1

September 14, 2015

Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Electronic Reporting of National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Data (Final Rule)

(EPA No. 2468.02, OMB No. 2020-0035)

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title of the Information Collection

Title: Electronic Reporting of NPDES Program Data (Final Rule).

EPA ICR No.: 2468.02

OMB Control No.: 2020-0035

1(b) Short Characterization/ Abstract

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is promulgating the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic 

Reporting Rule. The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule would replace select existing paper-based reports 

with electronic reporting. The rule would primarily affect regulated entities and state and federal 

regulators and will save them time and resources, while improving compliance and better protecting the 

nation’s waters. The rule would also require EPA Regions, states, territories, and tribes (subsequently 

referred to as “authorized NPDES programs” in this document) to share with EPA the information either 

that is reported to the authorized program or that they generate with respect to those regulated entities.

The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule will help to ensure that facility-specific information reported 

under the CWA’s NPDES program is submitted to EPA on a nationally consistent, timely, accurate, and 

complete basis for national program management, oversight, and transparency. The majority of the data 

affected by the rule is NPDES information that is submitted by regulated entities to their respective 

authorized NPDES programs. This information would be supplemented by required information 

regarding NPDES implementation activities from authorized NPDES programs implementing the NPDES 

program. 

Note that this Information Collection Request (ICR) covers the first three years after the final rule is 

promulgated; however, according to EPA’s schedule, the rule would be not be fully implemented until 

five years after the effective date of the rule. As a result, some activities required by the rule are not 

reflected in the costs and burden of this ICR. In addition, the full extent of expected savings is not 

reflected as these savings do not fully materialize until the rule is fully implemented five years from the 

effective date. 

The rule phases in the electronic collection of NPDES program data on the following schedule (see also 

40 CFR 127.16):

 Phase 1: Authorized NPDES programs must electronically transmit to EPA basic facility and 

permit information (see list of data elements in “ICIS Addendum to the Appendix of the 1985 

Permit Compliance System Policy Statement,” 28 December 2007, DCN 0007, also known as 

Water Enforcement National Database or “WENDB”) for all permits as well as other data 

necessary for implementation of Phase 1 data collection within nine months after the effective 

date of the final rule. One year after the effective date of the final rule, authorized NPDES 

programs must start electronically transmitting to EPA their state performance data (subject to 

applicable waivers), which includes information generated from compliance monitoring (e.g., 

inspections), violation determinations, and enforcement actions. Additionally, one year after the 
2

September 14, 2015

effective date of the final rule, NPDES regulated entities that are required to submit DMRs 

(including majors and nonmajors, individually permitted facilities and facilities covered by 

general permits) must do so electronically. EPA and authorized NPDES programs will begin 

electronically receiving these DMRs from all DMR filers and start sharing these data with each 

other. One year after the effective date of the final rule, all NPDES regulated entities in states 

where EPA is the authorized NPDES biosolids program (currently 42 of 50 states and all other 

tribal lands and territories) must electronically submit their Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual 

Program Report to EPA. 

 Phase 2: Authorized NPDES programs have five years to begin electronically collecting, 

managing, and sharing the remaining set of information in Appendix A in 40 CFR part 127. This 

information includes: general permit reports [e.g. Notice of Intent to be covered (NOI); Notice of 

Termination (NOT); No Exposure Certification (NOE); Low Erosivity Waiver and Other Waivers 

from Stormwater Controls (LEW)]; Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report (where the 

state is the authorized NPDES biosolids program); and all other remaining NPDES program 

reports (e.g., CAFO Annual Report, Pretreatment Program Annual Report). Authorized NPDES 

programs will also share with EPA all data necessary for implementation of Phase 2 data 

collection three months before the Phase 2 deadline as defined in the data element analysis for the 

final rule (see DCN 0200). Additionally, one year after the effective date of the final rule, 

authorized NPDES programs will submit an implementation plan (IP) for meeting the Phase 2 

data requirements for EPA to review. EPA will inform the state if its IP is inadequate.

 NPDES Noncompliance Report (NNCR) and Other State Reporting: EPA will replace a number 

of currently required state reports (e.g., QNCR and ANCR) with the new NNCR when EPA has a 

timely, complete, more accurate, and nationally-consistent set of data about the NPDES program. 

Full implementation of the NNCR and phase out of certain state reports will only be possible one 

full year after full implementation of Phase 2 data collection (i.e., six years after the effective date

of this rule). A complete set of Phase 1 and 2 data are necessary to develop and produce the 

NNCR.

Thus, electronic reporting under the rule begins nine months after the effective date for authorized 

NPDES programs (transmittal of basic facility and permit information to EPA) and one year after the 

effective date for regulated entities. Therefore, this ICR does not include a full three years of electronic 

reporting. It does, however, include the cost and burden of certain one-time implementation activities that 

should occur in advance of electronic reporting during the first year after the effective date (e.g., upgrades 

to electronic reporting systems, state implementation plan preparation, regulated entity registration).

State authorized NPDES programs are expected to have electronic reporting systems one year after the 

effective date of the rule. As a means to “fill in the gaps” where NPDES-regulated entities are not yet 

using these systems, EPA will conduct oversight activities to require NPDES-regulated entities to report 

electronically to their authorized program. As a result, during the first five years after the rule effective 

date, some entities might be required to submit data both electronically and on paper (paper and electronic 

submissions of the same data). The conditions under which this “dual reporting” could occur are limited 

and likely to occur only for a small number of regulated entities. As shown in Table 3 in the preamble to 

the final rule, authorized NPDES programs have several mechanisms to minimize the potential for dual 

reporting (e.g., use of minor modifications). Still, this ICR accounts for this potential for dual reporting 

for a percentage of facilities during the ICR period.

This rule-related ICR addresses the incremental paperwork activities for authorized NPDES programs 

submitting NPDES programmatic data to EPA. This ICR also addresses the incremental paperwork 

activities associated with electronic submittal of DMRs, general permit reports, and program reports by 
3

September 14, 2015

regulated entities to authorized NPDES programs or EPA. EPA estimates that approximately 213,396 

respondents would incur paperwork-related burden and reporting burden reductions annually following 

promulgation of the rule. This number is a three-year average covering both regulated entities and state 

authorized NPDES programs. In the first year, 266,653 regulated entities would incur registration and 

training burden and some must acquire a new email address. In the second year, 179,872 regulated 

entities would be affected. Some of these would report both on paper and electronically and others would

incur savings associated with paper mailings. In the third year, 193,521 regulated entities would be 

affected. Fewer would report both on paper and electronically and a greater number incur savings 

associated with paper mailings. In both the second and third years, some regulated entities would bear an 

additional burden to reset their password. Additionally, 47 authorized NPDES programs would incur 

burden and cost in all three years of this ICR.

The respondents to this ICR are regulated entities, which include publicly-owned treatment works

(POTWs), concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and stormwater dischargers; as well as states 

that are authorized to administer the NPDES program. EPA estimates a reporting and recordkeeping 

burden reduction for these respondents at approximately 197,236 hours annually for the first three years 

after the rule becomes effective. The average annual burden for regulated entities for the first three years 

is 118,577 hours per year, and the average annual burden reduction for state authorized NPDES programs 

for the first three years is 315,814 hours per year.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

2(a)(i) Need for the Collection

On October 15, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced an action plan to revitalize 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 CWA Action Plan recognizes that 

EPA lacks nationally consistent and complete information on the facilities, permits, pollutant discharges, 

and compliance status of most NPDES-regulated entities. This information gap affects EPA’s and 

authorized NPDES programs’ ability to identify violations, target compliance and enforcement actions, 

connect violations to water quality impacts, and share information with the public. The rule would make 

nationally consistent, timely, accurate, and complete data available to EPA, the authorized NPDES 

programs, and the public. 

The CWA Action Plan identifies electronic reporting as a key component of the new system because it

would greatly reduce the reporting related burdens on authorized NPDES programs, EPA, and regulated 

entities. This information collection activity identifies the NPDES facility-specific information EPA and 

authorized programs need to receive electronically from NPDES-permitted facilities, and the information 

EPA needs to receive from authorized NPDES programs to facilitate the conversion from paper reporting 

to electronic reporting. This information would be submitted to EPA in a nationally-consistent manner. 

By applying existing technologies to electronic reporting the rule would substantially reduce the costs of 

NPDES reporting. 

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. 

To target the most important pollution problems and most serious noncompliance, better ensure 

environmental protection and public health, and enable more integrated program assessment and planning 

at the national level, data used by EPA and authorized NPDES programs should have the following 

characteristics: 
4

September 14, 2015

 The data should be current;

 The data should generally be comparable in format, reporting units, frequency, etc;

 The data should be complete; and

 The data should be made available so that the basis for EPA program evaluation and subsequent 

planning is transparent and reproducible.

The 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.

In a previous 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. 

That initiative aimed to identify and reduce what some states consider to be high-burden reporting 

requirements for various media (e.g., air, water, waste). Among the recommendations from states was 

reducing the compliance reporting requirements associated with the NPDES program. This ICR would

address state reporting burdens by eliminating report processing and transcription activities through the 

electronic transfer of permit information, as opposed to paper transmission.

2(a)(ii) Authority for the Collection

The Clean Water Act (CWA)

1

establishes a comprehensive program for protecting and restoring our 

nation’s waters. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was 

established by the CWA to authorize and control the discharges of pollutants to waters of the United 

States (CWA Section 402(a)). This information collection activity flows from the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule [FR Notice citation], which is intended to reduce the burden associated with the existing

paper-based reporting system. Echoing the goals of CWA section 101(f), the rule would increase the 

speed, quality and scope of information received by EPA, authorized NPDES programs, and the public.

EPA is taking this action pursuant to CWA sections 101(f), 304(i), 308, 402, and 501:

 Section 101(f) encourages, to the extent possible, the 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.

 Section 304(i) 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.

 Section 308 authorizes EPA to require the submittal of information needed to carry out the 

objectives of the Act, including sections 301, 305, 306, 307, 311, 402, 404, 405, and 504. 

 Sections 402(b) and (c) establish the NPDES permit program for the control of the discharge of 

pollutants into the nation’s waters, and require each authorized state, tribe, or territory to ensure 

that permits meet certain substantive requirements, and to provide EPA information from point 

sources, industrial users, and the authorized program in order to ensure proper oversight by EPA.

 Section 501 authorizes EPA to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out provisions 

of the act.

 

1 The 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) and subsequent amendments are now commonly referred 

to as the Clean Water Act (CWA). 
5

September 14, 2015

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

This information collection activity would deliver more timely, consistent, and accurate information to 

authorized NPDES programs, EPA, and other stakeholders, which in turn would improve understanding 

and awareness of NPDES covered discharges. The newly improved and shared information would

increase transparency and accountability, and help EPA and authorized NPDES programs monitor 

compliance with NPDES permits.

EPA has primary responsibility for ensuring the CWA’s NPDES program is effectively and consistently 

implemented nationwide, thus ensuring that public health and environmental protection goals of the CWA 

are met. Better NPDES data will significantly improve EPA’s knowledge of the regulated community, 

which is essential for problem identification, permitting, and the development of sound regulations, 

guidance, and policy. The accurate, complete, and timely information collected under this rule will 

accurately reflect the performance of state NPDES programs in achieving the goals and objectives of the 

CWA. 

Adequate data is critical to EPA’s ability to oversee and manage authorized NPDES programs. 

Previously, data gaps and inconsistencies have limited EPA’s ability to conduct adequate oversight. By 

requiring electronic reporting by NPDES regulated entities and of the additional compliance information 

generated by the authorized NPDES programs, EPA would receive the data needed for overall 

management and oversight. 

In the development of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, EPA identified several key EPA uses for 

the NPDES information. These include:

 Permitting, compliance, and enforcement decisions affecting individual facilities or watersheds;

 Making national program decisions and rulemakings;

 Managing and overseeing national and state, tribal, or territorial program management and 

oversight;

 Leveling the playing field between dischargers and authorized NPDES programs regarding 

availability of compliance information;

 Establishing program performance indicators;

 Developing trend data on facility compliance and government performance;

 Preparing responses to Congress, the Government Accountability Office, EPA’s Inspector 

General, and OMB; and

 Preparing for and responding to emergencies.

EPA shares much of the existing NPDES information (except for confidential enforcement and

confidential business information) with the public. This information collection activity would allow EPA 

to better inform the public regarding local and national problems and efforts to address those problems 

Separate from this final rule, in light of concerns raised regarding the privacy interests of an unpermitted 

CAFO or AFO that an authorized NPDES program or EPA has assessed and found to have not violated 

the Clean Water Act, EPA will change its current practice and mask on the ECHO public website the 

related facility-specific facility information.

Additionally, with the implementation of this information collection activity, regulated entities would be 

able to ensure that the information used by their authorized NPDES program and EPA is as accurate and 

timely as possible. Through electronic reporting, regulated entities can be more confident that EPA and 

authorized NPDES programs receive their reports and acknowledge them in a timely manner, and that 

reported information and compliance status are characterized correctly. Because the electronic reporting 

tools would include the ability to check for certain types of errors, regulated entities would also 
6

September 14, 2015

experience savings related to improved data quality and less need to revise and reenter their submissions.

However, savings associated with improved data quality were not quantified in this analysis.

3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS AND OTHER COLLECTION

CRITERIA

3(a) Non-Duplication

All of the information requested from respondents under this ICR is already required to be collected by 

statute or regulation and covered by existing information collection requests. This ICR documents a 

change in the mode by which this information is reported to authorized NPDES programs, and requires 

authorized NPDES programs to share with EPA the data they collect and generate. 

As a means to “fill in the gaps” where NPDES-regulated entities are not yet reporting electronically, EPA 

will use its authority, as appropriate, to issue targeted individual notices requiring NPDES-regulated 

entities to report electronically. As a result, during the initial implementation period (within five years 

after the effective date of the rule), some regulated entities might be required to submit data both 

electronically and on paper. The conditions under which this “dual reporting” could occur are the 

following:

 The regulated entity’s authorized NPDES program does not have an electronic reporting system 

in place;

 The regulated entity’s permit (or other control mechanism) explicitly requires paper reporting;

 The conditions that require paper reporting are not changed outside of the normal permit cycle 

(e.g., through the minor modification process); and 

 The authorized NPDES program does not use its enforcement discretion to refrain from enforcing 

the conditions that explicitly require paper reporting.

These conditions are likely to occur only for a small number of regulated entities and would last only until 

the permitting authority takes action (e.g., incorporation of electronic reporting requirements through use 

of a minor modification, permit is re-issued with electronic reporting requirements on the normal permit 

cycle). 

Electronic reporting will allow EPA and state authorized NPDES programs to assemble timely, complete, 

more accurate, and nationally-consistent set of data about the NPDES program. EPA and the states can 

begin using the data to improve program management.

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

This ICR was made available to the public for comment concurrent with the proposed rule published in 

the Federal Register. Responses to comments were taken into account in developing the final 

rulemaking.

3(c) Consultations

EPA has conducted a number of consultations with relevant stakeholders on the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule. These consultations included:

On October 14, 2008, EPA hosted a listening session with states and interested stakeholders in 

Washington, D.C. This session was announced in the Federal Register by a notice on September 17, 2008. 
7

September 14, 2015

In this meeting, which was complemented by a concurrent conference call and web access to EPA’s 

presentation materials, EPA provided authorized NPDES programs and other stakeholders an opportunity 

to hear EPA’s rulemaking plans and comment on those plans. More than 30 people participated in the 

meeting, including representatives of several states.

On March 9, 2009, EPA conducted a meeting in Washington, D.C. 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 rule.

Beginning in the summer of 2010, EPA conducted several outreach efforts focused primarily on 

electronic reporting. First, on July 13, 2010, EPA conducted a meeting in Washington, D.C. with over 

100 attendees to announce the electronic reporting approach of the proposed rule. Representatives from 

state, local and tribal governments, and industry and environmental associations participated in person 

and by web access. EPA provided attendees the opportunity to learn about EPA’s rulemaking plans for 

the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule and to comment on those plans.

Subsequently, EPA hosted a series of 11 web sessions from July 2010 through September 2010. The goal 

of these meetings was to provide further opportunity for comment on the merits of the proposed rule. 

Altogether, this effort included over 500 participants with representation from 38 states, 10 EPA Regions, 

and over 150 industry and trade association attendees.

During this rule development, EPA also conducted meetings and consultations to comply with various 

statutes and executive orders directing federal agencies, including EPA, to consult 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 directs 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. Through these 

meetings 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 10 regions. The Tribal Water Council consists of 19 tribal water professionals who represent a 

national tribal perspective. In addition, after mailing information to 563 nationally-recognized 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 in the spirit of

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 
8

September 14, 2015

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 for the 

participants.

Along with these meetings and the series of web sessions, EPA also implemented a website for the 

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule website is a government 

flagship project that falls under the theme of “Expanding Public Awareness and Involvement in the 

Development of Rules and Regulations.” The purpose of the website was to provide background 

information on the rule, the status of rule development, announcements of upcoming stakeholder 

meetings, and a discussion forum with questions and topics. To date, over half a million visitors have 

accessed the website.

EPA also solicited input from states to explore the implementation issues related to this rule. EPA’s 

outreach to states focused on identifying issues and roadblocks to implementing various aspects of the 

proposed rule, and shared information concerning how these issues could be best addressed. EPA worked 

with Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) and ECOS to identify 11 states who were 

interested in meeting with EPA to help EPA understand the concerns of individual states. These states 

supported the concept of electronic reporting, but also raised concerns related to implementation 

requirements, funding, and available resources. The states also noted the varying degrees of state 

readiness for electronic reporting. Some states requested that EPA explicitly identify the required data and 

the need for each item. EPA has addressed these concerns through the phased implementation plan and 

the identification of required data in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127.

Following the rule’s proposal on July 30, 2013, the Agency has conducted dozens of additional 

consultations via webinars, small and large meetings, forums, and conferences with state and local 

governments, regions, trade associations, and environmental groups on various aspects of the rule.

In particular, EPA held teleconferences with authorized NPDES programs to obtain their individual views 

on various aspects of the proposed rule. EPA met with over twenty five states, ECOS, ACWA, and New 

England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission to take into account their individual comments 

and concerns about the rule (see DCN 0128 to 0142, 0181, 0219 to 0229 in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OECA2009-0274, http://www.regulations.gov). Additionally, EPA separately contacted each authorized NPDES 

program to individually assess its readiness for these new electronic reporting requirements. This 

extensive outreach helped inform the implementation process of the final rule and the additional 

flexibilities that authorized states, tribes, and territories need for a measured and orderly conversion from 

paper to electronic reporting.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA recognizes the importance of balancing the need for data collection efforts against burden and costs

to the respondents. EPA expects that the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule will ultimately result in 

savings for regulated entities, states, and EPA through the elimination of requirements associated with 

mailing and processing paper reports.

EPA and authorized states need current information about regulated entities, discharge characteristics, 

enforcement actions, and program performance to fulfill oversight responsibilities. In addition, EPA must 

track permits, compliance activities, and enforcement actions to ensure that state programs are carrying 

out the provisions of the CWA in a timely manner. The information currently being reported, and subject 

to the rule, is submitted on a variety of schedules. Some information is only submitted once (e.g., 

applying for a permit), some information is submitted regularly (e.g., monthly discharge monitoring 
9

September 14, 2015

reports), while some information is submitted as needed (e.g., enforcement actions). The reporting 

frequencies associated with the NPDES program, as laid out in existing ICRs, represent the minimum 

reporting frequency necessary to support the programmatic requirements of the NPDES program. 

Therefore, less frequent reporting would make it more difficult for EPA to perform its oversight role, 

effectively provide guidance to state programs, review or comment on state actions, or intervene in 

compliance or enforcement cases, as necessary.

This ICR does not alter the reporting frequencies associated with the NPDES program, but rather changes 

the mode of submission from paper to electronic. The effects of less frequent collection of NPDES data 

are discussed in the program’s current ICRs, including:

 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (OMB Control No. 2040-

0004);

 NPDES Animal Sectors (OMB Control No. 2040-0250);

 NPDES Pesticides General Permit (2040-0284);

 Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (2040-0285);

 Cooling Water Intake Structures - New Facility (2040-0241);

 National Pretreatment Program (2040-0009);

 Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase III Facilities (2040-0268); and 

 Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities (2040-0257).

3(e) General Guidelines

This information collection is consistent with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementing regulations (5 CFR 1320.6), and OMB 

Guidance.

3(f) Confidentiality

Some animal feeding operators may claim their CAFO Annual Report to be confidential business 

information (CBI). All confidential data would be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR 

Part 2, and EPA’s Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. Any claim of confidentiality 

must be asserted at the time of submission. The CWA and EPA regulations specifically state, however,

that permit application and effluent data may not be treated as confidential.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

The requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions. Sensitive questions are defined 

in EPA’s ICR Handbook, Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 as “questions concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other 

matters usually considered private.” The information addressed in this ICR is generally related to 

potential pollutants and the processes that generate those pollutants. The only information collected about 

individuals is the name and contact information for responsible individuals, which is already collected 

under existing permitting regulations. 40 C.F.R. 122.21(f).
10

September 14, 2015

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents/ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

Codes

The reporting requirements associated with this information collection activity would apply to EPA and 

state authorized NPDES programs as well as to regulated entities.

EPA issues NPDES permits except where a state demonstrates that it has adequate legal, technical, and 

financial capabilities in place to administer the NPDES program. To date, 46 states and one U.S. territory 

are authorized by EPA to administer the NPDES program, or parts of it. EPA is the authorized NPDES 

program for the entire program in the other 4 states, for all of the tribes and 15 territories. EPA is also the 

authorized NPDES program for any subprogram for which authorized states have declined to assume 

responsibility, and for certain national subprograms such as vessels. The authorized states and territories 

are considered respondents for evaluating paperwork burden in this ICR.

NPDES regulated entities, whether permitted by EPA or a state, are also respondents in this ICR. A 

significant portion of NPDES regulated entities are publicly-owned (i.e., municipal) treatment works 

(POTWs) classified in the NAICS system as Sewage Treatment Facilities (NAICS sector 221320). In 

contrast, non-municipal dischargers fall in to more than 1,000 NAICS classifications including industrial, 

agricultural, commercial, and service sectors.

NPDES permitted facilities are grouped in terms of major and nonmajor sources and whether they have 

coverage under an individual or general permit. NPDES permitted facilities designated as major include 

POTWs with designed discharge flows of greater than one million gallons per day (1 MGD) and active 

major industrial facilities scoring more than 80 for the six factors (toxicity, volume, conventional 

pollutants, public health impact, water quality, and proximity to coastal waters) on the “NPDES Permit 

Rating Work Sheet.”2 NPDES permittees that are not designated as majors are classified as nonmajors. 

General permits authorize discharges and establish operating and reporting requirements under the CWA 

for specific categories of dischargers (e.g., stormwater discharges from construction activities). Nearly all 

of the approximately 6,800 NPDES facilities designated as majors have individual permits. There are 

many more NPDES facilities designated as nonmajors than majors and most nonmajors have coverage 

under general permits (e.g., construction stormwater permits).

The sections below identify the NPDES regulated entities affected by this information collection activity.

4(a)(i) Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater Facilities

 Standard Industrial Dischargers: This group includes industrial facilities that discharge directly 

to a surface water and have an NPDES permit. These facilities can be classified as majors or 

nonmajors and may have coverage under individual or general NPDES permits. Facilities with 

coverage under a general permit will submit one or more general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, 

NOTs). Most of these facilities also submit DMRs on a regular frequency.

 CWA §316(b) Filers: This group is a subset of standard industrial dischargers. Most are 

classified as majors. These facilities have additional permit data elements related to cooling water 

intakes and/or thermal variances. Some of these facilities also submit CWA §316(b) Annual 

Reports. 

 

2

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0116.pdf
11

September 14, 2015

 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs): This group is the set of CAFOs that have 

an NPDES permit. Most of these facilities are classified as nonmajors and most are covered under 

general NPDES permits. Facilities with coverage under a general permit will submit one or more 

general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs). A few but not many of these facilities also submit 

DMRs irregularly (e.g., unanticipated discharges due to large storm events).3 These facilities will 

also submit CAFO Annual Program Reports.

 Industrial and Construction Stormwater: This group includes industrial facilities that 

discharge industrial or construction stormwater directly to a surface water and have a NPDES 

permit. Facilities with coverage under a general permit will submit one or more general permit 

reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs, NECs, and LEWs). Some industrial stormwater facilities (e.g., those 

regulated by EPA’s Multi-Sector General Permit) submit DMRs on a regular frequency. Most 

construction stormwater facilities are not required to submit DMRs. The analysis assumes, 

however, that a small percentage of construction stormwater regulated entities have DMR 

requirements due to an enforcement action.

 Municipal Stormwater: This group includes municipalities that discharge urban stormwater 

under the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program. Facilities with coverage 

under a general permit will submit one or more general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs, NECs, 

and LEWs). Most of the facilities classified as majors submit DMRs on a regular frequency.

Municipalities that discharge urban stormwater under the MS4 program also submit an MS4 

Program Report. Facilities classified as large and medium MS4s submit these reports on an 

annual basis and facilities classified as small MS4s submit these reports twice per five year 

permit term.

 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs): These industrial facilities discharge to POTWs and are

regulated by the NPDES program through EPA’s General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 

403) and Categorical Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 405 – 471). They do not have NPDES 

permits, but those in municipalities without approved pretreatment programs (i.e., where EPA or 

the authorized state is the control authority) would report electronically under the rule. This 

means that these facilities do not have NPDES permits but do have a control mechanism that is 

issued by the control authority (State or EPA). These facilities will submit periodic reports on 

continued compliance on a bi-annual frequency to their control authority {i.e., periodic reports on 

continued compliance for CIUs [40 CFR 403.12(e)] and periodic reports on continued 

compliance for non-CIUs [40 CFR 403.12(h)]}.

4(a)(ii) POTWs and TWTDSs

POTWs and other treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDSs) have multiple reporting 

requirements and are broken out separately in this analysis. Additionally, this analysis separates POTWs 

by their collection system type: Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs) and Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs). 

This break out helps to properly identify the burden associated with reporting sewer overflows (which 

include bypass events). POTWs and TWTDSs that discharge directly to a surface water have NPDES 

permits. These facilities can be classified as majors or nonmajors and may have coverage under individual 

or general NPDES permits. Facilities with coverage under a general permit will submit one or more 

general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs). Most of these facilities also submit DMRs on a regular 

 

3 The analysis does not account for DMR submission by this small number of CAFOs, which is a conservative 

assumption because the switch to electronic submission of DMRs results in a net cost savings.
12

September 14, 2015

frequency. POTWs and TWTDSs may submit the following compliance monitoring data to their 

authorized NPDES program. 

 Biosolids/Sewage Sludge: EPA’s sewage sludge regulations (40 CFR 503) require certain 

POTWs to submit an annual biosolids/sewage sludge report to the authorized state or EPA region. 

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 authorized NPDES program 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.

 Pretreatment: EPA has developed a comprehensive pretreatment program implemented through 

EPA Regions, state, tribes, territories, and POTWs to control industrial 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 submit to their approval authority (State or EPA) an annual 

report summarizing basic program information and implementation activities.

 Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports - Combined Sewer Systems: POTWs that have 

combined sewer systems (CSS) are designed to have combined sewer overflows (CSOs). CSO

discharges from CSO permitted outfalls (dry or wet-weather) 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). For this analysis, this sector also includes bypass events occurring at CSSs.

 Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports - Sanitary Sewer Systems: POTWs and TWTDSs with 

separate sanitary sewer systems, unlike combined sewer systems, are designed to carry only 

domestic sewage. Sanitary Sewer Overflows (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 authorized NPDES program 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)]. For this analysis, this sector also 

includes bypass events occurring at SSSs.

4(b) Information Requested

4(b)(i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements 
13

September 14, 2015

(4)(b)(i)(1) Electronic Reporting from NPDES Regulated Entities

The rule revises existing federal regulations to change the mode by which NPDES information is 

provided. Under the rule, regulated entities would be required to report certain information electronically 

instead of submitting paper reports. Existing federal regulations already require the submission of these 

reports; however, most reports are submitted on paper. This information collection activity only changes 

the mode by which they are submitted. This information collection activity does not create any new 

reporting requirements or add new data elements beyond what is required to be collected by regulation.

Facilities with Individual NPDES Permits and Significant Industrial Users

Most facilities with individual NPDES permits (major and nonmajor) submit DMRs [40 CFR 

122.41(l)(4)] to their authorized NPDES program (often on a monthly frequency). Additionally, some 

individually permitted facilities are also required to submit programs reports which include:

 CWA §316(b) Annual Report [40 CFR 125 Subpart J];

 Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report [40 CFR 503];

 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Annual Program Reports [40 CFR 

122.42(e)(4)];

 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Report [40 CFR 122.34(g)(3) and 

122.42(c)];

 Pretreatment Program Annual Report [40 CFR 403.12(i)]; and

 Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4), (l)(6) and (7), (m)(3)].

Significant industrial users in municipalities without approved pretreatment programs must also submit 

bi-annual compliance reports [40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)].

Facilities with General NPDES Permits

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 authorized NPDES program to allocate resources in a more efficient manner and provide timelier 

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. 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. Nearly all general permit covered facilities are classified as 

nonmajors.

After the final general permit has been issued, there are several general permit reports that facilities must 

submit to their authorized NPDES program, 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 and Other Waivers from Stormwater Controls (LEW): A certification from 

a facility indicating that coverage under an existing construction stormwater general permit is not 

necessary due to certain facility-specific or climate conditions [40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)].
14

September 14, 2015

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.

(4)(b)(i)(2) Data Submissions from Authorized NPDES Programs

Historically, EPA has relied upon authorized NPDES programs to receive data from regulated entities, 

enter that data into databases, enter their own programmatic data into databases, and then forward some of 

that data to EPA. Under the rule, EPA would require regulated entities to submit a large portion of their

NPDES data electronically, thus significantly reducing the amount work performed by the states.

Nevertheless, EPA would still require certain NPDES information from authorized NPDES programs, 

particularly information linked to NPDES permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities 

and responsibilities of the authorized NPDES programs. The types of NPDES information that EPA 

would require authorized NPDES programs to report electronically 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), for industrial 

users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs, and for general permits 

(generally to be entered by authorized NPDES programs once in the permit cycle, and when the 

permit is modified, and linked to facility-submitted general permit report information);

 Limit and limit set information, which characterize the parameters of releases (total dissolved 

solids, pH, etc.) authorized by each NPDES permit;

 Compliance monitoring information documenting and tracking compliance monitoring 

activities (e.g., inspections) at permitted facilities;

 Violation information for data associated with single event, effluent, and compliance schedule 

violations; and,

 Enforcement action information about the enforcement action itself, as well as associated 

compliance schedules and penalties. 

4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities

(4)(b)(ii)(1) Regulated Entities

In order to comply with this information collection activity, regulated entities would need to complete 

some or all of the following activities, depending on the type of permit under which they are regulated 

and the state in which they are located:

 Set up an account on the Central Data Exchange (CDX) or a similar data portal provided by their 

authorized NPDES program;

 Mail the authorized NPDES program an electronic signature agreement (ESA) stating that their 

electronic PIN number is the legal equivalent of their written signature;

 Complete online training to learn how to submit DMRs electronically;

 Acquire a new, business email address as part of the registration process if they currently use a 

personal email address;

 Reset their password upon reporting, if they are using EPA’s reporting systems and reporting less 

frequently than every 90 days; and

 Submit general permit reports, DMRs, and Program Reports electronically using reporting tools 

developed by EPA, state authorized NPDES programs, or EPA-approved third-party developers.
15

September 14, 2015

As discussed in Section 3(a), during the initial implementation period (within five years after the effective 

date of the rule), a small number regulated entities might be required to submit data to their authorized 

state program both electronically and on paper.

(4)(b)(ii)(2) State Authorized NPDES Programs

State authorized NPDES programs would need to complete the following activities:

 Implement an electronic reporting system for submitting regulated entity data;

 Implement an electronic reporting system for submitting authorized NPDES program data to 

EPA;

 Demonstrate that their attorneys general accept electronic signatures in lieu of physical signature, 

thereby certifying compliance with EPA’s Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR);

 Make decisions regarding their initial recipient status;

 Prepare implementation plans;

 Update Memoranda of Agreement with Regional Administrators;

 Develop criteria for temporary and permanent waivers from electronic reporting;

 Attend EPA training webinars on changes to the ICIS-NPDES system and new data standards;

 Modify permits to include electronic reporting requirements;

 Share facility information, limits, and limit sets with EPA electronically; and

 Share programmatic data required by Appendix A to 40 CFR 127, such as inspections, violations 

determinations and enforcement actions, with EPA electronically.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES,

COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

EPA Headquarters would conduct the following activities in order to implement electronic reporting of 

NPDES program data:

 Modify NetDMR and NPDES e-Reporting Tool (NeT) to accommodate data defined in Appendix 

A to 40 CFR 127;

 Accept data from regulated entities and receive data from state authorized NPDES programs;

 Conduct routine database refreshes, updates, and licensing;

 Develop a training webinar for authorized NPDES programs;

 Review and approve state implementation plans;

 Develop criteria for temporary and permanent waivers from electronic reporting for facilities 

where EPA is the authorized NPDES program; 

 Assess participation rates and, where appropriate, conduct oversight to compel NPDES-regulated 

entities to utilize their NPDES program’s electronic reporting system; and

 Develop a National Non-Compliance Report that will replace the Annual and Quarterly NonCompliance Reports and the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary.

To comply with this information collection activity, EPA Region authorized NPDES programs would

also be required to complete the following activities:

 Attend EPA training webinars on changes to the ICIS-NPDES system and new data standards;

 Share facility information, limits, and limit sets with EPA electronically; 
16

September 14, 2015

 Share programmatic data required by Appendix A to 40 CFR 127, such as inspections, violations 

determinations and enforcement actions, with EPA electronically; and

 Modify permits to include electronic reporting requirements.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

This information collection activity would require regulated entities to submit certain data electronically, 

and would require authorized NPDES programs to share with EPA the information either that is reported 

to the authorized program or that they generate with respect to those regulated entities. EPA would store 

the data in the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)-NPDES, EPA’s central repository for 

NPDES program information. 

Authorized NPDES programs use the National Environmental Information Exchange Network to share 

information with EPA, and with each other, over the internet. All 50 states have a node on the Exchange 

Network and participate in some degree of data sharing. However, not all states store all of the required 

data electronically. For this reason, to accept electronic reporting from regulated entities, or data transfers 

from EPA, some states would need to modify their data systems to map all of the required data elements 

to the appropriate fields within their systems. 

ICIS-NPDES ensures that the NPDES information regarding regulated entities remains available, 

accessible, and in a nationally consistent format for analyses. The public may access NPDES program

information via Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO – http://echo.epa.gov). Information

is available to the public through Web-based interfaces of these databases or other EPA Web-based tools 

such as Envirofacts.

The rule does not dictate how the state authorized NPDES programs collect data electronically from 

regulated entities. Several states have already developed or are developing electronic reporting tools for 

use by NPDES-regulated entities, and EPA encourages them to continue that work. To assist other states 

in converting to electronic reporting, EPA would develop new, or modify existing, reporting tools to 

allow for the electronic submission of information from NPDES-regulated entities. These tools would use 

the Environmental Information Exchange Network’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) to flow data into 

ICIS-NPDES. Authorized NPDES programs would have the option to use EPA’s electronic reporting 

tools, EPA-approved third-party software provider tools, or to build their own tools. All reporting tools, 

whether existing or to be developed, would be compliant with EPA’s Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 

Regulation (CROMERR).

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

During the period of this ICR, EPA expects regulated entities to incur net costs while implementing

electronic reporting. In addition, a limited number of small entities might be required to report both 

electronically and on paper to their permitting authority during the first five years after the effective date 

of the rule. State authorized NPDES programs would also incur costs during the period of this ICR, but 

by definition are not considered to be small entities.

As estimated in the Economic Analysis for the rule, impacts of greater than 1% are only incurred by one

municipality operating a POTW. Impacts to all other sectors remain less than 1% of annual revenue. 

Note, however, that these impacts are incurred by far fewer than 100 small entities and considerably less 

than 20% of all small entities for all sectors and for each sector individually. Therefore, following EPA 

guidance on assessment of the rule's direct adverse impact on any small entities, the rule is not expected 

to significantly impact a substantial number of small entities.
17

September 14, 2015

5(d) Collection Schedule

EPA will need to have upgraded its electronic tools before the effective date of the rule to allow for 

authorized NPDES programs to begin rule implementation and meet the rule implementation deadlines. 

Regulated entities will be required to register for electronic reporting one year after the effective date of 

the rule. Electronic reporting of Phase 1 information for NPDES regulated entities will also be required 

one year after the effective date of the rule. Phase 2 information reporting is required five years after the 

effective date of the rule. Table 1 provides complete details on the timing of these and other activities 

supporting rule implementation. 

This ICR covers only those activities that occur within the first three years after the effective date of the 

rule. The analysis, however, makes several conservative assumptions regarding the timing of certain 

activities. Specifically, the analysis assumes that all initial data entry, development of electronic tools, and 

regulated entity initial registration take place within one year of the effective date of the rule. In fact, 

some portion of each of these activities could take place later during the implementation period. For 

example, the cost of developing electronic tools specifically to support Phase 2 data could be spread out 

over the full five years leading up to the Phase 2 deadline. Initial data entry for and registration by 

regulated entities that only submit Phase 2 data would not be required until just before the deadline. 

Because it assumes that these activities occur at the start of the implementation period, the ICR includes 

the burden of these activities, resulting in a lower estimate of total net burden reduction during the ICR 

period.
18

September 14, 2015

Table 1: Rule Implementation Timing

Timing

(beyond effective date 

of the rule)

State Activities EPA Activities Regulated Entity Activities

ICR 

Period 

(Years 0 

through 

2)

Within 4 

months

 Make Initial Recipient 

Decisions

 Publish Initial Recipient 

Decisions 

Within 9 

months  Enter Initial Data for Phase 1  Enter Initial Data for Phase 1

Within 1 

year

 Implement Electronic Tools for 

Phase 1 Data

 Prepare Implementation Plans 

and Waiver Criteria

 Attend Webinars

 Implement Electronic Tools for 

Phase 1 Data

 Develop Waiver Criteria

 Develop and Attend Webinars

 Registration for Phase 1

1 year and 

onward

 Permit Modifications

 Submit Phase 1 Data

Electronically

 Permit Modifications

 Submit Phase 1 Data

Electronically

 Submit Phase 1 Data 

Electronically

 Password Resets

 Dual Reporting During 

Transition

1 year, 6 

months

 Review/approve 

Implementation Plans

 Report State eDMR 

Participation Rates (repeat 

annually as needed)

1 year, 9 

months

 Oversight Notices to Regulated 

Entities (repeat annually as 

needed)

Beyond 

the ICR 

Period

Year 3  Assume EPA takes over initial 

recipient status in one state

 Re-registration in one state 

where EPA takes over initial 

recipient status

Within 4 

years, 9 

months

 Enter Initial Data for Phase 2a Enter Initial Data for Phase 2a

Within 5 

years

 Implement Electronic Tools for 

Phase 2 Datab

 Implement Electronic Tools for 

Phase 2 Datab  Registration for Phase 2c

Year 5 

onward

 Submit Phase 1 and 2 Data

Electronically

 Submit Phase 1 and 2 Data

Electronically

 Submit Phase 1 and 2 Data

Electronically

 Password Resets

5 years, 6 

months

 Report State Participation 

Rates (repeat annually as 

needed)

5 years, 9 

months

 Oversight Notices to Regulated 

Entities (repeat annually as 

needed)

Year 6  Incorporate the New National 

Non-Compliance Report

Year 8  Assume EPA takes over initial 

recipient status in one state

 Re-registration in one state 

where EPA takes over initial 

recipient status

a

The analysis conservatively assumes the cost of all initial data entry occurs within 9 months (i.e., within the ICR period).

b

The analysis conservatively assumes the cost of all electronic tool development occurs within 1 year (i.e., within the ICR period).. 

c

The analysis conservatively assumes all initial registration costs occur within 1 year (i.e., within the ICR period)..

The schedule for authorized NPDES programs to share programmatic data with EPA is based on the 

frequency with which the required data are generated. For example, enforcement action data would need 

to be shared when an enforcement action occurs. As a result, frequencies vary by subprogram and by 

permit type. Table 2 below presents relevant annual reporting frequencies by data family, subprogram, 

and permit type. The annual reporting frequency assumes that, for example, reports that are submitted 

every 5 years have annual reporting frequencies of 0.2 (i.e., authorized NPDES programs must enter the 

relevant data elements for 20% of regulated entities in a given year). 
19

September 14, 2015

Table 2: Annual Reporting Frequency Summary by Data Family and Permit Type

Subprogram Permit Type

Annual Reporting Frequency

PermitsaLimits Limit 

Sets DMRs Program Reports

Compliance 

Monitoring Violationsb Enforcement Actions

Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)

Standard 

Industrial 

Dischargers 

(includes CWA

§316(b) Filers)

Individual Major 0.2 0.2 0.2 12.0 1

c

0.56 0.67 0.30

Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12.0 0 0.26 0.53 0.19

General Nonmajor 0.2 0.0 0.0 12.0 0 0.07 0.53 0.19

Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) In 

Municipalities without Pretreatment 

Programd

n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a n/a

Concentrated 

Animal Feeding 

Operations

Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.26 0.53 0.19

General Nonmajor 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.07 0.53 0.19

Industrial & Construction Stormwater

Industrial

Individual Major 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.0 0 0.56 0.67 0.30

Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.0 0 0.26 0.53 0.19

General Nonmajor 0.18e0.0 0.0 3.0 0 0.07 0.53 0.19

Construction

Individual Major 0.2 1

f

1

f

1

f

0 0.56 0.67 0.30

Individual Nonmajor 0.2 1

f

1

f

1

f

0 0.26 0.53 0.19

General Nonmajor 0.17e0 0 1

f

0 0.07 0.53 0.19

Municipal Stormwaterg

Phase I MS4s Individual Major 0.2 0.2 0.2 12.0 1 0.56 0.67 0.30

General Nonmajor 0.2 0.0 0.0 12.0 1 0.07 0.53 0.19

Phase II MS4s Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.26 0.53 0.19

General Nonmajor 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.07 0.53 0.19

POTWs and TWTDSs (may have a CSS or a SSS, may also file more than one report)

POTWs with 

CSSsh

Individual Major 0.2 0.2 0.2 12.0 12.51i11.22i0.67 0.30

Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12.0 12.51i11.22i0.53 0.19

General Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12.0 12.51i11.22i0.53 0.19

POTWs with 

SSSs only and 

TWTDSsh

Individual Major 0.2 0.2 0.2 12.0 2.65i2.57i0.67 0.30

Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12.0 2.65i2.57i0.53 0.19

General Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12.0 2.65i2.57i0.53 0.19

POTW NPDES Report Filers

Biosolids/Sewage 

Sludge Report 

Filers

Individual Major 0.2j0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Individual Nonmajor 0.2j0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pretreatment 

Program Report 

Filers

Individual Major 0.2j0.2 0.2 12.0 1

k

0.56 0.67 0.30

Individual Nonmajor 0.2j0.2 0.2 12.0 1

k

0.26 0.53 0.19

a

In addition to the permit frequencies shown the analysis includes data entry associated with minor changes at the permitted facility with an annual 

reporting frequency of 0.1.

b

In addition to the violation frequencies shown, the analysis includes expanded reporting of SEV data elements for nonmajor facilities with an 

annual frequency of 0.09. 

c Applies only to the subset of facilities submitting CWA §316(b) Annual Reports.

b

These industrial facilities discharge to POTWs and are regulated by the NPDES program through EPA’s General Pretreatment Regulations (40 

CFR 403) and Categorical Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 405 – 471). They do not have NPDES permits, but those in municipalities without 

pretreatment programs would report electronically under the rule.

e Accounts for facilities filing NECs and LEWs, as well as NOIs.

f

The analysis assumes 1% of construction stormwater regulated entities have DMR requirements due to an enforcement action. These facilities 

need to submit DMRs to show they have returned to compliance and are assigned a frequency of 1 for DMRs and, for individual permits, limits and 

limit sets.

g Nearly all Phase I MS4s are individually permitted facilities. For purposes of cost estimating, the analysis treats all individually permitted Phase I 

MS4s as majors and all Phase II MS4s as nonmajors.

h

The analysis divides the total universe of POTWs into CSSs and SSSs and treats those that are only partially composed of CSSs as CSSs. 

i Accounts for the submission of sewer overflow and bypass event reports.

j Applies only to those permit data elements specific to the biosolids and pretreatment programs. All other permit data elements are captured by 

CSSs POTWs, SSSs POTWs, TWTDSs, or standard industrial dischargers.

k

The program report requirement also applies to states and EPA regions where they are the Control Authority for the pretreatment program.
20

September 14, 2015

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

This section presents the burden and cost estimates associated with the rule that would require electronic 

submission for general permit reports, DMRs, and program reports. EPA estimates that approximately 

213,396 respondents would incur paperwork-related burden and reporting burden reductions annually 

following promulgation of the rule. This number is a three-year average covering both regulated entities 

and state authorized NPDES programs. In the first year, 266,653 regulated entities would incur 

registration and training burden and some must acquire a new email address. In the second year, 179,872 

regulated entities would be affected. Some of these would report both on paper and electronically and 

others would incur savings associated with paper mailings. In the third year, 193,521 regulated entities 

would be affected. Fewer would report both on paper and electronically and a greater number incur 

savings associated with paper mailings. In both the second and third years, some regulated entities would 

bear an additional burden to reset their password. Additionally, 47 authorized NPDES programs would 

incur burden and cost in all three years of this ICR.

In the long-term, most respondents would experience annual burden reduction and cost savings. This ICR 

Supporting Statement presents the total paperwork burden and costs/cost savings associated with the 

requirements of the electronic reporting rule in the first three years after promulgation. As noted 

previously, the annual savings expected from this rule will not be fully realized until five years after rule 

promulgation.

6(a) Estimating Total Respondent Burden

This section discusses the total potential paperwork-related burden to respondents of the electronic 

reporting rule during the three-year period of the ICR. As described previously, the rule does not change 

any of the recordkeeping or reporting requirements set out in earlier ICRs or required by authorized 

NPDES programs. The rule does change the mode of submission for regulated entities and requires

authorized NPDES programs to share with EPA the information either that is reported to the authorized 

program or that they generate with respect to those regulated entities. Note that the burden to respondents 

would vary year-to-year during the first three years of implementation as the requirements of the rule are 

rolled out. Five years after the effective date of the rule, after implementation is complete, the 

requirements of the rule would remain the same in all subsequent years. The methodology EPA uses to 

the estimate incremental burden associated with electronic reporting requirements follows the 

methodology used in the Economic Analysis of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.

4

Consistent with the Economic Analysis, three significant baseline assumptions are made here. The first is 

that currently there is full compliance with existing data requirements.5 Although some authorized 

NPDES programs may already be submitting information beyond those requirements, it is not possible to 

accurately account for that additional information at this time. Where authorized NPDES programs are 

reporting to ICIS-NPDES more data than is currently required, the analysis may overestimate incremental 

burden and costs.

The second major assumption is to disregard some of the impact of existing state authorized NPDES 

program electronic reporting systems. EPA acknowledges that some states are currently using electronic 

reporting systems. The analysis incorporates available data about the extent to which regulated entities are 

 

4

See DCN 0197.

5 One exception to this assumption involves the forwarding of biosolids permit data, discussed in more detail in the 

Economic Analysis. Although this activity is an existing requirement, this analysis includes its full cost, which may 

slightly overestimate the incremental cost of the rule.
21

September 14, 2015

using electronic reporting systems to submit DMRs (e.g., the data indicate that 10% of regulated entities 

in Alabama are electronically submitting DMRs). However, some states may also have electronic 

reporting systems for other data (e.g., NOIs). Where regulated entities are already submitting data other 

than DMRs electronically through state systems, the Economic Analysis may overestimate savings and

implementation costs for both the regulated entity and authorized NPDES program. This assumption has a 

limited impact on the ICR analysis, because most electronic reporting of data other than DMRs occurs 

beyond the ICR period.

The third major assumption is that, as a result of the inclusion of state-specific waiver provisions 

developed under the rule, a total of 1% of regulated entities will have permanent or temporary waivers 

from electronic reporting in any given year. The analysis applies this waiver percentage across 

subprograms, data families, and permit types (e.g., major, nonmajor). Those regulated entities receiving 

waivers are excluded from the analysis’ calculation of savings and implementation costs. Authorized 

NPDES programs would bear the burden of data entry for these regulated entities. The net impact of the 

waiver percentage is to decrease total net burden reduction and savings (i.e., an increasing percentage of 

facilities receiving waivers decreases the estimated net savings).

Respondents affected by this ICR include regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs. Due 

to the different activities required of each respondent group, the burden to regulated entities and state 

authorized NPDES programs is discussed separately below. The detailed burden estimates for regulated 

entities and state authorized NPDES programs are presented in Appendix A and Appendix B, 

respectively.

6(a)(i) Regulated Entities

As a result of this information collection activity, EPA estimates that regulated entities would incur 

additional burden in carrying out the additional paperwork activities that would be imposed by the rule. 

Specifically, they would incur costs for some or all of the following activities: 

 Set up an account on the CDX or a similar data portal provided by their authorized NPDES 

program;

 Mail the authorized NPDES program an ESA stating that their electronic PIN number is the legal 

equivalent of their written signature;

 Complete online training to learn how to submit DMRs electronically; 

 Acquire a new, business email address as part of the registration process if they currently use a 

personal email address;

 Reset their password upon reporting, if they are using EPA’s reporting systems and reporting less 

frequently than every 90 days; and

 For a small number of entities during the transition period, submit data to their authorized state 

program both electronically and on paper.

EPA estimates the burden associated with each of these activities as described below.

(6)(a)(i)(1) CDX Registration, ESA, and NetDMR Training

To use the electronic reporting system for NetDMR and NeT, individual regulated entities will need to set 

up accounts, either on the CDX, EPA’s node on the Exchange Network, or a similar data portal provided 

by their authorized NPDES program. To set up the account, regulated entities mail their authorized 

NPDES program an ESA stating that their electronic PIN number is the legal equivalent of their written 

signature. For construction stormwater general permit reports (e.g., NOIs), however, the final rule allows 

NPDES programs to use a “hybrid approach.” The hybrid approach would use automatic identification 
22

September 14, 2015

and data capture technologies to eliminate the need for construction operators to obtain and maintain a 

digital signature. 

NetDMR or authorized NPDES program eDMR systems are sufficiently complex that many regulated 

entities will need training to effectively use them. EPA currently offers an online training session 

explaining how to submit DMRs through the NetDMR tool. The training informs regulated entities about 

login procedures, uploading their DMR information, and how their designated testing laboratory can 

upload their DMR monitoring information directly into the NetDMR system. Experience with currently 

operating systems has shown that training is not necessary for submitting NOIs or program reports 

electronically, as these tools are less complicated. General permit facilities would also use these less 

complicated tools to submit DMRs and, therefore, not require training. Table 3 shows the registration and 

training requirements for regulated entities.

Table 3: Registration and Training Requirements by NPDES Subprogram

Subprogram Permit Type

CDX 

Registration ESA NetDMR Training

Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)

Standard Industrial 

Dischargers (includes CWA

§316(b) Filers)

Individual Major Yes Yes Yes

Individual Nonmajor Yes Yes Yes

General Nonmajor Yes Yes No

Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) In Municipalities 

without Pretreatment Program Yes Yes No

Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operations

Individual Nonmajor Yes Yes No

General Nonmajor Yes Yes No

Industrial & Construction Stormwater

Industrial

Individual Major Yes Yes Yes

Individual Nonmajor Yes Yes Yes

General Nonmajor Yes Yes No

Construction

Individual Major Yes Yes Noa

Individual Nonmajor Yes Yes Noa

General Nonmajor Yesb Yesb No

Municipal Stormwater

Phase I MS4s Individual Major Yes Yes Yes

General Nonmajor Yes Yes No

Phase II MS4s Individual Nonmajor Yes Yes Yes

General Nonmajor Yes Yes No

POTWs and TWTDSs (may have a CSS or a SSS, may also file more than one report)

POTWs with CSSs

Individual Major Yes Yes Yes

Individual Nonmajor Yes Yes Yes

General Nonmajor Yes Yes No

POTWs with SSSs only and 

TWTDSs

Individual Major Yes Yes Yes

Individual Nonmajor Yes Yes Yes

General Nonmajor Yes Yes No

POTW NPDES Report Filers

Biosolids/Sewage Sludge and Pretreatment Program Report 

Filersc n/a n/a n/a

a

1% of construction stormwater individual permits that require DMRs due to an enforcement action would require 

training.

b Construction general permit facilities that use a hybrid approach would not need electronic signatures.

c Registration and training are captured by CSSs POTWs, SSSs POTWs, TWTDSs, or standard industrial dischargers.

Because state authorized NPDES programs’ IT systems are highly variable, both in the technology used 

and the scope of reporting (e.g., eDMR), this analysis applies the estimated costs of the EPA-built 

systems to all regulated entities. These estimated costs are based on the following assumptions:
23

September 14, 2015

 One manager and one technical staff member will each spend 20 minutes (0.33 hours) registering

for an electronic account in CDX;

 One manager will spend 11 minutes to complete and mail an ESA; and

 One manager and one technical staff member will each spend 1.7 hours engaging in online 

training to familiarize themselves with the electronic reporting process for DMRs.

The estimated time required to complete the CDX registration and ESA application (including mailing 

time) is based on estimates from the Electronic Pre-Manufacturing Notice Proposed rule.

6 The estimated 

time for electronic DMR training is based on the length of EPA’s NetDMR training, which is an online 

tutorial accessible on demand.7

The total cost of regulated entity registration and training is estimated by summing the number of 

regulated entities undertaking each activity multiplied by the cost of that activity. In addition, while single 

accounts could be used for multiple permits, this analysis conservatively assumes there will be one 

technical and one managerial account for each permit, with the following exceptions:

 Biosolids and pretreatment permits are issued to POTWs for monitoring sewage sludge or for 

accepting industrial waste along with domestic sewage, respectively. All POTWs are either 

combined or sanitary systems with registration and training costs covered under those 

subprograms. Therefore, the analysis does not assign separate registration and training costs to 

biosolids and pretreatment subprograms.

 For construction stormwater general permits, the analysis assumes 2.9 construction general 

permits per construction firm and one technical and one managerial account per firm, instead of 

per permit. 

 Also for construction stormwater general permits, the analysis assumes 25% of regulated entities 

will use a hybrid paper/electronic reporting process, which is an option that authorized NPDES 

programs can employ under the final rule. Under the hybrid option, construction operators would

complete an on-line construction stormwater general permit report, which simultaneously 

produces a paper copy of the report and electronically transmits a copy of the data from the report 

to the initial recipient. The construction operator would then sign and date the paper copy of the 

construction stormwater general permit report with a handwritten signature. The analysis assumes 

that construction operators using this hybrid approach would not incur electronic registration or 

ESA costs. Instead, they would incur a cost to print and mail their “wet ink” signature copy with 

each submission. The analysis assumes this cost is $0.55 per submission, incorporating printing 

and postage.

The analysis includes registration costs for regulated entities under EPA’s Vessels General Permit and 

Pesticides General Permit (9,125 pesticide applicators and 4,000 unique filers covering 63,000 vessels). 

These entities are already reporting electronically, but not with a CROMERR compliant tool. Under the 

rule, they would need to re-register using EPA’s new CROMERR compliant tool, but would not 

experience any additional costs or cost savings as a result of the rule.

(6)(a)(i)(2) New Business Email Addresses

Some entities currently use a personal email address on NPDES forms. These entities would need to 

acquire a new, business email address as part of the registration process. The analysis assumes 10% of 

 

6 Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Proposed Rule (U.S. EPA, 2008).

7

http://www.epa.gov/netdmr/about/training.html
24

September 14, 2015

regulated entities would need to take this action during the registration process. For each of these entities, 

it assumes one manager will spend 0.5 hours to acquire a new, business email address using a free email 

service.

(6)(a)(i)(3) Password Resets

EPA’s electronic reporting systems include a 90-day password reset requirement. The password reset 

requirement is not a requirement of the rule, but a long standing EPA security requirement that is used for 

all of the agencies internal and external systems. This requirement means that regulated entities that report 

using EPA’s systems less frequently than every 90 days will need to reset their password when they 

report. Entities that report more frequently will maintain their active password as part of the normal 

course of reporting. Information is not available on which, if any, state electronic reporting systems might 

include similar password reset requirements. Therefore, the analysis considers the burden and cost of 

password resets only for entities using EPA systems (either because the authorized NPDES program is a 

direct user of EPA system or because EPA itself is the authorized NPDES program). For each of these 

entities, it assumes one manager and one technical staff member will each spend 3 minutes (0.05 hours) to 

reset their password. The number of password resets required during the ICR period varies by 

subprogram. For example, standard industrial dischargers with general permits that do not submit DMRs 

would reset their password when they submit NOIs (once every five years). Industrial stormwater 

dischargers would reset their password when they submit DMRs (three times per year). 

(6)(a)(i)(4) Electronic Reporting During Transition

As discussed in Section 3(a), during the initial implementation period (within five years after the effective 

date of the rule), a small number of regulated entities might be required to submit data to their authorized 

state program both electronically and on paper. Regulated entity electronic reporting during the transition

involves copying information from their paper DMR forms into the appropriate state electronic reporting 

system. The copy and paste process is expected to take ten seconds for each of the 12 Appendix A DMR 

data elements. The time estimate is multiplied by the number of regulated entities affected and the 

frequency of submission. The calculation also incorporates the number of DMR forms per submission, 

which is assumed to be four for major individual permits, two for nonmajor individual permits, and one 

for general permits. 

The analysis assumes that a maximum of 15% of regulated entities face conditions such that they could 

possibly be required to report both on paper and electronically (i.e., their permit conditions explicitly 

require paper reporting, the authorized state does not use its enforcement discretion, etc.). The actual 

number of regulated entities affected and the resulting cost will decrease over the course of the period 

covered by this ICR, as permits are modified to require electronic, instead of paper reporting, either on the 

normal permit cycle or as a result of state implementation activities. The analysis assumes dual reporting 

will cease once the rule is fully implemented, five years after the effective date of the rule.

6(a)(ii) State Authorized NPDES programs

EPA estimates that state authorized NPDES programs would incur additional burden in carrying out the 

additional activities required by the rule. Specifically, they would incur burden to: 

 Implement an electronic reporting system for submitting regulated entity data;

 Implement an electronic reporting system for submitting authorized NPDES program data to 

EPA;

 Demonstrate that their attorneys general accept electronic signatures in lieu of physical signature, 

thereby certifying compliance with CROMERR;

 Prepare implementation plans;

 Update Memoranda of Understanding with Regional Administrators;
25

September 14, 2015

 Make decisions regarding their initial recipient status;

 Develop criteria for temporary and permanent waivers from electronic reporting;

 Attend EPA training webinars on changes to the ICIS-NPDES system and new data standards;

 Modify permits to include electronic reporting requirements;

 Share facility information, limits, and limit sets with EPA electronically; and

 Share programmatic data required by Appendix A to 40 CFR 127, such as inspections, violations 

determinations and enforcement actions, with EPA electronically.

State authorized NPDES programs would also experience burden reduction by eliminating data entry and 

processing associated with incoming DMRs. At full implementation (five years after the effective date of 

the rule), they would experience additional burden reduction by eliminating program report processing 

and preparation of annual, quarterly, and semi-annual reports regarding the compliance status of regulated 

entities in their jurisdiction. The sections below identify the assumptions used to estimate the burden and 

burden reduction associated with those activities that occur during the ICR period.

(6)(a)(ii)(1) Implementing Electronic Reporting Systems

Authorized NPDES programs use three methods to submit data to ICIS-NPDES: 

 Direct Entry: Authorized NPDES programs using direct entry enter data into EPA data systems 

directly.

 Batch Upload: Authorized NPDES programs using batch upload employ their state system to 

track regulated entities and their own activities under the NPDES program. This NPDES 

information is periodically uploaded to EPA data systems.

 Hybrid: Authorized NPDES programs using hybrid approaches enter most data over the web, 

with the DMR component of the NPDES permit batch uploaded to EPA data systems 

periodically. 

Implementation costs for authorized NPDES programs will vary depending on whether the state is a batch 

user and what electronic tools the state currently uses. Batch system databases will need to be expanded to 

store all Appendix A data. Because EPA does not have independent estimates of the comparable system 

costs for each state, tribe, and territory, EPA’s estimate of the burden for those NPDES-authorized 

programs to expand their databases is based on EPA’s costs to add data elements to ICIS-NPDES, or 

28,818 hours per state (see Section (6)(c)(i)(1)). This estimate is conservative as several states already 

manage some of the new Appendix A data elements.

Latitude and longitude metadata (e.g., Facility Site Source Map Scale Number, Facility Site Horizontal 

Accuracy Measure) are not included in Appendix A under the final rule. Instead, EPA is requiring that 

latitude and longitude data use the World Geodetic System (WGS) 84 standard coordinate system. 

WGS84 is the modern worldwide standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and navigation. This 

coordinate system is currently the reference system being used by the Global Positioning System and is 

accurate within 1 meter. States that collect latitude and longitude on older coordinate systems (e.g., 1927 

North American Datum) will need to convert their latitude and longitude to the newer, modern WGS84 

coordinate system before they can share data with EPA. Because data are not available on which states 

might use older coordinate systems, the analysis assumes that all batch and hybrid states will need to 

convert to WGS84. The analysis assumes that the switch to WGS84 will require 48 hours per state of 

programming effort, including identifying and converting existing non-WGS84 data and setting up 

systems to convert newly entered non-WGS84 data. 

After implementation, EPA envisions that regulated entities will use EPA or third party provided software 

(such as fillable PDFs) to submit NOIs, DMRs, or program reports to EPA and state authorized NPDES 
26

September 14, 2015

programs. Therefore, once data standards8are established for each data element, state authorized NPDES 

programs will need to reconfigure their exchange templates (a piece of computer software that matches 

fields in the state database to fields in ICIS-NPDES) to allow the new NPDES data to flow between the 

state system and ICIS-NPDES. EPA technical experts expect data element mapping to require 120 hours 

for reports of more than 40 data elements and 60 hours for reports of less than or equal to 40 data 

elements. Furthermore, for states already using NetDMR, EPA expects the data mapping to require only 

40 hours as these states already have the basic data structure mapped. Note that states are not already 

using the federal NeT system for NOIs and program reports, so there would not be similar reduced 

burdens. States will need to create one exchange template capable of handling all DMR data elements and 

a separate exchange template for NOIs and program reports for each subprogram for which the state is the 

authorized NPDES program. Therefore, individual state costs vary.

Inclusion of many of these costs in the analysis is conservative because the rule does not require 

authorized NPDES programs to develop their own data systems. Some authorized NPDES programs may 

choose to use EPA’s tools. Furthermore, these costs assume authorized NPDES programs would not 

pursue further enhancements to their data systems in the absence of the rule.

(6)(a)(ii)(2) Management of Data Transfer, Training, and Technical Support

The analysis assumes states currently operating their own systems will bear an ongoing annual cost to 

manage transfer of data between their systems and EPA’s. This cost is based on an estimate of 1 full-time 

equivalent (FTE), or 2,080 hours, of programmer/technical labor per state per year.9

The analysis also assumes that each authorized NPDES program, whether they operate their own system 

or use EPA’s tools, will bear an ongoing annual cost to provide training and technical support to regulated 

entities. This cost is likely to vary by state. In comments on the proposed rule, states estimated the labor 

required for these activities would be from 0.3 to 2 FTEs per state per year.10 To be conservative, the 

analysis uses the upper bound of this range and assumes 2 FTEs, or 4,160 hours, of programmer/technical 

labor per state per year.

(6)(a)(ii)(3) CROMERR Certification

Authorized NPDES programs need to assure that the newly required electronic documents are legally 

equivalent to hardcopy documents by meeting the requirements of CROMERR.11 CROMERR requires 

authorized NPDES program Attorneys General to certify that their laws provide sufficient legal authority 

to implement electronic document receiving systems and enforce the affected programs using those 

documents in lieu of the hardcopy reports physically signed by the regulated entity. In addition, 

CROMERR requires documenting how the receiving system meets CROMERR criteria and any other 

documentation requested by the EPA Administrator that must be provided before the state authorized 

NPDES program can use electronic systems to receive regulated entities’ information and to manage its 

own NPDES information. The analysis estimates the cost of certification to be approximately 693 hours

per state.12

 

8 Data standards ensure that reports collected by one system are in a format that every other system can recognize.

Once the standards are complete, state authorized NPDES programs and EPA will modify their IT systems to collect 

and share (send and receive) all of the required data through the exchange. 

9 Based on comments on the proposed rule from the State of Pennsylvania.

10 Based on comments from Colorado, Washington, Kansas, and South Dakota.

11 http://www.epa.gov/cromerr/states.html

12 This cost is based on a labor estimate provided by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in 

comments on the Supplemental Notice for the Proposed Rule.
27

September 14, 2015

(6)(a)(ii)(4) Implementation Plans

Authorized NPDES programs will need to submit an implementation plan to EPA. These plans must 

include identifying: (1) all tasks for capturing and electronically processing facility and permit data; (2) 

all tasks for updating any state data systems; (3) technologies for electronic reporting systems and any 

necessary CROMERR approval; (4) technologies for transmitting and receiving Appendix A data to and 

from EPA; (5) schedule for updating state statutes, regulations, and NPDES permits; (6) schedule for

training NPDES regulated entities on how to utilize electronic reporting systems; (7) roles and 

responsibilities; (8) necessary resources and commitments; and (9) alternative options for converting to 

electronic reporting (e.g., utilization of EPA services and systems like NetDMR or NeT) if the state 

continually misses its own scheduled milestones.

13 These implementation plans would need to be 

approved by the authorized NPDES Director and EPA.

The analysis assumes each authorized program will require 40 hours of managerial time to identify and 

document each of the nine details listed above, plus one hour for sign off by the authorized NPDES 

Director. These assumptions result in 361 hours per implementation plan.

(6)(a)(ii)(5) Memoranda of Agreement

Authorized NPDES programs will need to update their existing Memoranda of Agreement with their 

Regional Administrator to incorporate electronic reporting requirements. The analysis assumes each 

authorized program will require 40 hours of managerial time to complete these updates.

(6)(a)(ii)(6) Initial Recipient Decisions

Under the final rule, NPDES-regulated entities will submit NPDES program data to the designated “initial 

recipient,” meaning the governmental entity, either the state or EPA, who first receives the NPDES 

program data. A NPDES program can initially elect to be the initial recipient for one or all of the NPDES 

data groups. This determination is an “opt-out” process for each authorized NPDES programs. Under this 

process, an authorized NPDES program must notify EPA within 120 days of the effective date of the final 

rule if it wishes EPA to be the Initial Recipient for a particular NPDES data group. If EPA receives no 

such notification, EPA will designate the state, tribe, or territorial NPDES program as the Initial Recipient 

for all NPDES data groups.

The analysis assumes that the initial recipient decision-making process will require five people in two 

meetings lasting two hours each, for a total of 20 hours of managerial time, for each authorized NPDES 

program.

(6)(a)(ii)(7) Waiver Criteria Development

The final rule provides NPDES programs with flexibility in how they grant temporary and/or permanent 

waivers from electronic reporting. Under the final rule, authorized NPDES programs will need to 

document and submit to EPA for review their process for evaluating and approving temporary and 

permanent electronic reporting waivers from NPDES regulated entities. The analysis assumes that 

developing the waiver criteria for each authorized NPDES program will require 40 hours of managerial 

time.

(6)(a)(ii)(8) EPA Training Webinars

To ensure that state authorized NPDES programs are properly informed of the changes to the ICISNPDES system and the new data standards, EPA will develop and offer an online training webinar for 

 

13 Temporary and permanent waiver approval processes can also be included in implementation plans, but are 

considered separately in this analysis.
28

September 14, 2015

each phase of the implementation. The analysis three technical staff from each state will attend each 

webinar. Each webinar is 90 minutes, translating to a total burden of 9 hours per state.

(6)(a)(ii)(9) Modify Permits to Include Electronic Reporting Requirements

State authorized NPDES programs would need to modify existing permits to include requirements to 

report data electronically (and, where applicable, remove language that explicitly requires paper 

reporting). The analysis assumes that this activity would require approximately 5 minutes (0.83 hours) per 

permit, and would occur on the normal permit cycle. Because permits are regularly reissued every 5 

years, 20% of the permits would be modified per year. Thus, a total of 60% of the permit modifications 

would be completed during the ICR period.

(6)(a)(ii)(10) Initial Data Entry

For the electronic systems to properly route regulated entity information between authorized NPDES 

programs and EPA, and to automate the comparison of DMR data to the limits and limit sets in the 

permit, authorized NPDES programs would need to have their facility information, limits and limit sets

entered into databases. Currently, much of the monitoring information for nonmajor permits is maintained 

on paper files or electronically in state computer systems that is not routinely shared with EPA. 

Additionally, EPA does not have detailed information about the information systems of the authorized 

NPDES programs. Therefore, EPA does not know which of those systems conform to the requirements of 

this information collection activity, or how much of the data has been entered into information systems. 

For that reason, EPA assumes each authorized NPDES program would manually enter appropriately 

formatted permit, limit, and limit set information into the new system within the first year of rule 

promulgation so that regulated entities can use the system to sign up for electronic accounts during the 

first year. In reality, many states may have already automated much of this data, in which case their costs 

and burden would be lower than those estimated in this analysis. 

The burden associated with initial data entry is estimated by multiplying the number of permit, limit, and 

limit set data elements required for each subprogram and permit type by the number of permits and the 

average data entry burden for the mode of submission (batch, hybrid, or direct) and subprogram. 

Estimated data entry times were developed by surveying nine states with regard to the time requirements 

associated with entering various data elements. This survey is described in further detail in the Economic 

Analysis of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. Due to the variation in the number and types of 

permits, data entry burden, and frequency of reporting, the burden for initial data entry will vary by state. 

The average burden per state authorized NPDES program for this activity is 2,490 hours.

(6)(a)(ii)(11) Submit Programmatic Data to EPA

The rule will require authorized NPDES programs to share with EPA the information either that is 

reported to the authorized program or that they generate with respect to those regulated entities. This 

analysis estimates the change in data entry burden for state authorized NPDES programs by multiplying 

the change in the number of programmatic data elements in each subprogram and permit type (major vs. 

nonmajor, individual vs. general) by the frequency of reporting (see Table 2), the number of permits, and

average data entry burden for each mode of submission (batch, hybrid, or direct) and subprogram. For the 

burden reduction associated with DMRs, this calculation also incorporates the number of DMR forms per 

submission, which is assumed to be four for major individual permits, two for nonmajor individual 

permits, and one for general permits. As noted above, estimated data entry times were developed by 

surveying nine states with regard to the time requirements associated with entering various data elements. 

Note that, in addition to applying to regulated POTWs with approved pretreatment programs, the 

Pretreatment Program Annual Report requirement also applies to 36 states that are authorized to 

administer the pretreatment program. Under existing reporting requirements, these states submit an annual 
29

September 14, 2015

pretreatment program report covering industrial user discharges in municipalities without an approved 

pretreatment program (i.e., where the state is the Control Authority, instead of an approved POTW). The 

analysis includes the burden and burden reduction associated with electronic submission of pretreatment 

program reports from states, in addition to pretreatment program reports from approved POTWs.

Due to the variation in the number and types of permits, data entry burden, and frequency of reporting, 

the burden for submitting programmatic data to EPA will vary by state. The average burden reduction per 

state for this activity is 21,698 hours.

In addition, states that are authorized for the NPDES program, but not the biosolids program, receive 

permit applications from POTWs that include the biosolids portion of the permit applications (Form 2S). 

These states must forward the biosolids portion of the application to the EPA region that is approved for 

the biosolids program. Although this is an existing requirement, forwarding the data becomes more 

crucial, given the need for the EPA regions to enter the biosolids permit data electronically. Therefore, the 

analysis includes the cost of this activity. It assumes each state compiles and forward the information 

monthly (less frequently in states expected to have fewer than one biosolids application per month), 

requiring one hour of clerical time.

(6)(a)(ii)(12) DMR Processing Savings

Electronic submission of DMRs by regulated entities would create savings for state authorized NPDES 

programs in the first three years after the effective date of the rule by eliminating the cost of processing 

incoming DMRs. Currently, authorized NPDES programs receive these reports in the mail, staff open and 

inspect them to ensure they are filled out correctly, enter their information into the state or EPA data 

system, and usually store them in a physical filing system. This process is estimated to take a data entry 

clerk 20 minutes per DMR form. Following rule implementation, the processing activities would be 

automated, resulting in a burden savings of 20 minute per DMR form. The calculation of total DMR 

processing savings incorporates the number of DMR forms per submission, which is assumed to be four 

for major individual permits, two for nonmajor individual permits, and one for general permits. In 

addition to reduced burden from processing, state authorized NPDES programs would also experience 

capital cost savings associated with savings by no longer sending pre-populated DMR forms to regulated 

entities, as discussed in Section (6)(b)(ii)(2).

(6)(a)(ii)(13) Burden and Savings for Other Activities beyond the ICR Period

Electronic submission of program reports by regulated entities would create savings for state authorized 

NPDES programs. Currently, authorized NPDES programs receive these reports in the mail, staff open 

and inspect them to ensure they are filled out correctly, enter their information into the state or EPA data 

system, and usually store them in a physical filing system.

In addition, existing CWA regulations (40 CFR 123.45) require that authorized NPDES programs submit 

to EPA annual, quarterly, and semi-annual reports regarding the compliance status of regulated entities in 

their jurisdiction. To meet this requirement, state authorized NPDES programs submit their noncompliance information to the Regional Administrator, who submits them to EPA headquarters. Under 

the rule, this information will be readily available to EPA directly from ICIS-NPDES, obviating the need 

for state authorized NPDES programs to compile and submit the information. Therefore, the rule will 

eliminate this reporting requirement, resulting in savings for state authorized NPDES programs. 

Under the final rule, for the pretreatment program, when the state or EPA is the Control Authority, they 

must notify the industrial users they directly control of the applicable electronic reporting requirements 

(i.e., the electronic submission of bi-annual compliance reports, which would begin during Phase 2 of rule 

implementation).
30

September 14, 2015

Because these activities would not occur during the ICR period, however, the associated burden and 

burden reduction are not included here. See the Economic Analysis for further discussion of these savings 

and associated assumptions.

6(b) Total Respondent Costs

To estimate the total respondent costs, EPA multiplies the burden estimates derived in Section 6(a) by the 

appropriate labor costs (discussed in Section 6(b)(i) below). Next, EPA estimates the capital costs 

associated with paper and mailing savings (see Section 6(b)(ii) below). Detailed cost estimates for 

regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs are presented in Appendix A and Appendix B, 

respectively.

6(b)(i) Labor Costs

EPA estimates respondent costs by multiplying the unit burden hour estimates described above by fully 

loaded hourly rates for workers of appropriate labor categories. The analysis uses 2014 hourly wage rates

for three job categories: managerial, programmer/technical, and data clerk/administrative; each of which 

includes fringe benefits and overhead. Average wage data for these categories are based on the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics’ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation in December 2014, which has separate 

wage estimates for government and private sector workers.

14

More specifically, the managerial labor rate for government workers is the BLS national average in the 

management, professional, and related occupational group. The managerial labor rate for private industry 

workers is the BLS national average in the management, business, and financial occupational group. Its 

use in this analysis includes as the average hourly wages for staff who plan, direct, or coordinate 

electronic data processing, information systems, systems analysis, and computer programming.

The programmer/technical labor rate for each sector is the BLS national average in the professional and 

related occupational group. Its use in this analysis includes as the average hourly wages for staff who 

convert project specifications and statements of problems and procedures to detailed logical flow charts 

for coding into computer language; develop and write computer programs to store, locate, and retrieve 

specific documents, data, and information; and may program web sites. 

The data clerk/administrative labor rate for each sector is the BLS national average in the office and 

administrative support occupational group. Its use in this analysis includes as the average hourly wages 

for staff who compute, classify, and record numerical data to keep financial records complete; perform 

any combination of routine calculating, posting, and verifying duties to obtain primary financial data for 

use in maintaining accounting records; and may also check the accuracy of figures, calculations, and 

postings pertaining to business transactions recorded by other workers.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides hourly wage and benefit rates (e.g., paid leave and insurance). 

Based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical industry trade associations, an 

additional loading factor of 17% is applied to hourly wages and benefits for general overhead (see Table 

4).15

 

14 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t04.htm

15 Heiden Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs Under the Final Comprehensive 

Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989.
31

September 14, 2015

Table 4: Deriving Loaded Hourly Costs

Cost Components, by Job Category BLS Government 

Hourly Wage Rate

BLS Industry

Hourly Wage Rate

Managerial

Hourly Wage $35.52 $44.52 

Benefits $17.72 $22.04 

Overhead $6.04 $7.57 

Managerial Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour $59.28 $74.13 

Programmer/Technical

Hourly Wage $35.16 $34.63 

Benefits $17.16 $14.87 

Overhead $5.98 $5.89 

Programmer/Technical Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour $58.30 $55.39 

Data Clerk/Administrative

Hourly Wage $18.08 $16.52 

Benefits $12.27 $7.46 

Overhead $3.07 $2.81 

Data Clerk Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour $33.42 $26.79 

6(b)(ii) Capital Costs

Regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs will experience capital cost savings associated 

with reduced printing and mailing costs. Table 5 shows the unit cost assumptions used to calculate these 

savings.

Table 5: Mailing Costs

Cost Category Cost

Page of Papera$0.01

Envelope – Smallb$0.04

Envelope – Largec$0.18

Postage – Smalld$0.49

Postage - Large Envelope with 60 Pages insided$2.87

Postage - Flat Rate Enveloped$5.75

a. Source: Office Depot brand standard white paper (March 2015)

b. Source: Office Depot brand #10 security envelopes (March 2015)

c. Source: Office Depot brand white 9" x 12" catalog envelopes (March 2015)

d. Source: usps.com (March 2015)

(6)(b)(ii)(1) Regulated Entity Capital Cost Savings

Once regulated entities establish their electronic accounts, they will experience savings due to the fact that 

they no longer have to mail their submissions to the authorized NPDES program. Regulated entities

submitting DMRs electronically will save on paper and postage. According to EPA program experts, the 

average DMR form is five pages long. The analysis assumes four DMR forms per submission for major 

individual permits, two forms per submission for nonmajor individual permits, and one form per 

submission for general permits, for a total of five to 20 pages per submission. DMRs are partially filled 

out by the regulated entity, sent to an independent laboratory for completion, and then sent to the 

authorized NPDES program. Therefore, electronic DMR submission will save two standard envelopes, 

two first class stamps and five to 20 pages of paper, saving a total of $1.13 to $1.31 per submission. As 

discussed below, the analysis assumes that EPA Regions and authorized NPDES programs currently mail 

pre-populated DMR forms to an estimated 50% of all NPDES regulated entities. DMR savings for these 

entities are $1.07 per submission. Combining these two scenarios, average DMR savings are $1.10 to 

$1.19 per submission. As noted in Table 2, DMR submission rates vary from annual to monthly according 

to the subprogram and permit type.

During the ICR period, regulated entities in states where EPA is the authorized NPDES biosolids program 

(currently 42 of 50 states and all other tribal lands and territories) will submit their Sewage 
32

September 14, 2015

Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report electronically to EPA. These entities will have associated paper 

and postage savings. The analysis assumes that these program reports average 1.5 pages, and require one 

standard size envelope and postage. Electronic submission of these program reports, therefore, will save 

regulated entities $0.55 per report. At full implementation (five years after the effective date of the rule), 

regulated entities also will experience savings associated with electronic submission of other program 

reports. Because these savings would not occur during the ICR period, however, they are not included 

here. See the Economic Analysis for further discussion of these savings and associated assumptions.

Note that it is not possible to simply multiply the per regulated entity savings by the sub program universe 

to estimate total regulated entity submission costs savings due to the fact that reporting frequencies are 

different within and across subprograms. For example, major stormwater regulated entities submit DMRs 

monthly, multi-sector generals submit DMRs three times per year, and only a few construction 

stormwater covered facilities have DMR reporting requirements.

(6)(b)(ii)(2) State Authorized NPDES Program Capital Cost Savings

State authorized NPDES programs will also experience savings from no longer sending pre-populated 

DMR forms to regulated entities. Currently, authorized NPDES programs mail DMR forms with 

regulated entity-specific limits to an estimated 50% of all NPDES regulated entities. Post rule, electronic 

copies of DMR forms will be available to all regulated entities, making them universally available and 

eliminating the need to mail the forms out. Table 6 details the per permit savings from eliminating the 

preparation and mailing of pre-populated DMR forms. 

Table 6: Unit Savings from Eliminating Pre-populated DMRs

Type of Savings Annual 

Frequency Number of Pages Cost

Annual 

Savings per 

Permit

Paper 12 5 to 20 $0.01 $0.06 to $0.24

Envelopes 1 1 $0.18 $0.18 

Postage 1 1 $2.87 $2.87 

Total $3.11 to $3.29

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

EPA Headquarters and EPA Regions would incur burden and cost associated with the transition to 

electronic reporting and newly shared data. Due to the different activities each group would undertake to 

comply, the burden to EPA Headquarters and EPA Regions is discussed separately in the following 

sections. When calculating the Agency cost, EPA uses the loaded hourly costs for government workers

shown in Table 4. The detailed burden and cost estimates for EPA are presented in Appendix C.

6(c)(i) EPA Headquarters

EPA Headquarters is responsible for the following activities:

 Electronic reporting tool implementation;

 Operations and maintenance of the ICIS-NPDES system;

 Developing training webinars for authorized NPDES programs;

 Reviewing state implementation plans;

 Developing criteria for temporary and permanent waivers from electronic reporting for facilities 

where EPA is the authorized NPDES program; 

 Assessing participation rates and, where appropriate, issuing individual notices to compel 

NPDES-regulated entities to utilize their NPDES program’s electronic reporting system; and
33

September 14, 2015

 Developing a National Non-Compliance Report that will replace the Annual and Quarterly NonCompliance Reports and the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary.

The sections below discuss the burden associated with each of these activities.

(6)(c)(i)(1) Electronic Reporting Tool Implementation

Before regulated entities can use the electronic reporting system, authorized NPDES programs and EPA 

will need to provide the necessary reporting tools. The tools EPA will develop include augmented 

versions of the current NeT and NetDMR systems. Cost estimates for information technology system 

modifications were derived by comparing the architecture of the current system against the requirements 

of the rule. Rule requirements involving capabilities not currently in place were identified and rough 

orders of magnitude (defined as the true value being within -25% and +75% of the estimated value) of the 

level of effort required to meet those requirements were developed. The burden to implement the 

necessary electronic reporting infrastructure is approximately 166,433 hours for a single year. This 

estimate includes 28,818 hours to add data elements.

(6)(c)(i)(2) Operations and Maintenance

EPA will have ongoing annual costs to operate and maintain the necessary changes in the ICIS-NPDES 

system. Operations include accepting data from regulated entities, receiving data from authorized NPDES 

programs, and sending EPA data to the state authorized NPDES programs. Maintenance includes routine 

database refreshes, updates, and licensing. The annual burden of EPA activities required by the rule to 

support this information collection activity is estimated at 16,389 hours per year.

(6)(c)(i)(3) Develop Webinars

To ensure that state authorized NPDES programs are properly informed of the changes to the ICISNPDES system and the new data standards, EPA will develop and offer a 90-minute online training 

webinar for each phase of the implementation. The two webinars will require 100 hours total of EPA 

technical time to develop. The analysis also assumes that one EPA headquarters technical staff member

will attend each webinar. The analysis conservatively assumes separate webinars for each state and EPA 

region, resulting in a total burden for EPA headquarters attendance of 171 hours. 

(6)(c)(i)(4) Review and Approve Implementation Plans

Section (6)(a)(ii)(4) describes state implementation plans. The analysis assumes that EPA will spend 40 

hours of managerial time to review and approve each implementation plan.

(6)(c)(i)(5) Waiver Criteria Development

As discussed in Section (6)(a)(ii)(7), the analysis estimates that developing the waiver criteria for each 

authorized NPDES program will require 40 hours of managerial time. The analysis assumes EPA will 

incur the same burden to develop a set of waiver criteria for facilities where EPA is the authorized 

NPDES program.

(6)(c)(i)(6) EPA Oversight

EPA will use its CWA authority and ICR to issue targeted individual notices requiring NPDES-regulated 

entities to utilize their NPDES program’s electronic reporting system. EPA would likely undertake this 

oversight activity when and authorized state, tribe, or territory has less than 90% participation rate for one 

or more data groups. EPA will assess participation rates separately for individual permitted facilities and 

for facilities covered under general permits. EPA makes a number of assumptions in estimating the cost 

of oversight including:

 EPA will spend a total of 80 hours of technical labor to assess and report participation rates. 
34

September 14, 2015

 EPA would then send letters to facilities that are not reporting electronically in specific states that 

do not initially meet the participation rate targets. These letters would each require 0.25 hours of 

managerial labor and 0.25 hours of clerical labor, for a cost of $23.77 per letter including mailing 

costs. 

 EPA would need to undertake this activity in five states for individual permitted facilities and ten 

states for facilities covered under general permits.16

 Participation rates achieved in these states will be 75% for individual permitted facilities and 50% 

for facilities covered under general permits (such that 25% of individual permits and 50% of 

general permits will require letters). 

The analysis assumes that one such set of oversight letters will be completed during the ICR period 

(specifically, during the final year of the ICR period), based on Phase 1 participation rates. The Economic 

Analysis includes the assumption that 20% of facilities will require a second letter, one year later, to 

achieve full participation. It also includes a second round of oversight letters based on participation rates 

for Phase 2 data. Because these activities would not occur during the ICR period, however, they are not 

included here.

(6)(c)(i)(7) Develop New National Non-Compliance Report

Under the rule, compliance information will be readily available to EPA directly from ICIS-NPDES, 

obviating the need for state authorized NPDES programs to compile and submit the information. 

Therefore, the rule will replace the existing annual, quarterly, and semi-annual reports with a National 

Non-Compliance Report that EPA headquarters will develop. Because this activity would not occur 

during the ICR period, however, the associated burden and costs are not included here. See the Economic 

Analysis for further discussion of this activity.

6(c)(ii) EPA Regions

Where EPA Regions are the permitting authority, they would incur costs and savings similar to those 

incurred by authorized state programs (discussed in Section 6(a) above). Specifically, they would incur 

costs for the following activities: 

 Attend EPA training webinars on changes to the ICIS-NPDES system and new data standards;

 Modify permits to include electronic reporting requirements;

 Share facility information, limits, and limit sets with EPA electronically; and

 Share programmatic data required by Appendix A to 40 CFR 127, such as inspections, violations 

determinations and enforcement actions, with EPA electronically.

EPA Regions would also experience burden reduction by eliminating data entry and processing associated 

with incoming DMRs and Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports. At full implementation 

(five years after the effective date of the rule), they would experience additional burden reduction by 

eliminating other program report processing and preparation of annual, quarterly, and semi-annual reports 

regarding the compliance status of regulated entities in their jurisdiction. The sections below identify the 

assumptions used to estimate the burden and burden reduction associated with those activities that occur 

during the ICR period.

 

16 The analysis does not identify specific states where EPA would undertake these activities. Instead, it assumes the 

targeted states have average-sized populations of permitted facilities. 
35

September 14, 2015

(6)(c)(ii)(1) EPA Training Webinars

Three technical staff from each EPA Region where the Region is the permitting authority would be 

required to attend each 90-minute online training webinar offered by EPA. 

(6)(c)(ii)(1) Permit Modifications

EPA Regions would modify permits for regulated entities in states where the EPA Region is the 

permitting authority to require electronic reporting (and, where applicable, remove language that 

explicitly requires paper reporting). It is estimated that it would take EPA Regions five minutes per 

permit to make the necessary modifications. The analysis assumes EPA Regions would complete these 

permit modifications within the first year after the effective date of the rule.

(6)(c)(ii)(2) Initial Data Entry

As with state authorized NPDES programs, where EPA is the permitting authority, EPA Regions would

need to share their facility information, limits and limit sets with EPA. This analysis assumes each EPA 

Region would manually enter appropriately formatted limit and limit set information into the new system 

in the first year after the effective date of the rule so that regulated entities would be able to use the 

system when the rule requires them to sign up for electronic accounts. In reality, many EPA Regions may 

have already automated much of this data, in which case their costs would be lower than those estimated

in this analysis. 

The data entry burden associated with initial data entry is estimated by multiplying the number of permit, 

limit, and limit set data elements required for each subprogram and permit type by the number of permits 

and the average data entry burden for the mode of submission (all Regions are direct users) and 

subprogram. Estimated data entry times were developed by surveying nine states with regard to the time 

requirements associated with entering various data elements. This survey is described in further detail in 

the Economic Analysis. Due to the variation in the number and types of permits, data entry burden, and 

frequency of reporting, the burden for initial data entry will vary by region. The average burden per 

region for this activity is 1,005 hours.

(6)(c)(ii)(3) Submit Programmatic Data to EPA

The rule would increase the amount of information authorized NPDES programs must share with EPA. In 

this analysis, the data entry burden for EPA Regions is estimated by multiplying the number of 

programmatic data elements in each permit subprogram and permit type (major vs. nonmajor individual 

vs. nonmajor general) by the average data entry burden for each mode of submission and subprogram. 

The total cost for each permit is then multiplied by the number of permits as well as the frequency of 

reporting. Estimated data entry times were developed by surveying nine states with regard to the time 

requirements associated with entering various data elements.

Note that, in addition to applying to regulated POTWs with approved pretreatment programs, the 

Pretreatment Program Annual Report requirement also applies to nine EPA regions (covering the 14 

states that are not authorized for the pretreatment program). Under existing reporting requirements, these 

regions submit an annual pretreatment program report covering industrial user discharges in 

municipalities without an approved pretreatment program (i.e., where the state or region is the Control 

Authority, instead of an approved POTW). The analysis includes the burden and burden reduction 

associated with electronic submission of pretreatment program reports from EPA regions, in addition to 

pretreatment program reports from approved POTWs.

EPA Regions would also receive savings from no longer having to enter information submitted by 

regulated entities on paper DMRs and general permit reports. Data entry savings are calculated using the 

same method as data entry costs: multiply the number of programmatic data elements that are no longer 
36

September 14, 2015

entered by the Region by the data entry burden, number of permits, and frequency of reporting. For the 

burden reduction associated with DMRs, this calculation also incorporates the number of DMR forms per 

submission, which is assumed to be four for major individual permits, two for nonmajor individual 

permits, and one for general permits. Due to the variation in the number and types of permits, data entry 

burden, and frequency of reporting, the burden for submitting programmatic data to EPA will vary by 

region. The average burden reduction per region for this activity is 2,481 hours.

(6)(c)(ii)(4) DMR Processing and Pre-Populated DMR Paper and Mailing Savings

Electronic submission of DMRs by regulated entities would create savings for EPA Regions that are 

directly implementing the NPDES program in the first three years after the effective date of the rule by 

eliminating the cost of processing incoming DMRs. Currently, EPA Regions receive these reports in the 

mail, staff open and inspect them to ensure they are filled out correctly, enter their information into the 

state or EPA data system, and usually store them in a physical filing system. This process is estimated to 

take a data entry clerk 20 minutes per DMR. The calculation of total DMR processing savings 

incorporates the number of DMR forms per submission, which is assumed to be four for major individual 

permits, two for nonmajor individual permits, and one for general permits. 

In addition to reduced burden from processing, EPA Regions would also experience capital cost savings 

associated with savings by no longer sending pre-populated DMR forms to regulated entities. Currently, 

EPA Regions mail DMR forms with regulated entity-specific limits to an estimated 50% of all NPDES 

regulated entities. When fully implemented, the rule would allow all authorized NPDES programs to 

provide electronic copies of DMR forms to all regulated entities, making them universally available and 

eliminating the need to mail the forms out. The savings per permit to EPA Regions from eliminating the 

preparation and mailing of pre-populated DMR forms would be the same as those to state authorized 

NPDES Programs shown in Table 6.

(6)(c)(ii)(5) Program Report Processing Savings

Electronic submission of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports by regulated entities would

create savings for EPA Region authorized NPDES programs during the ICR period by eliminating the 

cost of processing incoming program reports. Currently, authorized NPDES programs receive these 

reports in the mail, staff open and inspect them to ensure they are filled out correctly, enter their 

information into the state or EPA data system, and usually store them in a physical filing system. This 

process is estimated to take a data entry clerk 7.5 minutes per program report. Following rule 

implementation, the processing activities would be automated. 

(6)(c)(ii)(1) Burden and Savings for Other Activities beyond the ICR Period

At full implementation (five years after the effective date of the rule), EPA Regions would experience 

additional savings by eliminating the cost of processing other program reports, in addition to the Sewage 

Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports discussed above. 

In addition, existing CWA regulations (40 CFR 123.45) require that authorized NPDES programs submit 

to EPA annual, quarterly, and semi-annual reports regarding the compliance status of regulated entities in 

their jurisdiction. To meet this requirement, EPA Regions that are directly implementing the NPDES 

program submit their non-compliance information to the Regional Administrator, who submits them to 

EPA headquarters. Under the rule, this information will be readily available to EPA Headquarters directly 

from ICIS-NPDES, obviating the need for EPA Regions to compile and submit the information. 

Therefore, the rule will eliminate this reporting requirement, resulting in savings for EPA Regions.

Under the final rule, for the pretreatment program, when the state or EPA is the Control Authority, they 

must notify the industrial users they directly control of the applicable electronic reporting requirements 
37

September 14, 2015

(i.e., the electronic submission of bi-annual compliance reports, which would begin during Phase 2 of rule 

implementation).

Because these activities would not occur during the ICR period, however, the associated burden and 

burden reduction are not included here. See the Economic Analysis for further discussion of these savings 

and associated assumptions.

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe

The respondent universe is comprised of authorized state programs and regulated entities. As was noted in 

Section 4(a), 46 states and one U.S. territory are authorized by EPA to administer some or all of the 

NPDES program. The regulated entity respondent universe is estimated based on information in ICISNPDES and information provided by EPA’s Office of Water. Table 7 summarizes the regulated entity

universe by subprogram and permit type.
38

September 14, 2015

Table 7: Universe Summary by NPDES Subprogram

NPDES Subprogram

Number of NPDES Permits

Individual 

Majors

Individual 

Nonmajors

General 

Nonmajors

Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)

Standard Industrial Dischargers (may also file CWA 

§316(b) data) 1,683 18,993 118,073a

CWA §316(b) Filers

Permits with Cooling Water Intake Data 1,171 0 0

Permits with Thermal Variance Data 554 0 0

Industrial Facilities Submitting CWA §316(b) Annual Reports 200 0 0

Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)b

SIUs in Municipalities with Pretreatment Program 0 29,060 0

SIUs in Municipalities without Pretreatment Program 0 2,487 0

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 0 1,266 5,291

Industrial and Construction Stormwater

Industrial 132 563 92,282

Construction 1 638 243,227

Municipal Stormwaterc

Phase I municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) 249 0 9

Phase II MS4s 0 204 5,093

POTWs and TWTDSs (may have a CSS or a SSS, may also file more than one report)

POTWs with Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs)d462 244 68

POTWs with Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) onlyd3,533 9,197 1,281

TWTDSs 779 7,510 655

POTW NPDES Report Filers

Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Report Filers 4,209 694 0

Pretreatment Program Report Filers 1,462 114 0

Sewer Overflow Event Report Filersd4,774 16,950 2,003

a

Includes 9,125 pesticide applicators and 63,000 vessels that are already filing electronically

b

These industrial facilities discharge to POTWs and are regulated by the NPDES program through EPA’s General 

Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403) and Categorical Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 405 – 471). They do not 

have NPDES permits, but those in municipalities without pretreatment programs would report electronically under the 

rule.

c Nearly all Phase I MS4s are individually permitted facilities. For purposes of cost estimating, the analysis treats all 

individually permitted Phase I MS4s as majors and all Phase II MS4s as nonmajors.

d

The analysis divides the total universe of POTWs into CSSs and SSSs and treats those that are only partially 

composed of CSSs as CSSs. 

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

This section presents the total incremental burden and cost to regulated entities, authorized NPDES 

programs and EPA to comply with the information collection requirements associated with the NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule in the three-year period covered by this ICR.

6(e)(i) Respondent Tally

The bottom line burden hours and costs for regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs are 

the average annual hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities during the 3-year period covered 

by this ICR. Table 8 provides a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden hours, and 

costs. A more detailed summary is provided in Appendix A and B.

17

 

17 The appendices present the total incremental burden and cost to regulated entities and state authorized NPDES 

programs over the three-year period of the ICR. These costs are divided by three to calculate the average annual 

incremental burden and cost.
39

September 14, 2015

Table 8: Average Annual Respondent Burden and Cost

Unit of Analysis Regulated Entities States Total

Average Annual Number of Respondentsa213,349 47 213,396

Average Annual Number of Responses 78,477 1,135,376 1,213,854

Average Annual Increase in Burden (hours) 118,577 555,202 673,779

Average Annual Decrease in Burden (hours) 0 -871,015 -871,015

Average Annual Incremental Burden (hours) 118,577 -315,814 -197,236

Average Annual Incremental Cost $6,867,716 -$1,072,586 5,795,130

Average Annual Incremental Burden per Respondent 

(hours) 0.56 -6,719 -0.92

Average Annual Incremental Burden per Response 

(hours) 1.51 -0.28 -0.16

Average Annual Incremental Cost per Respondent $32.19 -$22,821 $27.16

Average Annual Incremental Cost per Response $87.51 -$0.94 $4.77

a

The number of respondents includes regulated entities that both submit information (a response) and experience a cost or 

cost savings while the number of responses is limited to a count of information submissions. Thus, there are more affected 

respondents than responses.

6(f) The Agency Tally

Incremental Agency bottom line burden hours and costs are the average annual incremental hours and 

costs collectively incurred for all activities during the 3-year period covered by this ICR. Table 9 provides 

a summary of the average annual burden hours and costs. A more detailed summary is provided in 

Appendix C.

18

Table 9: Average Annual Agency Burden and Cost

Average Annual Increase in Burden (hours) 76,135

Average Annual Decrease in Burden (hours) -48,303

Average Annual Incremental Burden (hours) 27,832

Average Annual Incremental Cost (labor) $2,636,543

Average Annual Incremental Cost (capital) -$18,083

Total Average Annual Incremental Cost $2,618,460

6(g) Reasons for Change in Burden

EPA believes electronic reporting is needed to improve data quality and availability while reducing costs. 

Specifically, the rule is expected to save time and resources for states while improving compliance and 

better protecting the Nation’s waters. This ICR estimates that respondents would incur a total average 

annual incremental burden reduction of 197,236 hours to comply with the requirements of the NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule in the first three years of its implementation. Note that the net burden reduction 

results from labor burden reductions to state authorized NPDES programs; regulated entities do not 

experience a net reduction in labor burden. 

6(h) Burden Statement

The calculations made for this ICR cover the burden and costs for EPA, authorized states, and operators 

of regulated entities. This ICR estimates a total average annual burden of 118,577 hours for 213,349 

regulated entity respondents at a cost of $6,867,716. The average annual incremental burden per 

respondent is 0.56 hours per regulated entity. Burden reduction for the state respondents is 315,814 hours 

annually for 47 state respondents at a cost savings of $1,072,586. The average annual burden reduction

 

18 The appendix presents the total incremental burden and cost to the Agency over the three-year period of the ICR. 

These costs are divided by three to calculate the average annual incremental burden and cost.
40

September 14, 2015

per respondent is 6,719 hours per state. Agency burden is 27,832 hours annually at a net cost increase of 

$2,618,460. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, or 

disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to:

 Review instructions; 

 Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and 

providing information; 

 Adjust existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 

 Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 

 Search data sources; 

 Complete and review the collection of information; and 

 Transmit or otherwise disclose information. 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, 

and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection 

techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA2009-0274, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the 

Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OECA Docket is 

(202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site 

can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public 

docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the 

system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send 

comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 and OMB Control Number 2020-0035 in any 

correspondence.