The Supplemental Notice for the 

Proposed NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule

Presentation to State Technical Workgroup

10 December 2014
Agenda

• Basic Review of Proposed NPDES e-Reporting Rule

• Overview of Comments received

• Purpose of the Supplemental Notice

• Key Areas identified in Public Comments

• Contact Information

• Appendix

– Matters for which Comments are Sought

10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 2
Goals Of The Proposed Rule

This rule will help EPA and states clean up the nation’s waters, by:

 Bring the NPDES Program into the 21st Century by shifting 

from paper to electronic reporting. Proposed rule establishes 

no new reporting requirements

 Save money and time for the regulated community and for 

states (reduce data entry time, improve accuracy)

 Improves transparency and frees up resources to focus on 

the most important problems

 Uses technology to obtain more accurate, timely, and 

complete information about the NPDES program

10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 3

Basic Review
Data Flows Covered by the Proposed Rule

10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 4

Data Sources

D

a

t

a

f

r

o

m

N

P

D

E

S

P

e

r

mit

t

e

e

s

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)

General Permit Reports (NOI, NOT, NECs, LEWs)

Biosolids Annual Program Reports

CAFO Annual Program Reports

MS4 Program Reports

Pretreatment Program Annual Reports 

Industrial User Compliance Reports in Municipalities Without Approved Pretreatment Programs 

– When EPA or State is Control Authority

Sewer Overflow Event Reports (CSOs, SSOs, Bypass events)

D

ata

f

r

o

m

State

Require electronic reporting by NPDES-authorized states, territories, tribes, and Regions of 

program implementation information (individual permits, inspections, violations, and enforcement 

actions)

Basic Review
5

Proposed Rule Implementation Approach

• Phase 1 Data (one year after the effective date of the final rule):

EPA and states would electronically receive:

 Basic facility and permit information as well as inspections, violation 

determinations, and enforcement actions data from states; 

 DMR information (if required) from facilities; and

 Information (NOIs, etc.) from general permit covered facilities for 

Federally-issued general permits. 

• Phase 2 Data (two years after the effective date of the final rule):

In addition to Phase 1 data, EPA and states would receive:

 Information (NOIs, etc.) from general permit covered facilities for other 

state-issued general permits; and 

 All identified program reports from facilities.

• Possible use of CWA 308 authority by EPA as a means to ‘fill in the 

gaps.’

10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 5

Basic Review
6

What the Proposed Rule Does and Does Not Do

• DOES NOT: increase the amount of information required from 

NPDES-regulated entities under existing regulations

• DOES: Changes the method by which NPDES General Permit 

information is provided

 From paper to electronic

• DOES: Require authorized NPDES programs to share their NPDES 

program implementation information electronically with EPA 

(Appendix A)

• DOES: Require public access to data already required under current 

law

10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 6

Basic Review
170 Public Comments

10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 7

Overview of Comments Received

• Generally supportive of electronic reporting as modern and 

efficient

• Raised issues on aspects of the proposed implementation 

and operation of the rule

• The Supplemental Notice is not intended to respond to all 

comments submitted

 All comments will be addressed when EPA takes final action on 

the proposed rule
Submissions by Commenter Type

10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 8

Overview of Comments Received

Commenter Type

Number of 

Submissions

Number of Comment 

Pages

Anonymous or Individual Person 32 44

Environmental Advocacy Organization 3 22

Government (Local) 28 114

Government (State) 39 308

Government (Federal) 2 5

Industry (Misc.) 39 188

Industry (Agriculture) 25 163

Industry (Software Vendors) 2 6

Total: 170 850
1. Soliciting additional comments on key areas 

identified during the Proposed NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule comment period. 

A. Implementation Plan

B. Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR)

C. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Sector

D. Stormwater Sector

E. Economic Analysis

F. Miscellaneous Issues

2. Opens a new 60 day comment period.

- Comment period closes on 30 January 2015.

10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 9

Purpose of the Supplemental Notice
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 10

Key Area A. Implementation Plan

Clarifications

1. Initial recipient status

 Initial recipient is defined as: the first to receive electronically 

reported NPDES program data, the permitting authority or EPA

 A Permitting authority will request to be the initial recipient for 

specific NPDES data groups (e.g Pretreatment NOIs, DMRs) 

 EPA will support all initial recipient requests and work to resolve any 

intervening issues

 The initial recipient status is not contingent on the State Readiness 

Criteria.

2. State Readiness Criteria

 Participation Rate: 90% by data group

 CROMERR Approved Electronic Reporting System

 Initial Recipient Status: permitting authority has requested the data 

group
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 11

Key Area A. Implementation Plan 

(continued)

Comments

1. Initial recipient status

 Burden of double reporting

 Conflicting data - which is the copy of record

 Differing initial recipients for various data groups could be very 

confusing and burdensome for facilities

2. State Readiness Criteria

 Two year implementation plan will inhibit 90% threshold

o COMMERR approval

o Required outreach and training

 Suggestion of phasing in State Readiness Criteria
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 12

Key Area A. Implementation Plan 

(continued)

Comments

3. Implementation Plan Schedule

 Two year implementation plan will inhibit 90% threshold (as noted 

previously)

 Individual State Plans

 Integrated electronic reporting with permit cycle

4. Copy of Record (COR)

 The proposed rule does not change EPA’s authentication and 

encryption standards for electronic reporting

 The wet signature is the COR when a facility is required to report 

both electronically and by paper.

e. Modifications of State regulations and statutes

 EPA regulations require any updates within one-year of the 

effective date of the final rule
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 13

Key Area B. Cross-Media Electronic 

Reporting Regulation (CROMERR)

Comments

1. Improve/Streamline the application approval process

2. Burdensome requirements for Signature Authorization

 High processing costs for paper signature agreements

o Paperless, real time identity proofing is now being implemented

 Facilities with high turnover and overall infrequent reporting 

3. CROMMER requirements for NPDES-Regulated Entities

 Clarification: NPDES regulated entities (e.g., POTWs) are not 

required to submit a CROMERR application to electronically report 

NPDES program data.

4. EPA Password Reset Requirement

 The 90 day password reset standard is a long standing EPA 

requirement not CROMERR
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 14

Key Area C. Concentrated Animal 

Feeding Operations (CAFO) Sector

Clarifications

1. The proposed rule would only require CAFOs with NPDES 

permits to submit information to permitting authorities and 

be publically available, as currently required.

 Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs) are not required electronically

 No changes to public accessibility to information pursuant to 

existing legal requirements

 No changes to the long-standing procedures for dealing with public 

and confidential information in the existing NPDES regulations

Comments

1. Privacy concerns for unpermitted CAFOs and AFOs that 

have been inspected with no CWA violations 

 A proposal for comment, is to not make facility name, location, and 

contact information publically available for these facilities.
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 15

Key Area D. Stormwater Sector

Comments

1. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)

 Difficult to convert diverse paper forms into a standardize electronic 

format

 Prepopulate data to reduce data entry burden

 Adjust Appendix A to better reflect the different requirements and 

terminology between Phase I and Phase II MS4s

2. Industrial and Construction Stormwater 

 Large changing universe – CROMERR signature agreements 

difficult

o Automatic identification and data capture technology was suggested

 Required data elements should better distinguish between 

Municipal and Industrial stormwater facilities
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 16

Key Area E. Economic Analysis

Comments

1. Implementation costs

 Under estimated system development and upgrade 

costs

 Outreach and training

 Purchase new equipment

2. Data entry burden

 Easier to manage paper for large universes with 

infrequent reporting

3. Dual reporting requirements
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 17

Key Area F. Waivers

Comments

1. Permanent waivers for NPDES-regulated entities located 

in religious communities

2. Automate for certain locations

3. Longer duration than one year

4. Available for circumstances beyond broadband availability, 

such as, undue burden or cost

5. Some States requested flexibility while others suggested 

EPA make the determination
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 18

Key Area G. Miscellaneous Issues

Clarification

1. How the rule applies to the Vessels and Pesticides 

General Permits

Comments

1. Modification of Data Elements in Appendix A

 EPA request for comment on two additional data elements that 

support the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey.

o Additional data will reduce state burden in reporting for the quadrennial 

survey. 

2. Biosolids Annual Report

 EPA requests comment on using an electronic DMR system to 

submit these annual reports

 Proposal to move Biosolids Annual Report from Rule 

Implementation Phase II to Phase I
Additional Information

• Please contact the following for additional information

– General information about the rule:

John Dombrowski, 202-566-0742. e-mail: dombrowski.john@epa.gov;

Andy Hudock, 202-564-6032; e-mail: hudock.andrew@epa.gov;

– Implementation, economic analysis and tool 

development:

Andy Hudock, 202-564-6032; e-mail: hudock.andrew@epa.gov;

Carey Johnston, 202-566-1014; e-mail: johnston.carey@epa.gov;

– Outreach and communication: 

Rochele Kadish, 202-564-3106; e-mail: kadish.rochele@epa.gov

10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 19
Useful Links

• Federal Register Link

– https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/30/2013-

17551/npdes-electronic-reporting-rule

• EPA Website Link

– http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/proposed-npdes-electronicreporting-rule

• Press Release Link

– http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/A38B17B5643E

001D85257BB9005882DA

• Email sign up for future outreach activities

– https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USAEPAOECA/subs

criber/new?

10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 20
Providing comments 

to the docket

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• E-mail: docket.oeca@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQOECA-2009-0274.

• Mail: U.S. EPA, EPA Docket Center, Enforcement and Compliance 

Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA2009-0274. 

• Hand Delivery: 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-OECA2009-0274. 

10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 21
Appendix 

Matters for which Comments are Sought

10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 22
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 23

Matters for Which Comments 

are Sought

A. Implementation Plan

 Initial Recipient status process and details

 Different State Readiness Criteria options 

 Use of EPA’s CWA authority through an ICR to 

o require NPDES-regulated entities to electronically submit data to the 

permit authority

o Require facilities operating under backlogged permits to electronically 

report their NPDES data

 Extending or adding additional phasing to the implementation plan

 Calculate DMR submission rates separately by program area and 

Individual permit or General permit

 Practical ways to streamline CROMERR approvals within the 

required regulation
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 24

Matters for Which Comments 

are Sought (continued)

B. Stormwater Sector

 Use of a combination of drop-down lists and text fields for 

electronic reporting

 Flexible Electronic Signature Credentialing options for Construction 

Stormwater

 Different Appendix A, required data elements, for Municipal and 

Industrial

C. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Sector

 Removing facility specific information from unpermitted CAFOs and 

AFOs inspected with the finding of no violations

 Modifications to CAFO specific Appendix A data elements
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 25

D. Economic Analysis

 What technology upgrades might be necessary 

 CROMERR costs for electronic NPDES reporting

 Training costs

 Computer and Internet access

 Current costs associated with NPDES electronic reporting

 Costs associated with reporting and review for the current Annual 

Non-Compliance Report (ANCR) and those for the proposed electronic 

NPDES noncompliance report.

E. Waiver

 Automatic for limited broadband availability

 Effective timeframe for an automatic broadband waiver

 Timeframe for temporary waivers

 Temporary waivers for lack of technical expertise

 Permanent waiver for religious communities

Matters for Which Comments 

are Sought (continued)
10 December 2014 State Technical Workgroup 26

F. Miscellaneous Issues

 Improvements to public accessibility and usability of the data 

 Changes to some of the Appendix A data elements

 Practicality of using the DMR form for the Biosolids annual Report

 Move the Biosolids Annual report from Phase II to Phase I of Rule 

implementation

 Suggestion on how to reach and inform the broad range of facilities 

covered under this propose rulemaking

Matters for Which Comments 

are Sought (continued)