programs. 

(1) Each temporary waiver shall not 

extend beyond one year. However, the 

reporting facility may re-apply for a 

temporary waiver. Temporary waivers 

from electronic reporting may be 

granted if the reporting facility is 

physically located in a geographic area 

(i.e., zip code or census tract) that is 

identified as under-served for 

broadband internet access in the most 

recent National Broadband Map from 

the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC). 

(2) To apply for such a temporary 

waiver, the appropriate facility 

representative, as identified in 

accordance with 40 CFR 122.22, for the 

NPDES permittee, facility seeking 

coverage under NPDES general permits 

or submitting stormwater certifications 

or waivers, or industrial user located in 

a city without an approved local 

pretreatment program, shall submit the 

following information to the regulatory 

authority: 

(i) Facility name; 

(ii) NPDES permit number (if 

applicable); 

(iii) Facility address; 

(iv) Name, address and contact 

information for the designated facility 

representative; 

(v) Brief written statement regarding 

the basis for claiming such a temporary 

waiver; and 

(vi) Copy of the relevant FCC 

information, from the most recent FCC 

report addressing such issues, 

identifying the zip code or census tract 

where that facility is located as being 

under-served for broadband internet 

access. 

(3) If the regulatory authority 

determines that a temporary waiver is 

merited under the condition identified 

in paragraph (1) of this section, the 

regulatory authority shall provide such 

notification to the appropriate EPA 

regional office and the affected NPDES 

permittee, facility seeking coverage 

under NPDES general permits or 

submitting stormwater certifications or 

waivers, or industrial user located in a 

city without an approved local 

pretreatment programs, in accordance 

with the requirements of § 127.24(a)(2). 

(4) These temporary waivers are only 

waivers from electronic reporting; the 

NPDES-regulated facilities receiving 

temporary waivers from electronic 

reporting are required to provide the 

required applicable information 

(identified in Appendix A to this part) 

in hard-copy format to the regulatory 

authority. 

(5) The temporary waiver may remain 

in effect until the situation meriting 

such a temporary waiver is resolved, but 

for no more than one year. At that time, 

if the situation meriting such temporary 

waiver is still not resolved and if the 

NPDES-regulated facility does not reapply for a temporary waiver, the 

NPDES permittee, facility seeking 

coverage under NPDES general permits 

or submitting stormwater certifications 

or waivers, or industrial user located in 

a city without an approved local 

pretreatment program, shall report the 

applicable required NPDES information, 

as identified in this part and in 

Appendix A to this part, electronically 

to the initial recipient through a thirdparty contractor or other available 

internet connections (e.g., public 

libraries). 

(b) [Reserved] 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46081 

§ 127.16 Time extensions for electronic 

reporting due to catastrophic 

circumstances. 

(a) One-time extensions to due dates 

for electronic reporting may be granted 

by regulatory authorities to NPDES 

permittees, facilities seeking coverage 

under NPDES general permits or 

submitting stormwater certifications or 

waivers, and industrial users located in 

cities without approved local 

pretreatment programs, for situations 

involving catastrophic circumstances 

beyond the control of the facilities, such 

as forces of nature (e.g., hurricanes, 

floods, earthquakes). This one-time 

extension for electronic reporting would 

allow written, rather than electronic, 

submission of information, if warranted 

by the incident. 

(1) To apply for this one-time 

extension, the appropriate facility 

representative, as identified in 

accordance with 40 CFR 122.22, for the 

NPDES permittee, facility seeking 

coverage under NPDES general permits 

or submitting stormwater certifications 

or waivers, or industrial user located in 

a city without an approved local 

pretreatment program shall submit the 

following information toregulatory 

authority: 

(i) Facility name; 

(ii) NPDES permit number; 

(iii) Facility address; 

(iv) Name, address and contact 

information for the designated facility 

representative; 

(v) Brief written statement regarding 

the basis for claiming such a one-time 

extension; and 

(vi) Indication when the required 

written information will be provided to 

the regulatory authority. 

(2) If the regulatory authority 

determines that a one-time extension is 

merited in accordance with this section, 

the regulatory authority shall provide 

notification to the appropriate EPA 

regional office and to the affected 

NPDES permittee, facility seeking 

coverage under NPDES general permits 

or submitting stormwater certifications 

or waivers, or industrial user located in 

a city without an approved local 

pretreatment program, in accordance 

with the requirements of § 127.24(a)(3). 

(3) The one-time extension may 

remain in effect until the situation 

meriting such a one-time extension is 

resolved (i.e., effects of the incident 

meriting the one-time extension no 

longer exist), but for no more than one 

year after the situation that merited the 

one-time extension arose. At that time, 

if the situation has not been resolved, 

the NPDES permittee, facility seeking 

coverage under NPDES general permits 

or submitting stormwater certifications 

or waivers, or industrial user located in 

a city without an approved local 

pretreatment program shall report the 

applicable required NPDES information, 

as identified in this part and in 

Appendix A to this part, electronically 

to theinitial recipient, through a thirdparty contractor or other available 

electronic connections (e.g., internet 

connection in public libraries). 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 127.17 Implementation plan and effective 

date. 

(a) The effective date for this section 

shall be [60 DAYS AFTER THE 

PROMULGATION DATE FOR 40 CFR 

PART 127]. 

(b) NPDES-regulated facilities, with 

the exception of those covered by any 

temporary waiver under § 127.15 or any 

one-time extension under § 127.16, must 

electronically submit to the designated 

initial recipient all information covered 

by this part in accordance with 40 CFR 

parts 3 and 122, and all requirements of 

this part, after the following dates: 

(1) Discharge monitoring report 

information (if required), as required in 

40 CFR 122.41(l)(4), shall be provided 

electronically to the initial recipient, as 

identified in § 127.27, and as defined in 

§ 127.2(b), after [ONE YEAR AFTER 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 

PART 127]. 

(2) Notices of intent (if required), as 

described in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2), for 

coverage under EPA-issued general 

permits, notices of termination, no 

exposure certifications, and low 

erosivity waivers shall be provided 

electronically to the initial recipient, as 

identified in § 127.27, and as defined in 

§ 127.2(b), after [ONE YEAR AFTER 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 

PART 127]. 

(3) Notices of intent (if required), as 

described in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2), for 

concentrated animal feeding operations 

for coverage under general permits shall 

be provided electronically to the initial 

recipient, as identified in § 127.27, and 

as defined in § 127.2(b), after [TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127]. 

(4) Biosolids annual reports (as 

described in 40 CFR part 503), 

concentrated animal feeding operation 

annual reports (as described in 40 CFR 

122.42(e)(4)), municipal separate storm 

sewer system (MS4) program reports (as 

described in 40 CFR 122.34(g)(3) and 

122.42(c)), pretreatment-related selfmonitoring reports (if required) from 

industrial users located in cities without 

approved local pretreatment programs 

(as required in 40 CFR 403.12(e) and 

403.12(h)), pretreatment program annual 

reports (as described in 40 CFR 

403.12(i)), and sewer overflow and 

bypass incident event reports (as 

described in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)) 

shall be provided electronically to the 

initial recipient, as identified in 

§ 127.27, and as defined in § 127.2(b), 

after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 

127]. 

(5) Notices of intent (if required), as 

described in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2), for 

coverage under general permits not 

described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of 

this section shall be provided 

electronically to the initial recipient, as 

identified in § 127.27, and as defined in 

§ 127.2(b), after [TWO YEARS AFTER 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 

PART 127]. 

(c) If the applicable NPDES permit 

requires electronic reporting of the 

reports identified in paragraph (b) of 

this section sooner than the dates 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, then the NPDES-regulated 

facility is required to provide that 

information electronically to the 

regulatory authority in accordance with 

the due date(s) in the permit. 

(d) If the regulatory authority has 

granted a facility or group of facilities 

temporary waivers or one-time 

extensions from electronic reporting 

under §§ 127.15 or 127.16, the facility or 

facilities shall submit in hard-copy 

format, by the applicable due dates, to 

the regulatory authority, all of the 

required information applicable to that 

facility as identified in § 127.11 and in 

Appendix A to this part, in accordance 

with all requirements of this part, 

including the requirements of §§ 127.22 

and 127.23. Upon the expiration date of 

a temporary waiver, unless the NPDESregulated facility re-applies for and is 

approved for another temporary waiver, 

the NPDES-regulated facility shall be 

required to submit the applicable 

required information (as identified in 

§ 127.11 and in Appendix A to this part) 

electronically to the initial recipient, as 

defined in § 127.2(b), for that 

information. 

Subpart C—Responsibilities of EPA 

and States, Tribes, and Territories 

Authorized To Implement the NPDES 

Program 

§ 127.21 Types of data to be reported 

electronically to EPA by states, tribes, and 

territories. 

(a) States, tribes, and territories that 

have received authorization from EPA to 

implement the NPDES program shall 

report the following NPDES information 

(as specified in Appendix A to this part) 

to EPA electronically: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46082 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(1) facility and permit information for 

NPDES individual permits; 

(2) permit information associated with 

NPDES general permits (including 

information specific to subprograms [if 

applicable] or to thermal variances [if 

applicable], and information regarding 

cooling water intakes for discharges of 

2 million gallons per day or more [if 

applicable]); 

(3) compliance monitoring and 

inspection activities; 

(4) compliance determination 

information; 

(5) enforcement action information; 

and 

(6) information provided 

electronically or otherwise (e.g., from 

facilities granted temporary waivers 

from electronic reporting) by the 

NPDES-regulated facility to the 

authorized NPDES program rather than 

to EPA. 

(b) If the authorized state, tribe, or 

territory NPDES program is the initial 

recipient of electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

facilities (see § 127.2(b)), the authorized 

NPDES program shall transfer these 

NPDES program data to EPA within 30 

days of the completed activity or within 

30 days of the receipt of a report from 

a regulated entity. Specific data 

elements that are required to be 

submitted electronically to EPA by the 

states, tribes, or territories that have 

received authorization from EPA to 

implement the NPDES program are 

identified in Appendix A to this part. 

§ 127.22 Requirements regarding quality 

assurance and quality control. 

(a) Primary responsibility for the 

quality of the information provided 

electronically to EPA in accordance 

with this part by the regulatory 

authorities rests with those government 

entities. Therefore, the regulatory 

authorities shall utilize quality 

assurance and quality control 

procedures to ensure the quality of the 

NPDES information submitted to EPA in 

accordance with this part. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 127.23 Requirements regarding 

timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and 

national consistency. 

(a) After [THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

40 CFR PART 127], the Director of each 

state, tribe, and territory that has been 

authorized by EPA to implement the 

NPDES program shall ensure that EPA 

is electronically provided with the 

NPDES information identified in 

Appendix A to this part, in a nationally 

consistent manner which is: 

(1) Timely, in that the authorized 

state, tribe, or territory electronically 

provides the required data (as specified 

in Appendix A to this part) to EPA 

within 30 days of the completed activity 

or within 30 days of receipt of a report 

from a regulated entity. For example, 

the data regarding a state inspection of 

an NPDES-regulated entity that is 

completed on October 15th shall be 

submitted automatically to EPA no later 

than November 14th of that same year 

(e.g., 30 days after October 15th). 

(2) Accurate, in that 95% or more of 

the required data available in EPA’s data 

system for NPDES information are 

identical to that reported on the permit 

or other source document for that 

information; 

(3) Complete, in that 95% or more of 

submissions required for each NPDES 

data group are available in EPA’s data 

system for NPDES information; and 

(4) Consistent, in that data 

electronically submitted by states, 

tribes, and territories to EPA, by direct 

entry of information, data transfers from 

one data system to another, or some 

combination thereof, into EPA’s 

designated NPDES national data system 

is in compliance with EPA’s data 

standards and in a form and 

measurement units which are fully 

compatible with such data system. 

(b) An authorized program shall 

consistently maintain the requirements 

identified in paragraph (a) of this 

section in order to be the initial 

recipient, as defined in § 127.2(b). If the 

authorized program does not maintain 

these requirements, EPA shall become 

the initial recipient. 

§ 127.24 Responsibilities regarding review 

of temporary waiver requests and one-time 

extension requests from NPDES-regulated 

facilities. 

(a) Under § 127.15, NPDES permittees, 

facilities seeking coverage under NPDES 

general permits or submitting 

stormwater certifications or waivers, 

and industrial users located in cities 

without approved local pretreatment 

programs, may submit requests for 

temporary waivers or one-time 

extensions from electronic reporting. 

The responsibilities regarding the 

review and approval of these requests 

are: 

(1) For temporary waivers due to the 

lack of broadband access in certain 

remote areas, the regulatory authority 

shall ensure that the temporary waiver 

request meets the requirements of 

§ 127.15 and shall notify the requestor 

and the appropriate EPA regional office 

within 15 business days of the request 

as to whether the temporary waiver will 

be granted. 

(2) For one-time extensions associated 

with catastrophic circumstances, the 

regulatory authority shall ensure that 

the waiver request meets the 

requirements of § 127.15, and shall 

notify the requestor and the appropriate 

EPA regional office within 15 business 

days of the request as to whether the 

temporary waiver will be granted. 

(b) The regulatory authority may 

choose not to allow any temporary 

waivers or one-time extensions from 

electronic reporting. This would 

preclude the need to develop and 

implement standard procedures to 

review requests for temporary waivers 

or one-time extensions. 

(c) EPA shall have the authority to 

review and disapprove decisions by the 

regulatory authority regarding the 

granting of temporary waivers from 

electronic reporting and one-time 

extensions of electronic reporting, 

ensuring that approvals of these 

requests are in compliance with 

§§ 127.15, 127.16, and this section. 

§ 127.25 Time for states, tribes, and 

territories to revise existing programs. 

A state, tribe, or territory that has 

received authorization from EPA to 

implement the NPDES program is 

required to make program revisions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 123.62(e). No 

additional time extensions shall be 

available from EPA for state, tribe, or 

territory program revisions to achieve 

compliance with this rule. 

§ 127.26 Implementation plan and effective 

date. 

(a) The effective date for this section 

shall be [90 DAYS AFTER THE 

PROMULGATION DATE FOR 40 CFR 

PART 127]. 

(b) Authorized state, tribe, and 

territory NPDES programs shall follow 

the procedure in § 127.27 for 

determining the initial recipient of 

electronic NPDES information from 

NPDES-regulated facilities (see 

§ 127.2(b)). 

(c) States, tribes, and territories shall 

electronically submit all applicable 

required data elements associated with 

their permitting, compliance 

monitoring, compliance determinations, 

and enforcement activities (see 

Appendix A to this part) to EPA by [9 

MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127] and 

maintain updates thereafter. These state, 

tribe, and territory data transmissions to 

EPA shall be done in accordance with 

all requirements of this part, including 

the requirements of §§ 127.22 and 

127.23. 

(d) For the required NPDES 

information, as identified in § 127.11 

and in Appendix A to this part, that an 

NPDES authorized state, tribe, or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46083 

territory receives from an NPDESregulated facility, this information shall 

be electronically provided to EPA 

within 30 days after receipt from the 

NPDES-regulated facility. 

(e) Authorized states, tribes, or 

territories that can implement 40 CFR 

part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and this part 

without amending or enacting a statute 

shall do so by [12 MONTHS AFTER 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 

PART 127]. NPDES-authorized states, 

tribes, and territories that must amend 

or enact a statute in order to change 

their NPDES programs to implement 40 

CFR part 3 (CROMERR) and this part 

shall do so by [24 MONTHS AFTER 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 

PART 127]. See 40 CFR 123.62(e). This 

includes updates to state NPDES data 

systems. All new permits issued or 

existing permits re-issued after the 

authorized state, territory, or tribe 

incorporates federal electronic reporting 

requirements (40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 

122.22, and this part) into its authorized 

program shall contain a permit 

condition requiring compliance with the 

electronic reporting requirements in 40 

CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and this 

part. NPDES-regulated facilities which 

have the federal electronic reporting 

requirements (40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 

122.22, and this part) in their permits 

shall start (or continue) electronic 

reporting to the initial recipient (as 

defined in § 127.27). 

§ 127.27 Procedure for Determining Initial 

Recipient of Electronic NPDES Information. 

(a) A state, tribe, or territory that has 

received authorization from EPA to 

implement the NPDES program before 

the effective date of this rule may 

request to be the initial recipient of 

electronic NPDES information from 

NPDES-regulated facilities for specific 

NPDES data groups by submitting a 

request to EPA. For states, tribes, and 

territories with NPDES authorization 

prior to the effective date of the rule, the 

Director shall submit this request prior 

to [120 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE 

DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 127]. This 

request shall identify the specific 

NPDES data groups for which the state, 

tribe, or territory will be the initial 

recipient of electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

entities, a description of how its data 

system will be compliant with 40 CFR 

parts 3 and 127, and the date or dates 

when the state, tribe, or territory will be 

ready to accept NPDES information 

from NPDES-regulated facilities in a 

manner compliant with 40 CFR parts 3 

and 127. 

(b) A state, tribe, or territory that seeks 

authorization to implement an NPDES 

program after [THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127] shall identify in 

its NPDES program application if it is 

requesting to be the initial recipient of 

electronic NPDES information from 

NPDES-regulated facilities for specific 

NPDES data groups. See 40 CFR 

123.22(g) and Appendix A to this part. 

(c) By [210 DAYS AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 

127], EPA shall publish on its Web site 

and in the Federal Register a listing of 

the initial recipients for electronic 

NPDES information from NPDESregulated facilities by state, tribe, and 

territory and by NPDES data group. This 

listing shall identify for NPDESregulated facilities the initial recipient 

of their NPDES electronic data 

submissions and the due date for these 

NPDES electronic data submissions. 

EPA shall update this listing on its Web 

site and in the Federal Register if a 

state, tribe, or territory gains 

authorization status to implement an 

NPDES program and is also approved by 

EPA to be the initial recipient of NPDES 

electronic data submissions for that 

program. 

(d) Failure to maintain all the 

requirements in 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 

to be an initial recipient of electronic 

NPDES information from NPDESregulated facilities shall prohibit the 

state, territory, or tribe from being the 

initial recipient of electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

entities. The following is the process for 

these determinations: 

(1) EPA shall make a preliminary 

determination identifying if an 

authorized state, tribe, or territory is not 

complying with the requirements in 40 

CFR parts 3 and 127 to be an initial 

recipient of electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

facilities. EPA shall provide to the 

Director of the authorized NPDES 

program the rationale for any such 

preliminary determination and options 

for correcting these deficiencies. Within 

60 days of EPA’s preliminary 

determination, the authorized state, 

tribe, or territory shall fully correct all 

deficiencies identified by EPA and 

notify EPA that such corrections have 

been completed. No response from the 

Director of the authorized NPDES 

program shall indicate that the state, 

territory, or tribe agrees to be removed 

as the initial recipient for that NPDES 

data group of electronic NPDES 

information. Within 90 days of the 

EPA’s preliminary determination, EPA 

shall provide to the Director of the 

authorized NPDES program a final 

determination whether the state, tribe, 

or territory is not complying with the 

requirements in 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 

to be an initial recipient of electronic 

NPDES information from NPDESregulated facilities. 

(2) EPA shall become the initial 

recipient of electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

facilities if the state, tribe, or territory 

does not consistently maintain data 

transfers in compliance with 40 CFR 

parts 3 and 127. 

(3) EPA shall update the initial 

recipient listing described in § 127.27(c) 

and publish this listing on its Web site 

and in the Federal Register when it 

provides a final determination described 

in paragraph (d)(1) of this section to the 

Director of the authorized NPDES 

program. 

(4) Following any determination of 

noncompliance made in accordance 

with paragraph (d)(1) of this section, 

EPA will work with the Director of the 

authorized NPDES program to remediate 

all issues identified by EPA that prevent 

the authorized NPDES program from 

being the initial recipient. When all 

issues identified by EPA are resolved 

and the authorized state, tribe, or 

territory is again the initial recipient, 

EPA shall update the initial recipient 

listing in § 127.27(c) and publish this 

listing on its Web site and in the 

Federal Register. 

Appendix A to Part 127 

The following two tables identify the 

minimum set of data that states, tribes, 

territories, and NPDES-regulated entities 

must electronically report to the NPDES 

authorized program or EPA [see § 127.2(b)]. 

Use of these two tables ensures that there is 

consistent and complete reporting 

nationwide, and to expedite the collection 

and processing of the data, thereby making it 

more accurate and timely. Taken together, 

these data standardizations and the 

corresponding electronic reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR parts 3, 122, 123, 

127, 403, and 503 are designed to save the 

NPDES authorized programs considerable 

resources, make reporting easier for NPDESregulated entities, streamline permit 

renewals (as permit writers typically review 

previous noncompliance events during 

permit renewal), ensure full exchange of 

NPDES general permit data between states 

and EPA to the public, improve better 

environmental decision-making, and to 

protect human health and the environment. 

Instructions: Table 1 provides the list of 

data sources and minimum submission 

frequencies for the nine different NPDES 

Data Groups. Table 2 provides the data that 

must be electronically reported for each of 

these NPDES Data Groups. The use of each 

data element is determined by identifying the 

number(s) in the column labeled ‘‘NPDES 

Data Group Number’’ in Table 2 and finding 

the corresponding ‘‘NPDES Data Group 

Number’’ in Table 1. For example, a value of 

‘‘1’’ in Table 2 means that this data element 

is required in the transmission of data from 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46084 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the NPDES program to EPA (Core NPDES 

Permitting, Compliance, and Enforcement 

Data). Likewise, a value of ‘‘1 through 9’’ 

means that this data element is required in 

all nine NPDES data groups. 

TABLE 1—DATA SOURCES AND REGULATORY CITATIONS

NPDES Data 

group No. † NPDES Data group Program area Data provider Minimum frequency †† 

1 ............................. Core NPDES Permitting, Compliance, 

and Enforcement Data [40 CFR 

parts 122, 123, 403, 503].

All NPDES Program Sectors.Authorized NPDES 

Program.

Quarterly (four times annually) updates to EPA (although the frequency associated with any particular permittee may be considerably less [e.g., once every five 

years for most permit information]. 

2 ............................. General Permit Reports [Notice of Intent to discharge (NOI); Notice of 

Termination (NOT); No Exposure 

Certifications (NECs); Low Erosivity 

Waivers (LEWs)] [40 CFR 122.28 

and 124.5].

All NPDES Program Sectors.NPDES Permittee Prior to Initial Permit Coverage, Consideration for Permit Exclusion, and 

Permit Coverage Termination. 

3 ............................. Discharge Monitoring Report [40 CFR 

122.41(l)(4)].

All NPDES Program Sectors.NPDES Permittee At least annual, although a more frequent submission required in the 

permit would apply. 

4 ............................. Biosolids Annual Program Report [40 

CFR part 503].

Biosolids ............... NPDES Regulated 

Biosolids Generator and Handler.

Annual. 

5 ............................. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Annual Program Reports [40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)].CAFO .................... CAFO .................... Annual. 

6 ............................. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Report [40 

CFR 122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c)].

MS4 ...................... NPDES Permittee Year two and year four of permit coverage (Small MS4), Annual (Medium and Large MS4). 

7 ............................. Pretreatment Program Annual Report 

[40 CFR 403.12(i)].

Pretreatment ......... Pretreatment Control Authority.Annual. 

8 ............................. Significant Industrial User Compliance 

Reports in Municipalities Without 

Approved Pretreatment Programs 

[40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)].

Pretreatment ......... Significant Industrial User.Bi-Annual. 

9 ............................. Sewer Overflow Event Reports [40 

CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)].

Sewer Overflows .. NPDES Permittee Within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the sewer 

overflow event (health or environment endangerment), Monitoring report frequency specific in permit (all 

other sewer overflow events). 

† Note: Use the ‘‘NPDES Data Group Number’’ in this table and the ‘‘NPDESData Group Number’’ column in Table 2 to identify the required 

data elements for each NPDES Data Group. 

†† Note: The applicable reporting frequency is specified in the NPDES permit or control mechanism, which may be more frequent than the 

minimum frequency specified in Table 1. 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Basic Facility Information 

Facility Type of Ownership The code/description identifying the type of facility 

(e.g., state government, municipal or water district, 

Federal facility, tribal facility). This data element is 

used by the EPA data system to populate the Permit Facility Type data element (i.e., POTW, Private, 

Non-POTW, and Federal).

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Site Name ............... The name of the facility ................................................. 122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9. 

Facility Site Address ........... The address of the physical facility location ................. 122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9. 

Facility Site City .................. The name of the city, town, village, or other locality, 

when identifiable, within whose boundaries (the majority of) the facility site is located. This is not always the same as the city used for USPS mail delivery.

122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9. 

Facility Site State ................ The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) abbreviation that represents the state or state equivalent for the U.S. 

where the facility is located.

122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46085 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Facility Site Zip Code .......... The combination of the 5-digit Zone Improvement Plan 

(ZIP) code and the 4-digit extension code (if available) that represents the geographic segment that is 

a sub unit of the ZIP Code assigned by the U.S. 

Postal Service to a geographic location where the 

facility is located.

122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9. 

Facility Site Tribal Land Indicator.The Bureau of Indian Affairs code for every unit of 

land trust allotment (‘‘tribal land’’) within Indian 

Country. This code will identify whether the facility is 

on tribal land and the name of the American Indian 

tribe or Alaskan Native entity (if applicable).

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Site Longitude ......... The measure of the angular distance on a meridian 

east or west of the prime meridian for the facility. 

Entered in either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees 

Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal degrees and in 

accordance with Environmental Data Standards 

Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9. 

Facility Site Latitude ............ The measure of the angular distance on a meridian 

north or south of the equator for the facility. Entered 

in either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes 

Seconds; stored in decimal degrees and in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, 

Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: 

EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9. 

Facility Site Source Map 

Scale Number.

The number that represents the proportional distance 

on the ground for one unit of measure on the map 

or photo for the facility. These data are provided in 

accordance with Environmental Data Standards 

Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial Data Policy— 

CIO Policy Transmittal 05–002.

1 through 9. 

Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure.The measure of the accuracy (in meters) of the facility’s latitude and longitude coordinates. These data 

are provided in accordance with Environmental Data 

Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial Data Policy— 

CIO Policy Transmittal 05–002/CWA 

301(d), 304(b), and 304(m).

1 through 9. 

Facility Site Horizontal Collection Method.The text that describes the method used to determine 

the latitude and longitude coordinates for the facility. 

These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, 

January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial Data Policy— 

CIO Policy Transmittal 05–002.

1 through 9. 

Facility Site Horizontal Reference Datum.The code/description that represents the reference 

datum used in determining latitude and longitude 

coordinates for the facility. These data are provided 

in accordance with Environmental Data Standards 

Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial Data Policy— 

CIO Policy Transmittal 05–002.

1 through 9. 

Facility Site Reference Point The code/description for the place for which geographic coordinates were established. These data 

are provided in accordance with Environmental Data 

Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial Data Policy— 

CIO Policy Transmittal 05–002.

1 through 9. 

Facility Individual Affiliation 

Type Code.

The way that the contact or address is affiliated with 

the facility (e.g., ‘‘Owner,’’ ‘‘Operator,’’ or ‘‘Main 

Contact’’). This is a unique code that identifies the 

nature of the individual’s affiliation to the facility.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Individual First 

Name.

The given name of an individual affiliated with this facility.122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9. 

Facility Individual Last 

Name.

The surname of an individual affiliated with this facility. 122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9. 

Facility Individual Title ......... The title held by an individual in an organization affiliated with this facility.122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Individual Organization.The legal, formal name of an organization that is affiliated with the individual affiliated with this facility.122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Individual Street Address.The physical address of the individual affiliated with 

this facility.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Individual City ......... The name of the city, town, village, or other locality for 

the individual affiliated with this facility.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46086 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Facility Individual State ....... The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) abbreviation that represents the state or state equivalent for the U.S. for 

the individual affiliated with this facility.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Individual Zip Code The combination of the 5-digit Zone Improvement Plan 

(ZIP) code and the 4-digit extension code (if available) that represents the geographic segment that is 

a sub unit of the ZIP Code assigned by the U.S. 

Postal Service to a geographic location for the individual affiliated with this facility.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Individual E-Mail Address.The e-mail address of the designated individual affiliated with this facility.122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Organization Formal 

Name.

The legal, formal name of an organization that is affiliated with the facility.122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Organization Street 

Address.

The physical address of the organization affiliated with 

the facility.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Organization City .... The name of the city of the organization that is affiliated with the facility.122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Organization State .. The U.S. Postal Service abbreviation that represents 

the state or state equivalent for the organization affiliated with the facility.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Facility Organization Zip 

Code.

The combination of the 5-digit Zone Improvement Plan 

(ZIP) code and the 4-digit extension code (if available) that represents the geographic segment that is 

a sub unit of the ZIP Code assigned by the U.S. 

Postal Service to a geographic location for the organization affiliated with the facility.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Basic Permit Information 

NPDES ID ........................... This is the unique NPDES permit number .................... CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) ........... 1 through 9. 

Master General Permit 

Number.

The unique identifier of the master general permit, 

which is linked to a General Permit Covered Facility.

CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) ........... 1 through 9. 

Permit Type ......................... The unique code/description identifying the type of 

permit.

122.2 ........................................................ 1 through 9. 

Permit Issue Date ............... This is the date the permit was issued. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where 

CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month 

and DD is the day.

122.46/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9. 

Permit Effective Date .......... This is the date on which the permit is effective. The 

date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is 

the month and DD is the day.

122.46 ...................................................... 1. 

Permit Modification/Amendment Date.This is the date on which the permit was modified or 

amended. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY 

is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

122.62, 122.63 ........................................ 1,2. 

Permit Expiration Date ........ This is the date the permit will expire. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where 

CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month 

and DD is the day.

122.46/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Permit Termination Date ..... This is the date the permit was terminated. The date 

data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format 

where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the 

month and DD is the day.

122.64 ...................................................... 1. 

Permit Major/Minor Status 

Indicator.

The flag to indicate if the permit is a major or minor. 

Initially system generated (defaults to Minor) and 

updatable only by EPA OECA Headquarters.

122.2/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Permit Major/Minor Status 

Start Date.

The date that the Permit became its current Major/ 

Minor status. Initially system-generated to match effective date and updatable only by EPA OECA 

Headquarters. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY 

is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

122.2 ........................................................ 1. 

Permit Application Total Design Flow.This is the flow that a permitted facility was designed 

to accommodate, in millions of gallons per day 

(MGD), as stated on its NPDES application.

122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9. 

Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow.This is the actual average flow that a permitted facility 

will likely accommodate, in MGD, as stated on its 

NPDES application.

122.21,122.41 .......................................... 1 through 9. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46087 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Complete Permit Application/NOI Received Date.This is the date on which the complete application for 

a NPDES permit was received or a complete Notice 

of Intent (NOI) for coverage under a master general 

permit was received. The date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is 

the day.

122.21 ...................................................... 1. 

Permit Application/NOI Received Date.This is the date on which the application for a NPDES 

permit was received or a Notice of Intent (NOI) for 

coverage under a master general permit was received. The date data must be provided in CCYY– 

MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the 

year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Permit Status ....................... This is a code/description that indicates whether the 

permit is Effective, Expired, Administratively Continued, Pending, Not Needed, Retired, or Terminated.

122.64, 122.46 ........................................ 1. 

Master General Permit Industrial Category.This code/description identifies the industrial category 

covered by the master general permit. This field is 

system-required for master general permits only.

CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) ........... 1. 

Permit Issuing Organization 

Type.

This is the type of organization issuing or granting a 

permit.

122.46 ...................................................... 1. 

DMR Non-Receipt ............... Turns non-receipt tracking for discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ for non-major permits 

(a.k.a. ‘‘minors’’). This field is always ‘‘on’’ for major 

permits. This field is initially set to ‘‘on’’.

123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Reportable Noncompliance 

Tracking.

Turns Reportable Noncompliance (RNC) tracking ‘‘on’’ 

or ‘‘off’’ for non-major permits (a.k.a. ‘‘minors’’). This 

field is always ‘‘on’’ for major permits. This field is 

initially set to ‘‘on’’.

123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines.The applicable effluent limitations guidelines (e.g., 

BPT, BCT, BAT) and new source performance 

standards (NSPS) for the NPDES permit.

122.44/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Permit Compliance Tracking 

Status.

This is a code/description that indicates whether the 

permit is currently ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ for compliance 

tracking purposes. Initially system-generated to 

match effective date.

123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Permit Compliance Tracking 

Status Start Date.

This is the date on which the permit’s ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ period for compliance tracking status began. Initially 

system-generated to match effective date. The date 

data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format 

where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the 

month and DD is the day.

123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

RNC Status Quarter ............ The quarter of the permit RNC status .......................... 123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

RNC Status Year ................ The year of the permit RNC status ............................... 123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

RNC Status (Manual) .......... The status of reportable noncompliance as it was entered by the user before the official Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR) or NPDES Noncompliance Report (NNCR) for the RNC quarter for the 

permit.

123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Associated NPDES ID Numbers.If applicable, the unique identifier for a NPDES Permit 

that is related to another NPDES Permit or other 

NPDES ID number. For example, this data element 

could be used to identify the receiving POTW’s permit number for an industrial user, the recipient 

POTW’s permit number for a satellite collection system, municipalities covered under the same MS4 

permit, etc.

CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) ........... 1 through 9. 

SIC Codes ........................... The four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 

code/description that represents the economic activity of the permitted facility.

122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9. 

NAICS Codes ...................... The six-digit North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code/description that represents 

the economic activity of the permitted facility.

Agency Data Standard to replace SIC 

Codes/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 

304(m).

1 through 9. 

Permittee Street Address .... The address that describes the physical location of the 

permit holder.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Permittee Organization Formal Name.The legal, formal name of the organization that holds 

the permit.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46088 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Permittee Zip Code ............. The combination of the 5-digit Zone Improvement Plan 

(ZIP) code and the 4-digit extension code (if available) that represents the geographic segment that is 

a sub unit of the ZIP Code assigned by the U.S. 

Postal Service to a geographic location for the permit holder.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Permittee City ...................... The name of the city, town, or village where the mail 

is delivered for the permit holder.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Permittee State ................... The U.S. Postal Service abbreviation that represents 

the state or state equivalent for the U.S. for the permit holder.

122.21 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Narrative Condition and Permit Schedules 

Description .......................... The unique code/description that identifies the type of 

narrative condition.

122.47 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Narrative Condition Number This identifies a narrative condition and its elements 

uniquely for a permit.

122.47 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Schedule Date ..................... The date on which a schedule event is due to be completed and against which compliance will be measured. The date data must be provided in CCYY– 

MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the 

year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

122.47 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Actual Date .......................... The date on which the permittee achieved the schedule event. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY 

is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

122.47 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Report Received Date ......... The date on which the regulatory authority receives a 

report (generally a letter) from the permittee indicating that a Schedule Event was completed (e.g., 

Start Construction) or the required report was enclosed. The date data must be provided in CCYY– 

MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the 

year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

122.47 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Event ................................... The code/description indicating the particular event 

with which the permittee is scheduled to comply.

122.47 ...................................................... 1 through 9. 

Permitted Feature 

Application Design Flow 

(MGD).

The flow that a permitted feature was designed to accommodate, in MGD.122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Application Actual Average 

Flow (MGD).

The flow that a permitted feature actually had at the 

time of application, in MGD.

122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Permitted Feature ID ........... The identifier assigned for each location at which conditions are being applied.122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Type .................................... The code/description indicating the type of permitted 

feature (e.g. External Outfall, Sum, Intake Structure).

122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), 304(m), 

316(b).

1. 

Receiving Waterbody Name 

for Permitted Feature.

The name of the waterbody that is or will likely receive 

the discharge from each permitted feature.

122.21 ...................................................... 1. 

Permitted Feature Longitude The measure of the angular distance on a meridian 

east or west of the prime meridian for the permitted 

feature. Entered in either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal degrees 

and in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, 

Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Permitted Feature Latitude The measure of the angular distance on a meridian 

north or south of the equator for the permitted feature. Entered in either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal degrees 

and in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, 

Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

122.21/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Permitted Feature Source 

Map Scale Number.

The number that represents the proportional distance 

on the ground for one unit of measure on the map 

or photo for the permitted feature. These data are 

provided in accordance with Environmental Data 

Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial Data Policy— 

CIO Policy Transmittal 05–002.

1. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46089 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Permitted Feature Horizontal Accuracy Measure.The measure of the accuracy (in meters) of the permitted feature’s latitude and longitude coordinates. 

These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, 

January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial Data Policy— 

CIO Policy Transmittal 05–002/CWA 

301(d), 304(b), and 304(m).

1. 

Permitted Feature Horizontal Collection Method.The text that describes the method used to determine 

the latitude and longitude coordinates for the permitted feature. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, 

Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: 

EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial Data Policy— 

CIO Policy Transmittal 05–002.

1. 

Permitted Feature Horizontal Reference Datum.The code/description that represents the reference 

datum used in determining latitude and longitude 

coordinates for the permitted feature. These data 

are provided in accordance with Environmental Data 

Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial Data Policy— 

CIO Policy Transmittal 05–002.

1. 

Permitted Feature Reference Point.The code/description for the place for which geographic coordinates were established. These data 

are provided in accordance with Environmental Data 

Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial Data Policy— 

CIO Policy Transmittal 05–002.

1. 

Limit Set 

Limit Set Designator ............ The alphanumeric field that is used to designate a 

particular grouping of parameters within a limit set.

122.45/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Type .................................... The unique code/description identifying the type of 

limit set (i.e. Scheduled, Unscheduled).

122.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Default Months Limit Set 

Applies.

The default months that the limit set applies. Defaults 

to all 12 months.

122.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Initial Monitoring Date ......... The date on which monitoring starts for the first monitoring period for the limit set; this date will be blank 

for Unscheduled Limit Sets. The date data must be 

provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is 

the day.

122.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Initial DMR Due Date .......... The date that the first DMR for the limit set is due to 

the regulatory authority; this date will be blank for 

Unscheduled Limit Sets. The date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is 

the day.

122.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Number of Report Units ...... The number of months covered in each DMR monitoring period (e.g., monthly = 1, semi-annually = 6, 

quarterly = 3). For example, if the permittee was required to provide reports for each month, the number of report units would be one.

122.45/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Number of Submission 

Units.

The number of months between DMR submissions 

(e.g., monthly = 1, semi-annually = 6, quarterly = 3); 

this data element will be blank for Unscheduled 

Limit Sets. For example, if the permittee was required to submit monthly reports every quarter, the 

number of report units would be one (=monthly) and 

the number of submission units would be three 

(=three months of information in each submission).

122.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Status .................................. The status of the Limit Set (i.e., Active or Inactive); 

Limit Sets will not have violations generated when a 

Limit Set is Inactive unless an Enforcement Action 

Limit is present.

122 Subpart C ......................................... 1. 

Limit Set Status Start Date The date that the Limit Set Status started. The date 

data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format 

where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the 

month and DD is the day.

123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Limit 

Monitoring Location ............. The code/description of the monitoring location at 

which sampling should occur for a limit parameter.

122.45/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46090 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Season Number .................. Indicates the season of a limit and is used to enter different seasonal limits for the same parameter within 

a single limit start and end date.

122.45/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Start Date ............................ The date on which a limit starts being in effect for a 

particular parameter in a limit set. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where 

CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month 

and DD is the day.

122.45/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

End Date ............................. The date on which a limit stops being in effect for a 

particular parameter in a limit set. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where 

CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month 

and DD is the day.

122.45/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Change of Limit Status Indicator.The code/description that describes circumstances affecting limits, such as formal enforcement actions or 

permit modifications.

122 Subpart C ......................................... 1. 

Stay Type ............................ The unique identifier of the type of stay applied to a 

limit (e.g., X, Y, Z), which indicates whether the limits do not appear on the DMR at all, are treated as 

monitor only, or have a stay value in effect during 

the period of the stay.

122.45/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Stay Start Date .................... The date on which a limit stay begins. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where 

CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month 

and DD is the day.

124.19 ...................................................... 1. 

Stay End Date ..................... The date on which a limit stay is lifted. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where 

CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month 

and DD is the day.

124.19 ...................................................... 1. 

Reason for Stay .................. The text that represents the reason a stay was applied 

to a permit.

124.19 ...................................................... 1. 

Stay Limit Value .................. The numeric limit value imposed during the period of 

the stay for the limit; if entered, during the stay period, the system will use this limit value for calculating compliance, rather than the actual limit value 

that was stayed.

124.19 ...................................................... 1. 

Limit Type ............................ The code that indicates whether a limit is an enforceable, or alert limit (e.g., action level, benchmark) 

that does not receive effluent violations.

122.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Enforcement Action ID ........ The unique identifier for the Enforcement Action that 

imposed the Enforcement Action limit; this data element helps tie the limit record to the Final Order 

record in the database.

122.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Final Order ID ..................... The unique identifier for the Final Order that imposed 

the Enforcement Action limit; this data element ties 

the limit record to the Final Order record in the database.

122.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Modification Effective Date The effective date of the permit modification that created this limit. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY 

is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

122.62 ...................................................... 1. 

Modification Type ................ The type of permit modification that created this limit 

(e.g. major, minor, permit authorized change).

122.62 ...................................................... 1. 

Parameter ........................... The unique code/description identifying the parameter 

being limited and/or monitored.

122.41(j)/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 

304(m).

1. 

Months ................................ The months that the limit applies. Defaults to limit set 

months.

122.46/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1. 

Value Type .......................... The indication of the limit value type (e.g., Quantity 1, 

Concentration 2).

122.45(f)/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 

304(m).

1. 

Quantity Units/Concentration Units.The code/description representing the unit of measure 

applicable to quantity or concentration limits as entered by the user.

122.45(f)/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 

304(m).

1. 

Statistical Base Code .......... The code/description representing the unit of measure 

applicable to the limit and DMR values entered by 

the user (e.g., 30-day average, daily maximum) 

CHECK DATA STANDARD.

122.45(d), CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 

304(m).

1. 

Optional Monitoring Flag ..... The flag allowing users to indicate that monitoring is 

optional but not required (i.e., effluent violation generation will be suppressed for optional monitoring).

122.45 ...................................................... 1. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46091 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Qualifier ............................... The unique code identifying the limit value operator 

(e.g., <, =, >).

122.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Value ................................... The actual limit value number from the Permit or Enforcement Action Final Order.122.45, CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 

304(m).

1. 

Biosolids Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent 

Average Annual Dry Biosolids Production.The average annual amount of biosolids (in dry metric 

tons) produced by the permitted facility.

122.21(q) ................................................. 1,2. 

Average Annual Amount of 

Exceptional Quality (EQ) 

Product Distributed and 

Marketed.

The average annual amount (in dry metric tons) of Exceptional Quality (EQ) biosolids product distributed 

and marketed. This refers to biosolids that meet the 

ceiling concentrations in Table 1 of 40 CFR 503.13 

and the pollutant concentrations in Table 3 of 

§ 503.13; the Class A pathogen requirements in 

§ 503.32(a); and one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in § 503.33(b)(1) through (b)(8).

122.21(q)(8)(v) ......................................... 1,2. 

Average Annual Amount of 

Land Applied Biosolids.

The average annual amount (in dry metric tons) of 

biosolids land applied.

122.21(q) ................................................. 1,2. 

Average Annual Amount of 

Incinerated Biosolids.

The average annual amount (in dry metric tons) of 

biosolids incinerated.

122.21(q) ................................................. 1,2. 

Average Annual Amount of 

Biosolids Co-Disposed in 

MSW.

The average annual amount (in dry metric tons) of 

biosolids co-disposed in a municipal solids waste 

(MSW) landfill.

122.21(q) ................................................. 1,2. 

Average Annual Amount of 

Biosolids Surface Disposal.

The average annual amount (in dry metric tons) of 

biosolids used for surface disposal.

122.21(q) ................................................. 1,2. 

Average Annual Amount of 

Biosolids Otherwise Managed.

The average annual amount (in dry metric tons) of 

biosolids managed using methods not otherwise described. For example, if a POTW sends its biosolids 

to a regional composter or heat dryer, that tonnage 

would included in this data element.

122.21(q) ................................................. 1,2. 

Biosolids Management Facility Type.The unique code indicating whether the facility was 

issued a permit as a biosolids generator, processor, 

or end user disposal site.

122.21(q) ................................................. 1,2. 

Animal Feeding Operation Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent 

Facility CAFO Flag .............. A binary ‘‘yes/no’’ flag to indicate whether the facility is 

a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO).

122.23 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Facility Animal Types .......... The unique code/description that identifies the animal 

sector(s) at the facility.

122.23 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Facility Annual Average 

Total Number.

The annual average total number of each type of livestock at the facility.122.23 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Facility Annual Average 

Total Number (Unhoused 

Confinement).

The annual average total number of each type of livestock at the facility in unhoused confinement. This is 

the number of animals, by type, in open confinement that are held at the facility for a total of 45 

days or more on an annual basis.

122.23 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Permit/NOI CAFO Waste 

Type.

The type of CAFO waste described (i.e., manure, litter, process wastewater).122.23 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Permit/NOI Status of the 

CAFO Waste.

The status of the CAFO waste described (i.e., generated, or generated and transferred).122.23 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Permit/NOI 12-Month 

Amount of CAFO Waste.

The total amount of each CAFO waste (i.e., manure, 

litter, or process wastewater) (in tons) with that status (i.e., generated, or generated and transferred) 

from this facility in the previous 12 months.

122.23 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Total Number of Acres for 

Land Application Covered 

by the Nutrient Management Plan.

Total number of acres (to the nearest quarter acre) for 

land application covered by the nutrient management plan in the previous 12 months.

122.23 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Facility Manure Containment or Storage Containment Type Code.The unique code/description for the type(s) of manure 

containment and storage used by the operation.

122.23 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Facility Manure Annual Average Total Capacity.The annual average total capacity (in gallons) of manure containment and storage structure(s).122.23 ...................................................... 1,2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46092 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Construction and Industrial Stormwater Information (from the permitting authority derived from the NPDES Permit Application, Notice 

of Intent, or Waiver) 

Permit Required by Residual Designation.The permit writer may designate additional stormwater 

discharges as requiring NPDES permits when the 

stormwater discharge, or category of stormwater 

discharges within a geographic area, contributes to 

a violation of a water quality standard. This data 

element identifies whether the permit writer is using 

this authority, commonly referred to as the ‘‘Residual Designation’’ authority, to regulate stormwater 

discharges through a NPDES permit.

CWA Section 402(p)(2)(E) and (6), 

122.26 (a)(9)(i)(D).

1. 

Residual Designation Determination Date.The date when the permit writer made the designation 

that stormwater discharges, or category of discharges within a geographic area, contributes to a 

violation of a water quality standard. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where 

CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month 

and DD is the day.

CWA Section 402(p)(2)(E) and (6), 

122.26 (a)(9)(i)(D).

1. 

No Exposure Certification 

Approval Date.

This is the date on which the No Exposure Certification (NEC) was authorized by the NPDES permitting authority. Submission of a No Exposure Certification means that the facility does not require 

NPDES permit authorization for its stormwater discharges due to the existence of a condition of ‘‘no 

exposure.’’ A condition of no exposure exists at an 

industrial facility when all industrial materials and 

activities are protected by a storm resistant shelter 

to prevent exposure to rain, snow, snowmelt, and/or 

runoff. This date would be provided by the permitting authority. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY 

is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

122.26(g) ................................................. 1. 

Low Erosivity Waiver Approval Date.The NPDES Stormwater Phase II Rule allows NPDES 

permitting authorities to accept ‘‘low erosivity waivers’’ (LEWs) for small construction sites. The waiver 

process exempts small construction sites (disturbing 

under five acres) from NPDES permitting requirements when the construction activity takes place 

during a relatively short time in arid or semi-arid 

areas. There is a similar waiver process for 

stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity [see 122.26(c)(1)(ii)]. This is the date when the 

permitting authority granted such waivers, based on 

information from the waiver submitter; this date 

would be provided by the permitting authority. The 

date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is 

the month and DD is the day.

122.26(b)(15), 

122.26(c)(1)(ii). 

1. 

Construction and Industrial Stormwater Information on NPDES Permit Application, Notice of Intent, or Waiver Request 

Total Area of the Site .......... This is the total area (to the nearest quarter acre) of 

the facility site.

122.26 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Total Activity Area ............... Total area (to the nearest quarter acre) of the facility 

that contains industrial activities and processes and 

construction activities. These activities and processes may include (but is not limited to) using, storing or cleaning industrial machinery or equipment, 

and areas where residuals from using, storing or 

cleaning industrial machinery or equipment remain 

and are exposed to stormwater; materials or products stored outdoors; materials contained in open, 

deteriorated or leaking storage drums, barrels, 

tanks, and similar containers; and materials or products from past industrial activity. Construction activities include excavation of lands.

122.26 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Current Total Imperious 

Area.

The current total impervious area (to the nearest quarter acre) of the facility or site.122.26(b)(15), 122.26(c)(1)(i)(B), 

122.26(c)(1)(ii)(E).

1,2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46093 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Post-Construction Total Impervious Area.Total impervious area (to the nearest quarter acre) of 

the permitted facility impervious area after the construction addressed in the permit application is completed.

122.26(b)(15), 122.26(c)(1)(i)(B), 

122.26(c)(1)(ii)(E).

1,2. 

Proposed Best Management 

Practices for Industrial 

Activities and Stormwater.

This is a text field that describes the proposed measures, including best management practices, to control pollutants in storm water discharges during construction, including a brief description of applicable 

State and local erosion and sediment control requirements.

122.26(b)(15), 122.26(c)(1)(i)(B), 

122.26(c)(1)(ii)(C).

1,2. 

Post-Construction Best 

Management Practices for 

Industrial Activities and 

Stormwater Discharges.

This is a text field that describes the proposed measures to control pollutants in storm water discharges 

that will occur after construction operations have 

been completed, including a brief description of applicable State or local erosion and sediment control 

requirements. This field also describes the nature of 

fill material and existing data describing soils.

122.26(b)(15), 122.26(c)(1)(i)(B), 

122.26(c)(1)(ii)(D).

1,2. 

Soil and Fill Material Description.This field describes the nature of fill material and existing data describing soils.122.26(b)(15), 122.26(c)(1)(i)(B), 

122.26(c)(1)(ii)(E).

1,2. 

Runoff Coefficient of the 

Site.

This is an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the site 

after the construction addressed in the permit application is completed.

122.26(b)(15), 122.26(c)(1)(ii)(E) ............ 1,2. 

Estimated Construction 

Project Start Date.

The estimated start date for the construction project 

covered by the NPDES permit. The date data must 

be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is 

the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and 

DD is the day.

122.26 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Estimated Construction 

Project End Date.

The estimated end date for the construction project 

covered by the NPDES permit. The date data must 

be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is 

the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and 

DD is the day.

122.26 ...................................................... 1,2. 

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent 

MS4 Permit Class ............... This is the code/description that identifies the size of 

the MS4 permit holder (small/medium/large).

122.26 ...................................................... 1,2. 

MS4 Public Education Program.The unique code/description that identifies the public 

education programs the permittee intends to use to 

distribute educational materials to the community.

122.34(b)(1), 122.34(d)(1)(i) .................... 1,2. 

MS4 Measurable Goals Associated With Public Education Program.The unique code/description that identifies the types of 

measurable goals associated with the public education programs.

122.34(d)(1)(ii) ......................................... 1,2. 

MS4 Public Involvement 

and Participation Program.

The unique code/description that identifies the public 

involvement and participation programs the permittee intend to use to distribute educational materials to the community.

122.34(b)(2), 122.34(d)(1)(i) .................... 1,2. 

MS4 Measurable Goals for 

the Public Involvement 

and Participation Program.

The unique code/description that identifies the types of 

measurable goals associated with the public involvement and participation programs.

122.34(d)(1)(ii) ......................................... 1,2. 

MS4 System Map ................ A data flag indicating whether the permittee has developed a storm sewer system map showing the location of all outfalls and names and locations of all 

waters of the U.S. that receive discharges from 

those outfalls.

122.34(b)(3)(ii)(A), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 

MS4 Prohibition Enforcement.The unique code/description that identifies the procedures and actions the permittee will take to enforce 

the prohibition on non-stormwater discharges to the 

MS4.

122.34(b)(3)(ii)(B), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 

MS4 Detecting NonStormwater Discharges.The unique code/description that identifies the procedures and actions the permittee will take to detect 

and address non-stormwater discharges, including 

illegal dumping, to permittee’s system.

122.34(b)(3)(ii)(C), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 

MS4 Public Education: Illegal Discharges.The unique code/description that identifies the procedures and actions the permittee will take to inform 

public employees, businesses and the general public of hazards associated with illegal discharges and 

improper disposal of waste.

122.34(b)(3)(ii)(D), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46094 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

MS4 Construction Runoff 

Ordinance.

The unique code/description that identifies the permittee’s ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, including sanctions to ensure compliance, to require 

erosion and sediment controls.

122.34(b)(4)(ii)(A), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 

MS4 Erosion and Sediment 

Controls.

The unique code/description that identifies the permittee’s requirements for construction site operators to 

implement appropriate erosion and sediment control 

BMPs.

122.34(b)(4)(ii)(B), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 

MS4 Construction Site 

Waste.

The unique code/description that identifies the permittee’s requirements for construction site operators to 

control waste such as discarded building materials, 

concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause 

adverse impacts to water quality.

122.34(b)(4)(ii)(C), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 

MS4 Construction Site Review.The unique code/description that identifies the permittee’s procedures for site plan review which incorporate consideration of potential water quality impacts.122.34(b)(4)(ii)(D), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 

MS4 Public Information ....... The unique code/description that identifies the permittee’s procedures for receipt and consideration of information submitted by the public.122.34(b)(4)(ii)(E), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 

MS4 Site Inspections And 

Enforcement.

The unique code/description that identifies the permittee’s procedures for site inspection and enforcement 

of control measures.

122.34(b)(4)(ii)(F), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 

MS4 Controls For 

Stormwater From New 

Development And Redevelopment.

The unique code/description that identifies the combination of structural and/or non-structural best management practices (BMPs), which the permittee is 

using to address stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects that disturb 

greater than or equal to one acre.

122.34(b)(5)(ii)(A), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 

MS4 Stormwater Ordinance 

For New Development 

And Redevelopment.

The unique code/description that identifies the permittee’s ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to 

address post-construction runoff from new development and redevelopment projects.

122.34(b)(5)(ii)(B), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 

MS4 Maintenance Of BMPs The unique code/description that identifies the permittee’s program to ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of BMPs used for controlling 

runoff from new development and development 

projects.

122.34(b)(5)(ii)(C), 122.34(d)(1)(i) ........... 1,2. 

MS4 Runoff From Municipal 

Operations.

The unique code/description that identifies the permittee’s operation and maintenance program that includes a training component and has the ultimate 

goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from 

municipal operations.

122.34(b)(6)(i), 

122.34(d)(1)(i). 

1,2. 

MS4 Additional Measures ... The unique code/description that identifies the any 

other additional measures in the permittee’s 

stormwater management program that is required 

by the permit.

122.34(b), 122.34(d) ................................ 1,2. 

MS4 Measurable Goals for 

Additional Measures.

The unique code/description that identifies the measurable goal for each of the programs or BMPs to 

address stormwater including, as appropriate, the 

months and years in which the permittee will undertake required actions, including interim milestones 

and the frequency of the action.

122.34(b)(1), 122.34(d) ........................... 1,2. 

Collection System Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent 

Name of Collection System This is the name of each collection system (by municipality or area) providing flow to the permittee. This 

includes unincorporated connector districts.

122.1(b) and 122.21(j)(1)(iv) ................... 1,2. 

Owner Name of Collection 

System.

This is the owner name of each collection system (by 

municipality or area) providing flow to the permittee. 

This includes unincorporated connector districts.

122.1(b) and 122.21(j)(1)(iv) ................... 1,2. 

Owner Type of Collection 

System.

This is the ownership type of each collection system 

(including municipality owned, privately owned). This 

includes unincorporated connector districts.

122.1(b) and 122.21(j)(1)(iv) ................... 1,2. 

Permit Number for Collection System.This is the NPDES permit number (if applicable) of 

each collection system (by municipality or area) providing flow to the permittee. This includes unincorporated connector districts.

122.1(b) and 122.21(j)(1)(iv) ................... 1,2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46095 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Population of Collection 

System.

This is the population served for each collection system (by municipality or area) that provides flow to 

the permittee. This includes unincorporated connector districts.

122.1(b) and 122.21(j)(1)(iv) ................... 1,2. 

Percentage of Collection 

System That Is a Combined Sewer System.

This is the percentage of the collection system, for 

each collection system (by municipality or area), 

that is a combined sewer system. This includes unincorporated connector districts.

122.1(b) and 122.21(j)(1)(iv) and (vii) ..... 1,2. 

Combined Sewer System Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent 

Complete and Implement a 

Long-Term CSO Control 

Plan.

All Phase II and post-Phase II combined sewer system NPDES permittees are required to complete 

and implement a long-term CSO control plan as described in EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 

Control Policy (19 April 1994; 59 FEDERAL REGISTER

18688–18698). This data element identifies whether 

the permit requires the permit holder to complete 

and implement a long-term CSO control plan and 

whether the permit holder is in compliance with this 

permit language.

CWA 402(q)(1) ........................................ 1,2. 

Nine Minimum CSO Controls Developed.All combined sewer system NPDES permittees are required to implement the nine minimum controls outlined in EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 

Control Policy (19 April 1994; 59 FEDERAL REGISTER

18688–18698). This data element identifies whether 

the permit holder developed the nine minimum controls in compliance with permit language.

CWA 402(q)(1) ........................................ 1,2. 

Nine Minimum CSO Controls Implemented.All combined sewer system NPDES permittees are required to implement the nine minimum controls outlined in EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 

Control Policy (19 April 1994; 59 FEDERAL REGISTER

18688–18698). This data element identifies whether 

the permit holder implemented the nine minimum 

controls in compliance with permit language.

CWA 402(q)(1) ........................................ 1,2. 

Enforcement Mechanism for 

the LTCP.

All Phase II and post-Phase II combined sewer system NPDES permittees are required to complete 

and implement a long-term CSO control plan as described in EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 

Control Policy (19 April 1994; 59 FEDERAL REGISTER

18688–18698). This data element identifies the type 

of enforcement mechanism used to require the development and implementation of a LTCP.

CWA 402(q)(1) ........................................ 1,2. 

LTCP Submitted .................. All Phase II and post-Phase II combined sewer system NPDES permittees are required to complete 

and implement a long-term CSO control plan as described in EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 

Control Policy (19 April 1994; 59 FEDERAL REGISTER

18688–18698). This data element identifies whether 

the permit holder submitted the LTCP for approval 

by the permitting authority.

CWA 402(q)(1) ........................................ 1,2. 

LTCP Approved ................... All Phase II and post-Phase II combined sewer system NPDES permittees are required to complete 

and implement a long-term CSO control plan as described in EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 

Control Policy (19 April 1994; 59 FEDERAL REGISTER

18688–18698). This data element identifies whether 

the LTCP submitted by the permit holder was approved by the permitting authority.

CWA 402(q)(1) ........................................ 1,2. 

LTCP Approval Date ........... All Phase II and post-Phase II combined sewer system NPDES permittees are required to complete 

and implement a long-term CSO control plan as described in EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 

Control Policy (19 April 1994; 59 FEDERAL REGISTER

18688–18698). This data element identifies the date 

when the permitting authority approved the LTCP. 

The date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD 

format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM 

is the month and DD is the day.

CWA 402(q)(1) ........................................ 1,2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46096 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Actual Date Completed 

LTCP and CSO Controls.

All Phase II and post-Phase II combined sewer system NPDES permittees are required to complete 

and implement a long-term CSO control plan as described in EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 

Control Policy (19 April 1994; 59 FEDERAL REGISTER

18688–18698). This data element identifies the date 

by which the permit holder completed all required 

LTCP and CSO controls. The date data must be 

provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is 

the day.

CWA 402(q)(1) ........................................ 1,2. 

Enforceable Schedule to 

Complete LTCP and CSO 

Controls.

All Phase II and post-Phase II combined sewer system NPDES permittees are required to complete 

and implement a long-term CSO control plan as described in EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 

Control Policy (19 April 1994; 59 FEDERAL REGISTER

18688–18698). This data element identifies whether 

the permit holder is on an enforceable schedule to 

complete all required LTCP and CSO controls.

CWA 402(q)(1) ........................................ 1,2. 

Other CSO Control Measures with Compliance 

Schedule.

This data element identifies whether the permit holder 

has other CSO control measures specified in a 

compliance schedule, beyond those identified in the 

nine minimum controls, LTCP, or a plan for sewer 

system separation.

CWA 402(q)(1) ........................................ 1,2. 

Approved Post-Construction 

Compliance Monitoring 

Program.

This data element indicates whether the permit holder 

is currently operating under an approved post-construction compliance monitoring program.

CWA 402(q)(1) ........................................ 1,2. 

Pretreatment Information on NPDES Permit Application, Notice of Intent, (or Pretreatment Compliance Audit or Inspection) (this 

includes permit application data required for all new and existing POTWs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)) 

Pretreatment Program Required Indicator.The code/description indicating if the permitted municipality is required to develop a pretreatment program.122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Pretreatment Program Approved Date.The date the pretreatment program was approved. 

The date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD 

format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM 

is the month and DD is the day.

122.44(j), 403.8(a) ................................... 1,2. 

Approval Authority Name .... The name of the agency that is the designated approval authority.122.44(j), 403.8(a) ................................... 1,2. 

Program Modification Date 

for Required Pretreatment 

Streamlining Changes.

EPA’s Pretreatment Streamlining Rule (14 October 

2005; 70 FEDERAL REGISTER 60134–60198) revised 

several provisions of the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part 403). In particular, the 

Pretreatment Streamlining Rule made 13 more stringent changes to the General Pretreatment provisions (40 CFR part 403). The rule requires that EPA 

and state NPDES permitting authorities revise 

NPDES permits and approved pretreatment program authorizations to require implementation of 

these 13 more stringent changes. This is the date 

when the Control Authority adopted the required 13 

changes from the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule. 

The date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD 

format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM 

is the month and DD is the day.

403.7(h); 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(6); 

403.8(f)(2)(vi); 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A–C); 

403.12(b), (e), (h); 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(3); 

403.12(o); 403.12(g)(2); 403.12(g)(3), 

(4), (6); 403.12(g)(3); 403.12(j); 

403.12(m).

1,2. 

Program Modification Date 

for Optional Pretreatment 

Streamlining Changes.

EPA’s Pretreatment Streamlining Rule (14 October 

2005; 70 FEDERAL REGISTER 60134–60198) revised 

several provisions of the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part 403). In particular, the 

Pretreatment Streamlining Rule made 7 changes to 

the General Pretreatment provisions (40 CFR part 

403) that provide more flexibility. The rule give EPA 

and state NPDES permitting authorities the option to 

revise NPDES permits and approved pretreatment 

program authorizations for these 7 changes. This is 

the date when the Control Authority adopted the optional 7 changes from the Pretreatment Streamlining 

Rule. The date data must be provided in CCYY– 

MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the 

year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

403.8(f)(2)(v) and 403.12(e)(2); 

403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A); 403.3(e), 

403.5(c)(4), 403.8(f), 403.12(b), (e), 

and (h); 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2), 

403.8(f)(2)(v)(B), 403.8(f)(6), 

403.12(e)(1), 403.12(g), (i), and (q); 

40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)(C), 

403.12(e)(3), and 403.12(i); 

403.6(c)(6); 403.6(c)(5).

1,2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46097 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Program Modification Type 

for Optional Pretreatment 

Streamlining Changes.

EPA’s Pretreatment Streamlining Rule (14 October 

2005; 70 FEDERAL REGISTER 60134–60198) revised 

several provisions of the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part 403). In particular, the 

Pretreatment Streamlining Rule made 7 changes to 

the General Pretreatment provisions (40 CFR part 

403) that provide more flexibility. This data element 

identifies which of the 7 optional provisions from the 

Pretreatment Streamlining Rule were adopted by 

the Control Authority.

Same as preceding data element. .......... 1,2. 

Significant Industrial User 

Name.

The name of each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

that is discharging (including truck transportation) to 

this POTW.

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Significant Industrial User 

Address.

The mailing address of each Significant Industrial User 

(SIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW.

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Significant Industrial User 

City.

The name of the city, town, village, or other locality, 

when identifiable, within whose boundaries (the majority of) for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

that is discharging (including truck transportation) to 

this POTW.

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Significant Industrial User 

State.

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) abbreviation that represents the state or state equivalent for the U.S. for 

each Significant Industrial User (SIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this 

POTW.

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Significant Industrial User 

Zip Code.

The combination of the 5-digit Zone Improvement Plan 

(ZIP) code and the 4-digit extension code (if available) that represents the geographic segment that is 

a sub unit of the ZIP Code assigned by the U.S. 

Postal Service to a geographic location for each 

Significant Industrial User (SIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW.

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Significant Industrial User 

Subject to Local Limits.

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) that is discharging (including 

truck transportation) to this POTW whether the SIU 

is subject to local limits.

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Significant Industrial User 

Subject to Local Limits 

More Stringent Than Categorical Standards.

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) that is discharging (including 

truck transportation) to this POTW whether the SIU 

is subject to local limits that are more stringent than 

the applicable categorical standards.

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Industrial User Subject to 

Categorical Standards.

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) that is discharging (including 

truck transportation) to this POTW whether the SIU 

is subject to categorical standards.

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Applicable Categorical 

Standards.

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) that is discharging (including 

truck transportation) to this POTW the applicable 

categorical standards.

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Significant Industrial User 

Process Wastewater Flow 

Rate.

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) that is discharging (including 

truck transportation) to this POTW the process 

wastewater flow rate (in gallons per day).

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Type of Significant Industrial 

User Process Wastewater 

Flow.

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) that is discharging (including 

truck transportation) to this POTW the type of process wastewater flow (continuous or intermittent).

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Significant Industrial User 

Non-Process Wastewater 

Flow Rate.

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) that is discharging (including 

truck transportation) to this POTW the non-process 

wastewater flow rate (in gallons per day).

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Type of Significant Industrial 

User Non-Process Wastewater Flow.

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) that is discharging (including 

truck transportation) to this POTW the type of nonprocess wastewater flow (continuous or intermittent).

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46098 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Industrial User Causing 

Problems at POTW.

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) whether it caused or contributed 

to any problems (including upset, bypass, interference, pass-through) at this POTW within the past 

four and one-half years. EPA regulations require the 

Control Authority to develop and enforce local limits 

when the discharge from an IU causes or contributes to any problems (including upset, interference, 

bypass) at the receiving POTW’s effluent discharge 

or biosolids.

122.21(j)(6), 122.44(j)(2)(ii), 403.5(c) ...... 1,2. 

Receiving RCRA Waste ...... This data element will identify whether the POTW has 

received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail, or 

dedicated pipe within the last three years.

122.21(j)(7), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Receiving Remediation 

Waste.

This data element will identify whether the POTW has 

received RCRA or CERLCA waste from off-site remedial activities within the last three years.

122.21(j)(7), 122.44(j) .............................. 1,2. 

Control Authority Name ....... The name of the Control Authority for the Significant 

Industrial User discharging to this POTW. This will 

be the name of the State or EPA Region when they 

are the Control Authority. This field may also come 

from the pretreatment compliance audit or inspection.

122.44(j) .................................................. 1,2. 

Control Authority NPDES 

Permit Number.

The NPDES permit number of the Control Authority for 

the Significant Industrial User discharging to this 

POTW. This field may also come from the 

pretreatment compliance audit or inspection.

122.44(j) .................................................. 1,2. 

Cooling Water Intake Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent 

Type of Facility .................... The unique code/description that identifies the type of 

facility based on regulations, 1 = New Facility under 

40 CFR part 125, Subpart I, 2 = New Offshore Oil & 

gas Facility under 40 CFR part 125, Subpart N, 3 = 

Existing Facility under 40 CFR part 125, Subpart J, 

4 = BPJ Facility over 2 MGD under 40 CFR 

125.90(b), 401.14.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125 Subpart I, J, 

and N, 401.14.

1,2. 

Number of Cooling Water 

Intake Structures (CWISs).

The number of cooling water intake structures 

(CWISs) at the facility.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.86, 

125.90(b), 125.136, 401.14.

1,2. 

Design Intake Flow for 

Cooling Water Intake 

Structure.

The design intake flow (DIF), in units of MGD, is the 

total designed amount of flow for each permitted 

cooling water intake structure. This value is based 

on maximum design flow capacities.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),125.80, 125.86, 

125.90(b), 125.131, 125.136, 401.14.

1,2. 

Actual Intake Flow for Cooling Water Intake Structure.This actual flow value, in units of MGD, is intended to 

represent on-the-ground intake flow capacities in the 

preceding year, as opposed to the DIF, which is 

based on maximum design flow capacities.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.86, 

125.90(b), 125.136, 401.14.

1,2. 

Average Reported Intake 

Flow for Cooling Water 

Intake Structure.

This average flow value, in units of MGD, is intended 

to represent on-the-ground intake flow capacities in 

the preceding year, as opposed to the DIF, which is 

based on maximum design flow capacities.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.86, 

125.90(b), 125.136, 401.14.

1,2. 

Percentage of Intake for 

Cooling Purposes.

This is the percentage of water intake that is used for 

cooling purposes for each permitted cooling water 

intake structure.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.81, 

125.90(b), 125.131, 401.14.

1,2. 

Location Type for Cooling 

Water Intake Structure.

The unique code/description that identifies the location 

and description for each intake. These values are 

1=shoreline intake description (flushed, recessed), 

2=intake canal, 3=embayment, bank, or cove, 

4=submerged offshore intake, 5=near-shore submerged intake, 6=shoreline submerged intake.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.86, 

125.90(b), 125.136, 401.14.

1,2. 

Distance Offshore for Submerged Cooling Water Intake Structure.The distance (in feet) from shore for each CWIS ......... CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.86, 

125.90(b), 125.136, 401.14.

1,2. 

Maximum Through-Screen 

Velocity.

This is the maximum velocity (in feet/second) of the 

water intake through the screen for each permitted 

cooling water intake structure.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.86, 

125.90(b), 125.136, 401.14.

1,2. 

Average Through-Screen 

Velocity.

This is the average through-screen velocity (in feet/ 

second) of the water intake through the screen for 

each permitted cooling water intake structure.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.86, 

125.90(b), 125.136, 401.14.

1,2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46099 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Percentage of Mean Annual 

Flow Withdrawn—Fresh 

Water Facilities.

The percentage of the source water annual mean flow 

withdrawn as compared to the total design intake 

flow from all cooling water intake structures located 

in a freshwater river or stream at the permitted facility.

CWA 316(b), 125.84, 125.90(b), 401.14 1,2. 

Percentage of Design Intake 

Flow over Tidal Cycle— 

Tidal River or Estuary Facilities.

The percentage of the volume of the water column 

within the area centered about the opening of the 

intake in a tidal river or estuary with a diameter defined by the distance of one tidal excursion at the 

mean low water level as compared to the facility’s 

total design intake flow over one tidal cycle of ebb 

and flow.

CWA 316(b), 125.84, 125.90(b), 401.14 1,2. 

Waterbody Type .................. The unique code/description that describes the impingement control technologies for each CWIS. A 

value of 1 = Ocean, 2 = Estuary, 3 = Great Lake, 4 

= Fresh River, 5 = Lake/Reservoir.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.86, 

125.90(b), 125.136, 401.14.

1,2. 

Canal/Fish Return Length ... This is the length for any fish return system at the permitted facility.CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.86, 

125.90(b), 125.136, 401.14.

1,2. 

Significant Navigation or 

Waterbody Use Type 

Near The Intake Entrance.

The unique code/description for the type of navigation 

or waterbody use near each CWIS. A value of 1 

(one) indicates the intake is located where boat/ 

barge navigation near the intake is a consideration 

when making any potential modifications to the intake. A value of 0 (zero) indicates navigation does 

not occur in the vicinity of the intake. Navigational 

considerations affect which impingement and entrainment technologies may be used by intakes located in embayments, banks, or coves.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.86, 

125.90(b), 125.136, 401.14.

1,2. 

Mean Intake Water Depth ... This is the mean depth (in feet) for each CWIS. This 

value is used for the estimation of total existing 

screen width.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.80(a) and 

(b), 125.90(b), 125.131(c) and (d), 

401.14.

1,2. 

Intake Well Depth ................ The intake well depth (in feet) is the distance from the 

intake deck to the bottom of the screen well for 

each CWIS, and includes both water depth and distance from the water surface to the deck. The intake 

well depth is used to select the depth of the required screen.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.86, 

125.90(b), 125.136, 401.14.

1,2. 

Debris Loading .................... The unique code/description that describes the 

amount of debris near each CWIS. A value of 1 

(one) indicates high levels of debris and trash near 

the intake. A value of 0 (zero) indicates debris is 

low or negligible. A facility that uses a trash rack is 

likely to have a high debris loading.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.80(a) and 

(b), 125.90(b), 125.131(c) and (d), 

401.14.

1,2. 

Impingement Control Technology In-Place.The unique code/description that describes the impingement control technologies for each CWIS. A 

value of 1= Modified Traveling Screens, 2= Passive 

Intake (Velocity Cap, Coarse Wedgewire Screens, 

Porous Dam, Leaky Dike, etc.), 3= Barrier net, and 

4 = Fish Diversion or Avoidance (Louvers, Acoustics, etc.), 5 = Other technology. A value of zero 

means no controls.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.80(a) and 

(b), 125.90(b), 125.131(c) and (d), 

401.14.

1,2. 

Entrainment Control Technology in-Place.The unique code/description that describes the entrainment control technologies for each CWIS. A 

value of 1 = Traveling Screens w/Fine Mesh, 2 = 

Far Offshore Intake, and 3 = Passive Screens w/ 

Fine Mesh, 4 = Closed-Cycle Recirculating System, 

5 = Other Technology. A value of zero means no 

controls.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125.80(a) and 

(b), 125.90(b), 125.131(c) and (d), 

401.14.

1,2. 

Track II Comprehensive 

Demonstration Study 

Submission Date.

The date of any submission of any Track II Comprehensive Demonstration Study. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where 

CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month 

and DD is the day.

CWA 316(b), 125.86(c)(2), 125.136(c)(2) 1,2. 

Design and Construction 

Technology Plan Submission Date.

The submission date of any Design and Construction 

Technology Plan. The date data must be provided 

in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, 

YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

CWA 316(b), 125.80(a) and (b), 

125.86(b)(4), 125.131(c) and (d).

1,2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46100 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Source Water Biological 

Study Submission Date.

The submission date of any Source Water Biological 

Study. The date data must be provided in CCYY– 

MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the 

year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

CWA 316(b), 125.86(c), 125.136(c) ........ 1,2. 

Verification Monitoring Plan 

Submission Date.

The submission date of any Verification Monitoring 

Plan. The date data must be provided in CCYY– 

MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the 

year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

CWA 316(b), 125.86(c), 125.136(c) ........ 1,2. 

Source Water Physical Data 

Submission Date.

The submission date of any Source Water Physical 

Data. The date data must be provided in CCYY– 

MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the 

year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125 Subpart I 

and N.

1,2. 

Cooling Water Intake Structure Data Submission 

Date.

The submission date of any Cooling Water Intake 

Structure Data. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY 

is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125 Subpart I 

and N.

1,2. 

Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization 

Data Submission Date.

The submission date of any Source Water Baseline 

Biological Characterization Data. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where 

CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month 

and DD is the day.

CWA 316(b), 122.21(r), 125 Subpart I 

and N.

1,2. 

New Facilities—Alternative 

Requirements Provision 

Request Approval Date.

The approval date of any request under the Alternative Requirements provision as defined under 40 

CFR 125.85 or 40 CFR 125.135. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where 

CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month 

and DD is the day.

CWA 316(b), 125.85, 125.135 ................ 1,2. 

CWA Section 316(a) Thermal Variance Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent 

Thermal Variance Unit ........ This is the unit of measure (e.g., °F or °C of discharged effluent, °F or °C different between discharged effluent and receiving waterbody, °F or °C 

different between discharged effluent and inlet water 

source) associated with numeric value of the alternative effluent limitation granted.

CWA 316(a), 125 Subpart H ................... 1,2. 

Thermal Variance Granted .. This is a flag indicating whether the permitting authority has granted the permittee a CWA 316(a) variance for the controlling NPDES permit.CWA 316(a), 125 Subpart H ................... 1,2. 

Thermal Variance Value ..... This is the numeric value of the alternative effluent 

limitation granted.

CWA 316(a), 125 Subpart H ................... 1,2. 

Thermal Variance Date ....... This is the date when the permitting authority granted 

the permittee a CWA 316(a) variance for the controlling NPDES permit. The date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is 

the day.

CWA 316(a), 125 Subpart H ................... 1,2. 

Thermal Variance Study 

Date.

This is the date when the facility submitted new studies/data based on actual operation experience to 

support the continuation of the variance. The date 

data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format 

where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the 

month and DD is the day.

CWA 316(a), 125 Subpart H ................... 1,2. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity 

Permitted Feature Identifier The unique identifier for the permitted feature number 

entered by the user for the inspected permitted feature. This data element will provide a linkage to location data from the NPDES permit application.

123.26 ...................................................... 1. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Actual End Date.The actual date on which the compliance monitoring 

activity ended. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY 

is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

CWA 308 ................................................. 1. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Planned End Date.The planned date for the compliance monitoring activity to end. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY 

is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

CWA 308 ................................................. 1. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46101 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Compliance Monitoring 

State.

The US Postal Service abbreviation that represents 

that state or state equivalent for the U.S. in which 

the compliance monitoring activity occurred.

none ......................................................... 1. 

Compliance Activity ............. The unique code/description that identifies a type of 

compliance event or enforcement action. For example, there are codes for inspection, investigation, information request, and offsite records review.

CWA 308 ................................................. 1. 

Compliance Monitoring 

Type.

The code/description indicating the type of compliance 

monitoring activity taken by a regulatory Agency. 

Each compliance monitoring activity has a variety of 

different types, such as audit, sampling, case development, follow-up, reconnaissance without sampling, etc.

CWA 308 ................................................. 1. 

Biomonitoring Inspection 

Method.

The unique code that identifies the type of biomonitoring inspection method. This data element supplements the Compliance Monitoring Category and 

Compliance Monitoring Type Inspection Type recorded for all inspections.

CWA 308 ................................................. 1. 

Compliance Monitoring Category.The unique code/description identifying the compliance monitoring or inspection category code/description.CWA 308 ................................................. 1. 

Compliance Monitoring Action Reason.The unique code that identifies the purpose of an activity.CWA 308 ................................................. 1. 

Was this a State, Federal or 

Joint (State/Federal) Inspection?.

The flag indicating if the inspection is a joint inspection 

by federal, state, tribal, or territorial personnel.

CWA 308 ................................................. 1. 

Compliance Monitoring 

Agency Type.

An indicator whether the compliance monitoring activity was designated as an EPA or state activity/inspection.CWA 308 ................................................. 1. 

Law Sections Evaluated ...... The unique identifier for the section(s) of law evaluated in or pertinent to the activity.CWA 308 ................................................. 1. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity (Biosolids Inspections) 

Deficiencies Identified 

Through the Biosolids Inspection.

This field will identify the deficiency or deficiencies 

identified in that facility’s biosolids implementation 

for each biosolids inspection. These deficiencies will 

allow users to distinguish between Category I and 

Category 2 violations for determining significant 

noncompliance (SNC).

CWA 308 ................................................. 1. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity (AFO/CAFO Inspections) 

Animal Type ........................ The unique code/description that identifies the operation’s applicable animal sector(s) on the site.122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Total Number of Animals .... The total number of each type of livestock at the facility.122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Total Number of Animals in 

Open Confinement.

The total number of each type of livestock at the facility in open confinement.122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Animal Maximum Capacity The maximum number of each type of livestock at the 

facility.

122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Containment Type ............... The unique code/description for each type of containment used by the operation.122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Containment Total Capacity The total capacity, in gallons, of the containment 

structure.

122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

CAFO Designation Date ..... The date on which the facility is designated as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). The 

date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is 

the month and DD is the day.

122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Designation Reason ............ If the facility was designated, indicate the reason that 

the facility was designated, such as the amount of 

waste reaching waters, location, slope, rainfall, etc.

122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Is the Animal Facility Type a 

CAFO?.

The flag to indicate if the facility is classified as a 

CAFO or not.

122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Did Facility Make a No Discharge Certification?.A code identifying whether the facility made a certification of no discharge to the EPA or State NPDES 

permitting authority.

122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Is an NMP Being Implemented?.A code identifying whether the facility is implementing 

a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP).

122.23 ...................................................... 1. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46102 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Is an NMP Being Updated 

Annually?.

A code identifying whether the facility is annually updating its Nutrient Management Plan (NMP).122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Land Application BMP Type The unique code/description for each type of best 

management practice used in conjunction with land 

application.

122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Mortality Disposal Method ... The unique code/description for each type of animal 

mortality disposal.

122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Monitoring Well Data Availability.A code identifying whether there is monitoring well 

data available for the facility.

122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Storage Type ...................... The unique code/description that describes the type of 

manure, litter, and process wastewater storage used 

by the operation.

122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Storage Total Capacity ....... The total capacity, in tons, of the manure, litter, and 

process wastewater storage structure.

122.23 ...................................................... 1. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity (Sewer Overflows Inspections and Audits) 

Sewer Overflow Longitude .. This data element is required for sewer overflow inspections without a permitted feature identifier. The 

measure of the angular distance on a meridian east 

or west of the prime meridian for the sewer overflow. Entered in either decimal degrees or in degrees minutes seconds; stored in decimal degrees. 

This data element will enable users to compare this 

inspection to a sewer overflow incident report. 

These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, 

January 6, 2006.

123.26 ...................................................... 1. 

Sewer Overflow Latitude ..... This data element is required for sewer overflow inspections without a permitted feature identifier. The 

measure of the angular distance on a meridian 

north or south of the equator for the sewer overflow. 

Entered in either decimal degrees or in degrees 

minutes seconds; stored in decimal degrees. This 

data element will enable users to compare this inspection to a sewer overflow incident report. These 

data are provided in accordance with Environmental 

Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data 

Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 

2006.

123.26 ...................................................... 1. 

Type of Sewer Overflow ..... A code identifying the type of sewer overflow (including CSO, SSO, Bypass, Other Discharge from the 

Collection System or Treatment Works).

123.26 ...................................................... 1. 

Sewer Overflow Cause ....... The likely cause of the overflow event (e.g., broken 

pipe, fats/oil/grease, mechanical failure, pump station electrical failure, etc.).

123.26 ...................................................... 1. 

Duration of Sewer Overflow 

event (hours).

Duration of the sewer overflow event (in hours). If the 

discharge has not been corrected, the best professional judgment from the compliance inspector of 

the time the sewer overflow is expected to continue.

123.26 ...................................................... 1. 

Sewer Overflow Discharge 

Volume.

Best professional judgment from the compliance inspector on the estimated number of gallons of 

sewer overflow.

123.26 ...................................................... 1. 

Failure to Submit Sewer 

Overflow Incident Report.

This data element would indicate whether the POTW 

has failed to provide 24-hr. notification of sewer 

overflows or failed to submit sewer overflow incident 

follow-up reports within the required five days.

122.41(l)(6) and (7) ................................. 1. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity (Pretreatment Inspections and Audits) 

Legal Authority Status and 

Deficiencies.

This data element would identify if legal authority to 

implement the pretreatment program was sufficient 

or if the pretreatment compliance audit or inspection 

identified particular deficiencies, identified in a dropdown list. This data element is consistent with the 

‘‘FY 1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating 

POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation requirements’’, from EPA, 27 September 1989.

See Data Description. ............................. 1. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46103 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Failure of the Control Authority to Enforce Against 

Pass-Through or Interference.

This data element would be a simple ‘‘yes/no’’ indicator as to whether the pretreatment compliance 

audit or inspection identified a deficiency related to 

the control authority’s failure to enforce against 

pass-through or interference. This data element is 

consistent with the ‘‘FY 1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with 

Pretreatment Implementation requirements’’, from 

EPA, 27 September 1989.

See description. ....................................... 1. 

Failure of the Control Authority to Submit Required 

Reports Within 30 Days.

This data element would be a simple ‘‘yes/no’’ indicator as to whether the pretreatment compliance 

audit or inspection identified a deficiency related to 

the control authority’s failure to submit required 

pretreatment reports within thirty days of the due 

date. This data element is consistent with the ‘‘FY 

1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW 

Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation 

requirements’’, from EPA, 27 September 1989.

See description. ....................................... 1. 

Failure of the Control Authority To Meet Compliance Schedule Milestone 

Dates Within 90 Days.

This data element would be a simple ‘‘yes/no’’ indicator as to whether the pretreatment compliance 

audit or inspection identified a deficiency related to 

the control authority’s failure to meet compliance 

schedule milestone dates within 90 days of the due 

date. This data element is consistent with the ‘‘FY 

1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW 

Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation 

requirements’’, from EPA, 27 September 1989.

See description. ....................................... 1. 

Failure of the Control Authority to Issue or Reissue 

Control Mechanisms.

This data element would be a simple ‘‘yes/no’’ indicator as to whether the pretreatment compliance 

audit or inspection identified a deficiency related to 

the control authority’s failure to issue or reissue control mechanisms. If at least 90% of the significant industrial users have valid control mechanisms in the 

past six-month period, then this would not be identified as a deficiency. This data element is consistent 

with the ‘‘FY 1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation requirements’’, from EPA, 27 September 1989.

See description. ....................................... 1. 

Failure of the Control Authority To Inspect or Sample.This data element would be a simple ‘‘yes/no’’ indicator as to whether the pretreatment compliance 

audit or inspection identified a deficiency related to 

the control authority’s failure to inspect or sample. If 

at least 80% of the significant industrial users have 

been inspected or sampled in the past twelve 

months, then this would not be identified as a deficiency. This data element is consistent with the ‘‘FY 

1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW 

Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation 

requirements’’, from EPA, 27 September 1989.

See description. ....................................... 1. 

Failure of the Control Authority to Enforce 

Pretreatment Standards 

and Reporting Requirements.

This data element would be a simple ‘‘yes/no’’ indicator as to whether the pretreatment compliance 

audit or inspection identified a deficiency related to 

the control authority’s failure to inspect or sample. If 

less than 15% of the significant industrial users 

have been in significant noncompliance in the past 

twelve months, then this would not be identified as 

a deficiency. This data element is consistent with 

the ‘‘FY 1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation requirements’’, from EPA, 27 September 1989.

See description. ....................................... 1. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity (Discharge Monitoring Report, and Pretreatment SIU Periodic Compliance Reports in Municipalities

without an Approved Pretreatment Program) 

Permitted Feature ............... The identifier assigned for each location at which conditions are being applied.CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) ........... 1,2,3,6,8. 

Limit Set .............................. The unique identifier tying the DMR form to its Limit 

Set record.

CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) ........... 1,2,3,6,8. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46104 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Parameter Code .................. The unique code/description identifying the parameter 

reported on the DMR.

CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) ........... 1,2,3,6,8. 

Monitoring Location ............. The code/description of the monitoring location at 

which the sampling occurred for a DMR parameter.

CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) ........... 1,2,3,6,8. 

Monitoring Period End Date The date that the monitoring period for the values covered by this DMR form ends. The date data must be 

provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is 

the day.

CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) ........... 1,2,3,6,8. 

NODI ................................... The unique code/description that indicates the reason 

that ‘‘No Discharge’’ or ‘‘No Data’’ was reported in 

place of the DMR value.

CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) ........... 1,2,3,6,8. 

Value ................................... The DMR value number reported on the DMR form .... 122.41(l)(4)(i)/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 

304(m).

1,2,3,6,8. 

Concentration Units/Quantity Units.The code/description representing the unit of measure 

applicable to quantity or concentration limits and 

measurements as entered by the user on the DMR 

form.

CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) ........... 1,2,3,6,8. 

Value Received Date .......... The date the DMR value was received by the regulatory authority. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY 

is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

.................................................................. 1. 

Value Type .......................... The unique code/description identifying a DMR value 

type (i.e. Quantity 1, Quantity 2, Concentration 1, 

Concentration 2, Concentration 3).

CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) ........... 1,2,3,6,8. 

Qualifier ............................... The unique code identifying the limit value operator 

(e.g., <, =, >).

.................................................................. 1,2,3,6,8. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity (Periodic Program Reports) 

Date Report Received ......... The date the report was received. The date data must 

be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is 

the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and 

DD is the day.

These are data elements that are common to reports required in Parts 122, 

123, 403, and 503.

4 through 9. 

Start Date of Reporting Period.The start date of the reporting period. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where 

CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month 

and DD is the day.

These are data elements that are common to reports required in Parts 122, 

123, 403, and 503.

4 through 9. 

End Date of Reporting Period.The end date of the reporting period. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where 

CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month 

and DD is the day.

These are data elements that are common to reports required in Parts 122, 

123, 403, and 503.

4 through 9. 

Federal Regulatory Section(s) Requiring the Program Report.The Federal regulatory section(s) that are the underlying legal basis for requiring the program report to 

be submitted.

These are data elements that are common to reports required in Parts 122, 

123, 403, and 503.

4 through 9. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity (Data Elements Specific to Biosolids Annual Program Reports) 

Treatment Processes .......... This data element identifies the biosolids treatment 

processes at the facility. For example, this may indicate whether primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment is being used, and the type of the sewage 

sludge treatment process or processes used, including drying processes.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Biosolids Class .................... This data element will identify the class or classes 

(e.g., Class A, Class A EQ, Class B) of biosolids 

generated by the facility.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Management Practice ......... This data element will identify the type of biosolids 

management practice or practices (e.g., land application, surface disposal, incineration) for biosolids 

generated by the facility.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Sampling and analytical 

methods.

Describe the representative sampling processes for 

compliance with 40 CFR part 503, 40 CFR part 136, 

or an issued NPDES permit including analytical 

methods used to analyze for enteric viruses, fecal 

coliforms, helminth ova, Salmonella sp., and regulated metals, as well as the reporting limit.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46105 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Biosolids Volume Amount ... This is the amount (in dry metric tons) of biosolids. If 

there is more than one biosolids class, then the facility will separately report a biosolids volume 

amount for each biosolids class and management 

practice.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Biosolids Receiving Site 

Name.

This is the name of the off-site facility receiving biosolids from this facility. If the biosolids generator 

sends biosolids to more than one receiving facility, 

then the biosolids generator will report each site 

name for each biosolids class code and management practice code.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Biosolids Receiving Site 

Street Address.

This is the street address, if applicable, of the Biosolids Receiving Site.503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Biosolids Receiving Site 

City.

This is the city name of the Biosolids Receiving Site, if 

applicable.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Biosolids Receiving Site 

State.

This is the state code of the Biosolids Receiving Site, 

if applicable.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Biosolids Receiving Site Zip 

Code.

This is the zip code of the Biosolids Receiving Site, if 

applicable.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Biosolids Receiving Site 

Latitude.

The measure of the angular distance on a meridian 

north or south of the equator for the Biosolids Receiving Site. If this is a field, the measurement 

should be made at the center of the field. Entered in 

either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal degrees. These data are 

provided in accordance with Environmental Data 

Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Biosolids Receiving Site 

Longitude.

The measure of the angular distance on a meridian 

east or west of the prime meridian for the Biosolids 

Receiving Site. If this is a field, the measurement 

should be made at the center of the field. Entered in 

either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal degrees. These data are 

provided in accordance with Environmental Data 

Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Biosolids Monitored Parameter.This is the monitored parameter for each biosolids 

class code and each management practice. If the 

biosolids generator produces more than one biosolids class, then the biosolids generator will separately report each monitored parameter for each biosolids class and management practice.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Biosolids Monitored Parameter Concentration.This is the concentration value of the Biosolids Monitored Parameter.503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Biosolids Monitored Parameter Units.This is the measurement unit (e.g., mg/l) associated 

with the Biosolids Monitored Parameter Concentration.

503.18, 503.28, 503.48 ........................... 4. 

Actual Measured Cumulative Pollutant Loading 

Rate.

This is the measured cumulative amount of a pollutant 

(on a dry weight basis) that has been applied to an 

area of land (Biosolids Receiving Site) as specified 

in the regulations at 40 CFR part 503. The list of 

pollutants to be measured is at 40 CFR 503.13, 

Table 2. This value is the total mass of a particular 

pollutant (on a dry weight basis) that has been applied to a unit area of land during the entire life of 

the application site. When the Actual Measured Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate exceeds the Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate (CPLR) limit for any 

pollutant, as identified at 40 CFR 503.13, Table 2, 

no additional bulk biosolids subject to CPLR limits 

may be applied to the site.

503.13 ...................................................... 4. 

Actual Measured Annual 

Application Rate.

This is the measured annual application rate (on a dry 

weight basis) that has been applied to an area of 

land (Biosolids Receiving Site). This value is compared against the Annual Pollutant Loading Rate 

(see 40 CFR 503.13, Table 4) to determine compliance for each Biosolids Receiving Site for each year.

503.13 ...................................................... 4. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46106 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Disposition of Incinerator 

Ash.

This provides information regarding the method of disposal of incinerator ash (e.g., in surface disposal 

units, use in cement kilns, or other practice).

.................................................................. 4. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity (Data Elements Specific to CAFO Annual Program Reports) 

Animal Types ...................... The unique code/description that identifies the permittee’s applicable animal sector(s) in the previous 12 

months. This includes (but not limited to) beef cattle, 

broilers, layers, swine weighing 55 pounds or more, 

swine weighing less than 55 pounds, mature dairy 

cows, dairy heifers, veal calves, sheep and lambs, 

horses, ducks, and turkeys.

122.42(e)(4)(i) .......................................... 5. 

Total Number ...................... The total number of each type of livestock at the facility in the previous 12 months.122.42(e)(4)(i) .......................................... 5. 

Total Number of Animals in 

Open Confinement.

The total number of each type of livestock at the facility in open confinement in the previous 12 months.122.42(e)(4)(i) .......................................... 5. 

CAFO Waste Type .............. The type of CAFO waste described (i.e., manure, litter, process wastewater).122.42(e)(4)(ii) ......................................... 5. 

Amount of CAFO Waste ..... The amount of CAFO waste described, in gallons, as 

a total for the previous 12 months.

122.42(e)(4)(ii) ......................................... 5. 

Status of the CAFO Waste The status of the CAFO waste described (i.e., generated, generated and transferred, or applied onsite).122.42(e)(4)(ii) ......................................... 5. 

Total Number of Acres for 

Land Application Covered 

by the Nutrient Management Plan.

Total number of acres (to the nearest quarter acre) for 

land application covered by the nutrient management plan in the previous 12 months.

122.42(e)(4)(iv) ........................................ 5. 

Total Number of Acres 

Used for Land Application.

The total number of acres (to the nearest quarter 

acre) under control of the CAFO used for land application in past 12 months.

122.42(e)(4)(v) ......................................... 5. 

Discharges During Year 

from Production Area.

The flag indicating if there is any discharge from the 

production area in the previous 12 months.

122.42(e)(4)(vi) ........................................ 5. 

Discovery Dates of Discharges from Production 

Area.

The date of each discharge from the permittee’s production area in the previous 12 months. The date 

data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format 

where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the 

month and DD is the day.

122.42(e)(4)(vi) ........................................ 5. 

Duration of Discharge from 

Production Area.

The duration (in hours) of each discharge from the 

permittee’s production area in the previous 12 

months. If the discharge is continual, the best professional judgment from the permitted facility of the 

time the discharge from the permittee’s production 

area is expected to continue.

122.42(e)(4)(vi) ........................................ 5. 

Approximate Volume of Discharges from Production 

Area.

Best professional judgment from the permittee on the 

estimated number of gallons for each discharge 

from the permittee’s production area in the previous 

12 months.

122.42(e)(4)(vi) ........................................ 5. 

Whether NMP Approved or 

Developed by Certified 

Planner.

A flag indicating whether the NMP was approved or 

developed by a certified nutrient management planner.

122.42(e)(4)(vii) ....................................... 5. 

Actual Crop(s) Planted for 

Each Field.

Actual crop(s) planted for each field ............................. 122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 

Actual Crop Yield(s) for 

Each Field.

Actual crop yield(s) for each field (amount of production that was grown on each field, e.g., 300 bushels 

per acre).

122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 

Concentration Units/Quantity Units.The code/description representing the unit of measure 

applicable to quantity or concentration limits and 

measurements as entered by the permittee. The 

same units must be used across all sampling data 

for manure, litter, process wastewater, and fertilizer 

as well as the maximum calculation methods specified in the Linear Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)] 

or the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 

122.42(e)(5)(ii)].

122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46107 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Nitrogen Content of the 

CAFO Waste Type.

Results of sampling and analysis of a particular CAFO 

waste type (i.e., manure, litter, or process wastewater). The same form of nitrogen must be used 

across all sampling data for manure, litter, process 

wastewater, and fertilizer as well as the maximum 

calculation methods specified in the Linear Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the Narrative 

Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)].

122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 

Phosphorus Content of the 

CAFO Waste Type.

Results of sampling and analysis of a particular CAFO 

waste type (i.e., manure, litter, or process wastewater). The same form of phosphorus must be used 

across all sampling data for manure, litter, process 

wastewater, and fertilizer as well as the maximum 

calculation methods specified in the Linear Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the Narrative 

Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)].

122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 

Method for Calculating Maximum Amounts of Manure, Litter, and Process 

Wastewater.

Flag identifying for each field whether the CAFO used 

the Linear Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the 

Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)].

122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 

Field Identification Number A unique field number to which CAFO waste was or 

will be applied. This data element will be used 

whether the term ‘‘for each field’’ is used in the 

CAFO Annual Program Report.

122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 

Calculated Maximum 

Amount of That CAFO 

Waste to Be Land Applied 

to that Field.

The maximum amount of manure, litter, or process 

wastewater (in gallons) that can be applied to each 

field in the previous 12 months in accordance with 

procedures in the Linear Approach [40 CFR 

122.42(e)(5)(i)(B)] or the Narrative Rate Approach 

[40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)(D)].

122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 

Actual Amount of That 

CAFO Waste Applied to 

that Field.

The actual amount of a particular CAFO waste (i.e., 

manure, litter, or process wastewater) applied to a 

particular filed in the previous 12 months.

122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 

CAFO Waste Type Applied 

to That Field.

The type of CAFO waste (i.e., manure, litter, or process wastewater) applied to that particular field.122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 

Pollutant Parameter Measured in the Soil Test, 

under the Narrative Rate 

Approach.

The pollutant parameter (i.e., nitrogen or phosphorus) 

of the CAFO waste measured, in accordance with 

procedures in the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 

122.42(e)(5)(ii)(D)].

122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 

Nitrogen Amount of Any 

Supplemental Fertilizer 

Applied.

For CAFOs using the Narrative Rate Approach [40 

CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)] the nitrogen amount of supplemental fertilizer (in pounds or gallons) that was applied to each field in the previous 12 months.

122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 

Phosphorus Amount of Any 

Supplemental Fertilizer 

Applied.

For CAFOs using the Narrative Rate Approach [40 

CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)] the phosphorous amount of 

supplemental fertilizer (in pounds or gallons) that 

was applied to each field in the previous 12 months.

122.42(e)(4)(viii) ...................................... 5. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity (Data Elements Specific to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Program Reports) 

MS4 Reliance on Other 

Government Entities.

Names of all municipalities that are included in the 

permit coverage..

122.34(g)(v) ............................................. 6. 

Unique Number for Each 

Municipality Covered 

Under MS4 Permit.

Unique number for each municipality covered under 

MS4 permit. This will allow greater geographic resolution for the MS4 components being tracked and 

ensure consistency from year to year. The number 

would essentially be similar to an outfall number, for 

distinguishing compliance at various locations.

122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c) ..................... 6. 

Listing of MS4 Permit Components.This code/description will identify for each municipality 

all of the permitted components that are included in 

the MS4 permit. The groupings of these MS4 components will include public education and outreach 

on stormwater impacts; public involvement/participation; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction site stormwater runoff; post-construction 

stormwater management in new development and 

redevelopment; and pollution prevention/good 

housekeeping for municipal operations.

122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c) ..................... 6. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46108 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Identified Measurable Goal 

for Each MS4 Permit 

Component.

Identified measurable goal for each MS4 permit component for each municipality.122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c) ..................... 6. 

Status and Assessment of 

Implementing MS4 Components in Permit.

Status and assessment of each MS4 permit component for each municipality.122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c) ..................... 6. 

Number of Notice of Violations.For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, 

identify the number notice of violations. The MS4 

permittee will identify ‘‘No Authority’’ if the MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this 

enforcement action.

122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c) ..................... 6. 

Number of Administrative 

Fines.

For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, 

identify the number of administrative fines. The MS4 

permittee will identify ‘‘No Authority’’ if the MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this 

enforcement action.

122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c) ..................... 6. 

Number of Stop Work Orders.For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, 

identify the number of stop work orders. The MS4 

permittee will identify ‘‘No Authority’’ if the MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this 

enforcement action.

122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c) ..................... 6. 

Number of Civil Penalties ... For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, 

identify the number of civil penalties. The MS4 permittee will identify ‘‘No Authority’’ if the MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this 

enforcement action.

122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c) ..................... 6. 

Number of Criminal Actions For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, 

identify the number of criminal actions. The MS4 

permittee will identify ‘‘No Authority’’ if the MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this 

enforcement action.

122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c) ..................... 6. 

Number of Administrative 

Orders.

For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, 

identify the number of administrative orders. The 

MS4 permittee will identify ‘‘No Authority’’ if the MS4 

permittee does not have the authority to conduct 

this enforcement action.

122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c) ..................... 6. 

Compliance Monitoring Activity (Data Elements Specific to Pretreatment Program Annual Reports and SIU Periodic Compliance 

Reports in Municipalities without an Approved Pretreatment Program) 

SNC Published in Newspaper Flag.An indication as to which Significant Industrial Users 

(SIUs) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial 

Users (NSCIUs) in SNC were published in the 

newspapers.

403.12(i)(2), 403.8(f)(2)(viii) .................... 7. 

SNC with Pretreatment 

Schedule Flag.

An indication as to which Significant Industrial Users 

(SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial 

Users (NSCIU) were in SNC with pretreatment 

schedules.

403.12(i)(2), 403.8(f)(2)(viii) .................... 7. 

Date of Most Recent Adoption of Technically Based 

Local Limits.

The date on which the Control Authority has technically evaluated the need for local limits. The date 

data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format 

where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the 

month and DD is the day.

403.5(c), 403.12(i)(4), 403.8(f)(4) ............ 7. 

Date of Most Recent Technical Evaluation & or 

Local Limits.

The date on which the Control Authority adopted local 

limits for pollutants. The date data must be provided 

in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, 

YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

403.5(c), 403.12(i)(4), 403.8(f)(4) ............ 7. 

Local Limits Pollutants ........ This is the list of the pollutants for which the Control 

Authority derived, which is calculated using data 

from the headworks of the POTW.

403.5(c), 403.12(i)(4) ............................... 7. 

POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator (Program 

Report).

The flag indicating if there have been any problems 

(including upset, bypass, interference, pass-through) 

with the receiving POTW’s effluent discharge within 

the previous 12 months.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

POTW Biosolids Contamination Indicator (Program 

Report).

The flag indicating if there have been any problems 

(including upset, bypass, interference, pass-through) 

with the receiving POTW’s biosolids within the previous 12 months.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Removal Credits Application 

Status.

The status of the POTW’s application for administering 

removal credits.

403.12(i), 403.7 ....................................... 7. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46109 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Date of Most Recent Removal Credits Approval.This is the date the POTW’s application for removal 

credits was approved by the Approval Authority. The 

date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is 

the month and DD is the day.

403.12(i)(4), 403.7 ................................... 7. 

Removal Credits Pollutants This field contains a list of pollutants for which the Approval Authority granted the POTW authorization to 

administer removal credits.

403.12(i)(4) .............................................. 7. 

Industrial User Name (Program Report).The name of each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User 

(NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7, 8. 

Industrial User Address 

(Program Report).

The mailing address of each Significant Industrial User 

(SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial 

User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck 

transportation) to this POTW.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7, 8. 

Industrial User City (Program Report).The name of the city, town, village, or other locality, 

when identifiable, within whose boundaries (the majority of) for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User 

(NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7, 8. 

Industrial User State (Program Report).The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) abbreviation that represents the state or state equivalent for the U.S. for 

each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is 

discharging (including truck transportation) to this 

POTW.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7, 8. 

Industrial User Zip Code 

(Program Report).

The combination of the 5-digit Zone Improvement Plan 

(ZIP) code and the 4-digit extension code (if available) that represents the geographic segment that is 

a sub unit of the ZIP Code assigned by the U.S. 

Postal Service to a geographic location for each 

Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant 

Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this 

POTW.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7, 8. 

Industrial User SIU Flag ...... This code/description will identify whether the Industrial User is a Significant Industrial Users (SIU).403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Industrial User Control 

Mechanism Flag.

This code/description will identify whether the Industrial User has a Control Mechanism.403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Industrial User Control 

Mechanism Expiration 

Date.

The date when the Control Mechanism for the Industrial User will expire. The date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is 

the day.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Industrial User Subject to 

Categorical Standards 

and Type (Program Report).

This code/description will identify whether the Industrial User is a Categorical Industrial Users (CIU) and 

its type (including Standard CIU, Non-Significant 

Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU), and Middle 

Tier Categorical Industrial User).

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Applicable Categorical 

Standards (Program Report).

This data element will identify for each Categorical Industrial User (CIU) that is discharging (including 

truck transportation) to this POTW the applicable 

categorical pretreatment standards.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Industrial User Subject to 

Local Limits (Program Report).

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the 

IU is subject to local limits.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Industrial User Subject to 

Local Limits More Stringent Than Categorical 

Standards (Program Report).

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the 

IU is subject to local limits that are more stringent 

than the applicable categorical standards.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46110 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

SNC with Pretreatment 

Standards (Program Report).

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the 

IU was in Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) with 

discharge requirements (including effluent limit violations) in the previous 12 months.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

SNC with Reporting Requirements (Program Report).This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the 

IU was in Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) with 

reporting requirements (including baseline monitoring reports, notice of potential problems, periodic 

self monitoring reports, notice of change in Industrial 

User discharge, hazardous waste notification and 

BMP certification) in the previous 12 months.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

SNC with Other Control 

Mechanism Requirements 

(Program Report).

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the 

IU was in Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) with 

any other control mechanism requirements in the 

previous 12 months.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Number of Quarters in SNC This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the number 

of yearly quarters the IU is in SNC in the previous 

12 months.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Number of Industrial User 

Inspections.

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of inspections 

conducted by the Control Authority in the previous 

12 months.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Number of Industrial User 

Sampling Events.

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of sampling 

events conducted by the Control Authority in the 

previous 12 months.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Number of Industrial User 

Violation Notices.

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of formal notices of violation or equivalent actions issued by the 

Control Authority in the previous 12 months.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Administrative Orders 

Issued to IUs (Program 

Report).

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of administrative orders issued by the Control Authority in the 

previous 12 months.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Civil Suits Filed Against IUs 

(Program Report).

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of civil suits 

filed by the Control Authority in the previous 12 

months.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Criminal Suits Filed Against 

IUs (Program Report).

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of criminal suits 

filed by the Control Authority in the previous 12 

months.

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7. 

Industrial User Cash Civil 

Penalty Amount Assessed.

For civil judicial Enforcement Actions, the dollar 

amount of the penalty assessed against each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant 

Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) in the previous 

12 months as specified in the final entered Consent 

Decree or Court Order. For Administrative Enforcement Actions, it is the dollar amount of the penalty 

assessed in the Consent/Final Order.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 7. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46111 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Industrial User Cash Civil 

Penalty Amount Collected.

For civil judicial Enforcement Actions, the dollar 

amount of the penalty collected from each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) in the previous 12 

months. For Administrative Enforcement Actions, it 

is the dollar amount collected of the penalty assessed in the Consent/Final Order.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 7. 

Industrial User POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator (Program Report).This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the Industrial User 

caused or contributed to any problems with the receiving POTW’s effluent discharge in the previous 

reporting period. EPA regulations require the Control Authority to develop and enforce local limits 

when the discharge from an IU causes or contributes to any problems (including upset, bypass, interference, pass-through) at the receiving POTW.

403.5(c), 403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................... 7. 

Industrial User Biosolids 

Contamination Indicator 

(Program Report).

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the Industrial User 

caused or contributed to any problems with the receiving POTW’s biosolids in the previous reporting 

period. EPA regulations require the Control Authority to develop and enforce local limits when the discharge from an IU causes or contributes to any 

problems (including upset, bypass, interference, 

pass-through) at the receiving POTW.

403.5(c), 403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................... 7. 

Industrial User Process 

Wastewater Flow Rate 

(Program Report).

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the process 

wastewater flow rate (in gallons per day).

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7, 8. 

Type of Significant Industrial 

User Process Wastewater 

Flow (Program Report).

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the type of 

process wastewater flow (continuous or intermittent).

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7, 8. 

Significant Industrial User 

Non-Process Wastewater 

Flow Rate (Program Report).

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the non-process wastewater flow rate (in gallons per day).

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7, 8. 

Type of Significant Industrial 

User Non-Process Wastewater Flow (Program Report).

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the type of 

non-process wastewater flow (continuous or intermittent).

403.8(f), 403.12(i) .................................... 7, 8. 

Industrial User Removal 

Credits Flag.

This code/description will identify for each Significant 

Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the POTW has 

granted the IU removal credits.

403.7, 403.12(i) ....................................... 7. 

Industrial User Removal 

Credits Pollutants.

This code/description will identify for each Significant 

Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the list of pollutants for 

which POTW has granted the IU removal credits.

403.12(i)(4) .............................................. 7. 

Industrial User Reduced Reporting Flag.This code/description will identify for each Significant 

Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the Control Authority has granted reduced reporting requirements 

[403.12(e)(3)].

403.12(e)(3), 403.12(i)(2) ........................ 7. 

Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) 

Certification to Control 

Authority.

This code/description will identify for each Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether it 

has given its annual compliance certification.

403.12(i)(2), 403.12(q) ............................ 7, 8. 

Control Authority Budget 

Resources.

Annual pretreatment implementation budget ................ 403.12(i)(4) .............................................. 7. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46112 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Compliance Monitoring Activity (Data Elements Specific to Sewer Overflow Event Reports) 

Sewer Overflow Longitude 

(Sewer Overflow Event 

Report).

This data element is required for sewer overflows that 

do not have a permitted feature identifier, which is 

reported on the NPDES permit application or Notice 

of Intent for NPDES permit coverage. The measure 

of the angular distance on a meridian east or west 

of the prime meridian for the sewer overflow. Entered in either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal degrees. These 

data are provided in accordance with Environmental 

Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data 

Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 

2006.

122.41(l)(6) and (7) ................................. 9. 

Sewer Overflow Latitude 

(Sewer Overflow Event 

Report).

This data element is required for sewer overflows that 

do not have a permitted feature identifier, which is 

reported on the NPDES permit application or Notice 

of Intent for NPDES permit coverage. The measure 

of the angular distance on a meridian north or south 

of the equator for the sewer overflow. Entered in either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal degrees. These data are 

provided in accordance with Environmental Data 

Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

122.41(l)(6) and (7) ................................. 9. 

Type of Sewer Overflow 

(Sewer Overflow Event 

Report).

A code identifying the type of sewer overflow (including CSO, SSO, Bypass, Other Discharge from the 

Collection System or Treatment Works).

122.41(l)(6) and (7) ................................. 9. 

Sewer Overflow Cause ....... The likely cause of the overflow event (e.g., broken 

pipe, fats/oil/grease, mechanical failure, pump station electrical failure, inadequate sewer system capacity, etc.).

122.41(l)(6) and (7) ................................. 9. 

Date of Sewer Overflow 

Discovery (Sewer Overflow Event Report).

Date when the sewer overflow is discovered by EPA 

or the delegated NPDES program authority, the permitted facility, or when the sewer overflow is reported by the public to the permitted facility. The 

date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is 

the month and DD is the day.

122.41(l)(6) and (7) ................................. 9. 

Duration of Sewer Overflow 

event (hours) (Sewer 

Overflow Event Report).

Duration of the sewer overflow event (in hours). If the 

discharge has not been corrected, the best professional judgment from the permitted facility of the 

time the sewer overflow is expected to continue.

122.41(l)(6) and (7) ................................. 9. 

Sewer Overflow Discharge 

Volume (Sewer Overflow 

Event Report).

Best professional judgment from the permitted facility 

on the estimated number of gallons of sewer overflow.

122.41(l)(6) and (7) ................................. 9. 

Receiving Waterbody Name 

for Permitted Feature 

(Sewer Overflow Event 

Report).

This data element is required for sewer overflow inspections without a permitted feature identifier. Best 

professional judgment from the permitted facility of 

the name of the waterbody that is or will likely receive the discharge from each sewer overflow.

122.41(l)(6) and (7) ................................. 9. 

Dry or Wet Weather Occurrence for Sewer Overflow.Best professional judgment from the permitted facility 

on whether the sewer overflow event occurred during dry or wet weather.

122.41(l)(6) and (7) ................................. 9. 

Corrective Actions Taken or 

Planned for Sewer Overflows (Sewer Overflow 

Event Report).

The unique code/description that describes the steps 

taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent 

reoccurrence of future sewer overflows.

122.41(l)(6) and (7) ................................. 9. 

Type of Potential Impact of 

Sewer Overflow Event 

(Sewer Overflow Event 

Report).

This describes the type of potential human health or 

environmental impact(s) of the sewer overflow event 

(e.g., beach closure). Under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6), 

‘‘the permittee shall report any noncompliance which 

may endanger health or the environment.’’ This data 

element would provide information regarding the nature of such potential endangerment.

122.41(l)(6) and (7) ................................. 9. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46113 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Violation 

Violation Code ..................... The code/description identifying which type of Violation has occurred. The code may a single event violation (SEV) code; some violation codes can be 

automatically generated in ICIS–NPDES based 

upon DMRs, schedules, etc.

123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Agency Identifying the Single Event Violation (SEV).The code/description identifying the agency that identified the Single Event Violation (SEV).123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Single Event Start Date ...... If the single event violation (SEV) occurred over multiple days, the date the occurrence began. The date 

data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format 

where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the 

month and DD is the day.

123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Single Event End Date ........ If the single event violation (SEV) occurred over multiple days, the date the occurrence ended. The date 

data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format 

where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the 

month and DD is the day.

123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

RNC Detection Code .......... The type of RNC detected. It can be entered automatically by the system or it can be entered manually.123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

RNC Detection Date ........... The date that RNC was detected. It can be entered 

manually or automatically. In cases in which RNC is 

detected by ICIS–NPDES, the detection date entered will vary according to the type of violation detected. The date data must be provided in CCYY– 

MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the 

year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

RNC Resolution Code ......... The RNC status (i.e., noncompliant, resolved pending, 

waiting resolution, resolved) of the violation. It can 

be entered manually or automatically by the system.

123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

RNC Resolution Date .......... The date RNC was marked to its current resolution 

status. It can be entered manually or automatically. 

The date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD 

format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM 

is the month and DD is the day.

123.45 ...................................................... 1. 

Enforcement Action 

Enforcement Action Identifier.The number of the Enforcement Action; for a judicial 

action, the number as referred to by the Court 

where the action was filed.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Enforcement Action Name .. The name associated with this enforcement action ..... CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Enforcement Action Type .... A code/description that uniquely identifies the type of 

formal or informal enforcement action. This code 

identifies, for example, whether the enforcement action is a civil judicial referral, a notice of violation, an 

administrative penalty order, administrative order, 

etc.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Law Sections Violated ......... The primary law sections that were violated by the facility.CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Programs Violated ............... The code that identifies the program (e.g., 

pretreatment) associated with the enforcement activity.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Violation Code ..................... The code/description identifying which type of violation 

has occurred and is being addressed by this enforcement action.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Violation Date ...................... If there is a Single Event Violation, use Single Event 

Violation Date; if DMR reporting violation, use DMR 

Due Date; if DMR measurement violation, use Monitoring Period End Date; if Permit Schedule violation, 

use Permit Schedule Date; if a Compliance Schedule violation, use Compliance Schedule Date. The 

date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is 

the month and DD is the day.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46114 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Final Orders 

Final Order Type ................. A code/description that uniquely identifies the regulatory instrument used by the EPA to settle the Enforcement Action. This code identifies, for example, 

whether the final order is an administrative compliance order, an administrative penalty order, Federal 

Facility agreement, etc.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Violation Code ..................... The code/description identifying which type of Violation has occurred (e.g., D80 = Required Monitoring 

DMR Value Non-Receipt, E90 = Effluent Violation, 

C20 = Schedule Event Achieved Late).

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Violation Date ...................... If there is a Single Event Violation, use Single Event 

Violation Date; if DMR reporting violation, use DMR 

Due Date; if DMR measurement violation, use Monitoring Period End Date; if Permit Schedule violation, 

use Permit Schedule Date; if a Compliance Schedule violation, use Compliance Schedule Date. The 

date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is 

the month and DD is the day.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Final Order Issued/Entered 

Date.

The civil case date the Final Order is signed by the 

presiding Judge and entered by the Clerk of the 

Court; it is the date the Clerk stamps on the document. For an Administrative Formal EA, this is the 

Final Order Issued Date; for a Judicial EA, this is 

the Final Order Entered Date. The date data must 

be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is 

the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and 

DD is the day.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Penalty 

Civil Penalty Amount Assessed.For civil judicial Enforcement Actions, the dollar 

amount of the penalty assessed against the defendant(s) as specified in the final entered Consent Decree or Court Order. For Administrative Enforcement 

Actions, it is the dollar amount of the penalty assessed in the Consent/Final Order.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1 through 9. 

Civil Penalty Amount Collected.For civil judicial Enforcement Actions, the dollar 

amount of the penalty collected from the defendant(s). For Administrative Enforcement Actions, it is 

the dollar amount collected of the penalty assessed 

in the Consent/Final Order.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1 through 9. 

Compliance Schedule 

Compliance Schedule Number.A two-digit number which in combination with the 

Schedule Type and NPDES ID uniquely identifies a 

Compliance Schedule.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Schedule Descriptor ............ The code/description indicating the type of Narrative 

Condition applies for the schedule.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Schedule (Start) Date ......... The date the event is scheduled to be completed (i.e., 

the due date). The date data must be provided in 

CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the century, YY 

is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Actual Date .......................... The actual date on which the Compliance Schedule 

event was completed/achieved. The date data must 

be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is 

the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and 

DD is the day.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Report Received Date ......... The date the regulatory agency received the Compliance Schedule report. The date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is 

the day.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Schedule Event ................... The unique code/description that identifies the Compliance Schedule event.CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Milestones/Sub-activities ..... The unique code/description that identifies the milestones/sub-activities.CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46115 

TABLE 2—REQUIRED NPDES DATA—Continued 

Data name Data description 

CWA, Regulatory, 

or policy citation 

(40 CFR) 

NPDES Data 

group No. 

(see table 1) 

Sub Activity Type ................ A code/description that uniquely identifies a type of 

sub activities and/or Enforcement Action milestones.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

Actual Date .......................... The date on which the milestone was achieved/sub 

activity was conducted. The date data must be provided in CCYY–MM–DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is 

the day.

CWA Section 309 .................................... 1. 

PART 403—GENERAL 

PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR 

EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES OF 

POLLUTION 

■ 23. The authority citation for part 403 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

■ 24. Amend § 403.10 by adding 

paragraph (f)(2)(viii) to read as follows: 

§ 403.10 Development and submission of 

NPDES State pretreatment programs. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(viii) Regularly notify all Control 

Authorities of electronic submission 

requirements of 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 

122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Amend § 403.12 by revising 

paragraphs (e)(1), (h), and (i) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 403.12 Reporting requirements for 

POTW’s and industrial users. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Any Industrial User subject to a 

categorical Pretreatment Standard 

(except a Non-Significant Categorical 

User as defined in § 403.3(v)(2)), after 

the compliance date of such 

Pretreatment Standard, or, in the case of 

a New Source, after commencement of 

the discharge into the POTW, shall 

submit to the Control Authority during 

the months of June and December, 

unless required more frequently in the 

Pretreatment Standard or by the Control 

Authority or the Approval Authority, a 

report indicating the nature and 

concentration of pollutants in the 

effluent which are limited by such 

categorical Pretreatment Standards. In 

addition, this report shall include a 

record of measured or estimated average 

and maximum daily flows for the 

reporting period for the Discharge 

reported in paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section except that the Control 

Authority may require more detailed 

reporting of flows. In cases where the 

Pretreatment Standard requires 

compliance with a Best Management 

Practice (or pollution prevention 

alternative), the User shall submit 

documentation required by the Control 

Authority or the Pretreatment Standard 

necessary to determine the compliance 

status of the User. At the discretion of 

the Control Authority and in 

consideration of such factors as local 

high or low flow rates, holidays, budget 

cycles, etc., the Control Authority may 

modify the months during which the 

above reports are to be submitted. For 

Industrial Users for which EPA or the 

authorized state, tribe, or territory is the 

Control Authority, all reports covered 

under this paragraph and submitted 

after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 

127] shall be submitted electronically by 

the owner, operator, or their designated 

representative in compliance with 40 

CFR parts 3 and 127 and § 403.12(l) and 

with any additional requirements 

imposed by the Control Authority. 

* * * * * 

(h) Reporting requirements for 

Industrial Users not subject to 

categorical Pretreatment Standards. The 

Control Authority must require 

appropriate reporting from those 

Industrial Users with Discharges that are 

not subject to categorical Pretreatment 

Standards. Significant Non-categorical 

Industrial Users must submit to the 

Control Authority at least once every six 

months (on dates specified by the 

Control Authority) a description of the 

nature, concentration, and flow of the 

pollutants required to be reported by the 

Control Authority. In cases where a 

local limit requires compliance with a 

Best Management Practice or pollution 

prevention alternative, the User must 

submit documentation required by the 

Control Authority to determine the 

compliance status of the User. These 

reports must be based on sampling and 

analysis performed in the period 

covered by the report, and in 

accordance with the techniques 

described in 40 CFR part 136 and 

amendments thereto. This sampling and 

analysis may be performed by the 

Control Authority in lieu of the 

significant non-categorical Industrial 

User. For Industrial Users for which 

EPA or the authorized state, tribe, or 

territory is the Control Authority, all 

reports submitted after [INSERT TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be 

submitted electronically by the owner, 

operator, or their designated 

representative in compliance with 40 

CFR parts 3 and 127 and § 403.12(l) and 

with any additional requirements 

imposed by the Control Authority. 

(i) Annual POTW reports. POTWs 

with approved Pretreatment Programs 

shall provide the Approval Authority 

with a report that briefly describes the 

POTW’s program activities, including 

activities of all participating agencies, if 

more than one jurisdiction is involved 

in the local program. The report 

required by this section shall be 

submitted no later than one year after 

approval of the POTW’s Pretreatment 

Program, and at least annually 

thereafter, and shall include, at a 

minimum, the applicable required data 

in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. The 

report required by this section shall also 

include a summary of changes to the 

POTW’s pretreatment program that have 

not been previously reported to the 

Approval Authority and any other 

relevant information requested by the 

Approval Authority. All annual reports 

submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 

PART 127], or if required by the 

Approval Authority or the applicable 

permit on or before [TWO YEARS 

AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 

CFR PART 127], shall be submitted 

electronically by the owner, operator, or 

their designated representative, in 

compliance with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 

and § 403.12(l), and with any additional 

requirements imposed by the Approval 

Authority. 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46116 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

PART 501—STATE SLUDGE 

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

REGULATIONS 

■ 26. The authority citation for part 501 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

■ 27. Revise § 501.21 to read as follows: 

§ 501.21 Program reporting to EPA. 

State sludge management programs 

shall comply with 40 CFR parts 3 and 

127 (including the applicable required 

data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 127). 

PART 503—STANDARDS FOR THE 

USE OR DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE 

SLUDGE 

■ 28. The authority citation for part 503 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 405(d) and (e) of the 

Clean Water Act, as amended by Pub. L. 95– 

217, sec. 54(d), 91 Stat. 1591 (33 U.S.C. 

1345(d) and (e)); and Pub. L. 100–4, title IV, 

sec. 406(a), (b), 101 Stat., 71, 72 (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.). 

■ 29. Revise § 503.18 to read as follows: 

§ 503.18 Reporting. 

(a) Class I sludge management 

facilities, POTWs (as defined in § 501.2 

of this chapter) with a design flow rate 

equal to or greater than one million 

gallons per day, and POTWs that serve 

10,000 people or more shall submit a 

report on February 19 of each year. All 

annual reports submitted after [TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by 

the Director or applicable permit on or 

before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 

127], shall be submitted electronically 

by the owner, operator, or their 

designated representative, in 

compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 

122.22, and 40 CFR part 127 and with 

any additional requirements imposed by 

the Director. 

(b) [Reserved] 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 2040– 

0157) 

■ 30. Revise § 503.28 to read as follows: 

§ 503.28 Reporting. 

Class I sludge management facilities, 

POTWs (as defined in § 501.2 of this 

chapter) with a design flow rate equal to 

or greater than one million gallons per 

day, and POTWs that serve 10,000 

people or more shall submit a report on 

February 19 of each year. All annual 

reports submitted after [TWO YEARS 

AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 

CFR PART 127], or if required by the 

Director or applicable permit on or 

before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 

127], shall be submitted electronically 

by the owner, operator, or their 

designated representative, in 

compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 

122.22, and 40 CFR part 127 and any 

additional requirements imposed by the 

Director. 

■ 31. Revise § 503.48 to read as follows: 

§ 503.48 Reporting. 

Class I sludge management facilities, 

POTWs (as defined in § 501.2 of this 

chapter) with a design flow rate equal to 

or greater than one million gallons per 

day, and POTWs that serve a population 

of 10,000 people or greater shall submit 

a report on February 19 of each year. All 

annual reports submitted after [TWO 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by 

the Director or applicable permit on or 

before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 

127], shall be submitted electronically 

by the owner, operator, or their 

designated representative, in 

compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 

122.22, and 40 CFR part 127 and any 

additional requirements imposed by the 

Director. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17551 Filed 7–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2