Enforcement Targeting and Data Division

Office of Compliance

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

DCN 0197

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274

(www.regulations.gov)

14 September 2015

Economic Analysis of the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Electronic Reporting Final Rule
ii 14 September 2015

Table of Contents

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................ ii

Table of Tables............................................................................................................................................vi

Table of Figures....................................................................................................................................... viii

List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ix

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................xi

ES.1 Purpose of the Rule .........................................................................................................................xi

ES.2 Savings, Costs, and Benefits ......................................................................................................... xii

ES.3 Major Factors Taken into Consideration in Estimating Savings and Costs...................................xv

ES.4 Key Acts and Regulations that Must be Addressed by the EA .....................................................xvi

ES.5 Key Steps for Implementation.......................................................................................................xvi

Section 1. – Background and Overview of the Economic Analysis of the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Statutory and Regulatory History of the NPDES Program .......................................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Clean Water Act.............................................................................................................. 1-2

1.2.2 1985 PCS Policy.............................................................................................................. 1-3

1.2.3 1987 Water Quality Act and 2000 Wet Weather Water Quality Act .............................. 1-4

1.3 Summary of the NPDES Program Reporting Requirements........................................................ 1-4

1.3.1 Current Status.................................................................................................................. 1-4

1.3.2 Regulated Entity Types................................................................................................... 1-5

1.3.3 EPA Data Sharing Policy ................................................................................................ 1-7

1.3.4 Regulated Entity Supplied Data ...................................................................................... 1-7

1.3.5 Authorized NPDES Program Supplied Data................................................................... 1-8

1.3.6 Electronic Reporting........................................................................................................ 1-9

1.4 Description of the Final Rule ....................................................................................................... 1-9

1.4.1 Statement of Need ........................................................................................................... 1-9

1.4.2 Changes to the NPDES Program under the Final Rule ................................................. 1-10

1.5 Organization of the Report......................................................................................................... 1-15

Section 2. – Estimating the Permit Universe and Required Data Reporting/Submittal................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Types of NPDES Permits................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.2 NPDES Subprograms...................................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.3 Required Data.................................................................................................................. 2-6

2.1.4 Organization of this Section............................................................................................ 2-6

2.2 Standard Industrial Dischargers and CWA §316(b) Filers........................................................... 2-6

2.2.1 Permit Universe............................................................................................................... 2-6

2.2.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family................................................................. 2-8

2.2.3 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.3 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) ............................................................................................ 2-10

2.3.1 Permit Universe............................................................................................................. 2-10

2.3.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family............................................................... 2-10

2.3.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-10

2.4 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).................................................................. 2-11

2.4.1 Permit Universe............................................................................................................. 2-11

2.4.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family............................................................... 2-11
iii 14 September 2015

2.4.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-13

2.5 Industrial Stormwater................................................................................................................. 2-13

2.5.1 Permit Universe............................................................................................................. 2-13

2.5.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family............................................................... 2-14

2.5.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-16

2.6 Construction Stormwater............................................................................................................ 2-16

2.6.1 Permit Universe............................................................................................................. 2-16

2.6.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family............................................................... 2-17

2.6.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-19

2.7 Municipal Stormwater................................................................................................................ 2-20

2.7.1 Permit Universe............................................................................................................. 2-20

2.7.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family............................................................... 2-20

2.7.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-22

2.8 Combined Sewer System (CSS) POTWs................................................................................... 2-22

2.8.1 Permit Universe............................................................................................................. 2-23

2.8.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family............................................................... 2-23

2.8.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-24

2.9 Sanitary Sewer System (SSS) POTWs and TWTDSs................................................................ 2-25

2.9.1 Permit Universe............................................................................................................. 2-25

2.9.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family............................................................... 2-26

2.9.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-27

2.10 Biosolids..................................................................................................................................... 2-27

2.10.1 Permit Universe............................................................................................................. 2-28

2.10.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family............................................................... 2-28

2.10.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-29

2.11 Pretreatment................................................................................................................................ 2-30

2.11.1 Permit Universe............................................................................................................. 2-30

2.11.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family............................................................... 2-30

2.11.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-32

2.12 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 2-33

Section 3. – Activities Affected by the Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.............................. 3-1

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Updating the Reporting Process................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 State Authorized NPDES program and EPA Implementation of a Data Exchange........ 3-3

3.2.2 Compliance with the Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule........................................ 3-4

3.2.3 Supplying Facility, Limit and Limit Set data .................................................................. 3-4

3.2.4 Additional Implementation Activities............................................................................. 3-4

3.3 Electronic Reporting during Transition........................................................................................ 3-5

3.4 Using the Updated System ........................................................................................................... 3-5

3.4.1 Regulated Entity Registration and Training.................................................................... 3-5

3.4.2 Regulated Entity Discharge Monitoring and Program Report Submission..................... 3-7

3.4.3 Additional Required Data from the Authorized NPDES Program.................................. 3-8

3.4.4 Replacing the Annual Non-Compliance Report, Quarterly Non-Compliance 

Report, and Semi-Annual Statistical Summaries with the New National Non-Compliance 

Report 3-8

3.5 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3-8

Section 4. – Estimating the Economic Impacts of the Final NPDES Electronic Reporting 

Rule 4-1

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Labor Costs .................................................................................................................................. 4-2
iv 14 September 2015

4.3 Cost of Updated Information Sharing among Authorized NPDES 

Programs and EPA ....................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.3.1 Electronic Reporting Tool Implementation Costs........................................................... 4-4

4.3.2 Electronic Tool Operations and Maintenance Cost......................................................... 4-6

4.3.3 Other Implementation Costs............................................................................................ 4-6

4.3.4 Total Costs....................................................................................................................... 4-9

4.4 Regulated Entity and Authorized NPDES Program Savings and Costs 

Associated with Using the Updated Systems............................................................................... 4-9

4.4.1 Regulated Entity Registration and Training Costs........................................................ 4-10

4.4.2 Data Entry Costs............................................................................................................ 4-11

4.4.3 Other Ongoing Administrative Activities ..................................................................... 4-16

4.4.4 National Non-Compliance Report................................................................................. 4-16

4.4.5 Total Annual Processing, Submission and Data Entry Costs of Using the Updated 

System 4-16

4.4.6 Total Costs of the Final Rule......................................................................................... 4-17

4.4.7 Submission and Processing Savings from Electronic Reporting................................... 4-17

4.5 Summary: Implementation and Return on Investment............................................................... 4-20

4.6 Changes from Proposed Rule Estimates and Sensitivity to Number of 

DMR Forms................................................................................................................................ 4-26

Section 5. – Small Entity Analysis......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Impact on Small Entities .............................................................................................................. 5-1

5.3 Definitions of Small Entities........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.4 Methodology Overview................................................................................................................ 5-2

5.5 Census Sectors.............................................................................................................................. 5-5

5.5.1 Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities ............................................................ 5-7

5.5.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships ..................................................................... 5-8

5.5.3 Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities................................................................... 5-9

5.5.4 Estimate Number of Small Parent Entities.................................................................... 5-10

5.5.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs..................................................................... 5-10

5.5.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios......................................................................................... 5-11

5.6 Municipalities Operating Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) ................................... 5-11

5.6.1 Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities .......................................................... 5-12

5.6.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships ................................................................... 5-13

5.6.3 Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities................................................................. 5-13

5.6.4 Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities.............................................................. 5-14

5.6.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs..................................................................... 5-14

5.6.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios......................................................................................... 5-14

5.7 Utilities....................................................................................................................................... 5-15

5.7.1 Characterize the Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities............................................. 5-15

5.7.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships ................................................................... 5-16

5.7.3 Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities................................................................. 5-16

5.7.4 Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities.............................................................. 5-16

5.7.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs..................................................................... 5-17

5.7.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios......................................................................................... 5-17

5.8 Agriculture ................................................................................................................................. 5-17

5.8.1 Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities .......................................................... 5-18

5.8.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships ................................................................... 5-19

5.8.3 Construct Annual Revenue of Parent Entities............................................................... 5-19

5.8.4 Identify Small Parent Entities........................................................................................ 5-19
v 14 September 2015

5.8.5 Calculate Parent Entity Compliance Costs.................................................................... 5-20

5.8.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios......................................................................................... 5-20

5.9 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 5-22

Section 6. – Benefits................................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Savings due to Electronic Reporting ............................................................................................ 6-1

6.2.1 Processing Savings.......................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2.2 Data Entry (NOIs, DMRs, and Program Reports) Savings............................................. 6-1

6.2.3 Eliminating ANCR, QNCR, and SASS........................................................................... 6-2

6.2.4 Total Savings................................................................................................................... 6-2

6.3 Improved NPDES Information..................................................................................................... 6-2

6.4 Improved Efficiency of EPA Programs........................................................................................ 6-3

6.5 Monetized Benefits Associated with Improved Data Quality...................................................... 6-4

6.6 Potential Benefits from Electronic Individual Permit Applications............................................. 6-4

6.7 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 6-5

Section 7. - Additional Analyses ............................................................................................................ 7-1

7.1 Executive Order 12866................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.2 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)................................................................................................. 7-1

7.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) ................................................................................................ 7-2

7.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).................................................................................. 7-3

7.5 Executive Order 13132 – Federalism........................................................................................... 7-3

7.6 Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments...................................................................................................................... 7-4

7.7 Executive Order 13045 – Children’s Health ................................................................................ 7-5

7.8 Executive Order 13211 – Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ................................................... 7-5

7.9 National Technology Transfer Advancement Act........................................................................ 7-5

7.10 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice ......................................................................... 7-6

Appendix A – List of Data Elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 ................................................. A-1

Appendix B – List of States by Data Entry Type..................................................................................B-1

Appendix C – NPDES Program Management Information (PMI) Survey....................................... C-1

Appendix D – Detailed Schedules of Savings and Costs ..................................................................... D-1

Appendix E – Summary of Changes to NPDES Regulations ..............................................................E-1

Appendix F – Implementation Schedule ...............................................................................................F-1
vi 14 September 2015

Table of Tables

Table 1-1: Electronic Reporting Requirements by NPDES Subprogram................................... 1-15

Table 2-1: NPDES Regulated Entities and NPDES Permit Types by Subprogram..................... 2-2

Table 2-2: Electronic Reporting Requirements by NPDES Subprogram..................................... 2-3

Table 2-3: Required Data Families and Entity Initiating Reporting/Submittal Activity.............. 2-6

Table 2-4: Standard Industrial Discharger and CWA §316(b) Universe and Annual Reporting 

Frequency................................................................................................................. 2-10

Table 2-5: Significant Industrial User (SIU) Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency. 2-

11

Table 2-6: CAFOs Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency..................................... 2-13

Table 2-7: Industrial Stormwater Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency .............. 2-16

Table 2-8: Construction Stormwater Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency......... 2-20

Table 2-9: Municipal Stormwater Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency ............. 2-22

Table 2-10: CSS POTW Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency............................ 2-25

Table 2-11: SSS POTW and TWTDS Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency....... 2-27

Table 2-12: Biosolids Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency ................................ 2-29

Table 2-13: Pretreatment Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency........................... 2-32

Table 2-14: Universe Summary by NPDES Subprogram .......................................................... 2-33

Table 2-15: Annual Reporting Frequency Summary by Data Family and Permit Type ............ 2-34

Table 2-16: Number of Filers by NPDES Subprogram and Report Type.................................. 2-35

Table 3-1: Distribution of Savings and Costs of the Rule............................................................ 3-1

Table 3-2: Registration and Training Requirements by NPDES Subprogram............................. 3-7

Table 4-1: Distribution of Savings and Costs of the Rule............................................................ 4-2

Table 4-2: Deriving Loaded Hourly Costs................................................................................... 4-3

Table 4-3: EPA Implementation Costs for Electronic Reporting Tools....................................... 4-4

Table 4-4: State Authorized NPDES Program Implementation Costs for Electronic Reporting 

Tools........................................................................................................................... 4-6

Table 4-5: Administrative Costs to Implement Electronic Reporting.......................................... 4-7

Table 4-6: Total Cost of Updating the Submission Process......................................................... 4-9

Table 4-7: Authorized NPDES Program Incremental Electronic Reporting by Data Family and 

Permit Type.............................................................................................................. 4-13

Table 4-8: Surveyed States by User Type .................................................................................. 4-14

Table 4-9: Average Data Entry Time (in minutes) and Cost Per Data Element (2014 Dollars) 4-14

Table 4-10: Annual Cost of Data Entry and Operations for the Updated System after 

Implementation ........................................................................................................ 4-17

Table 4-11: Total Initial Implementation Costs of the Rule....................................................... 4-17

Table 4-12: Mailing Costs.......................................................................................................... 4-18

Table 4-13: Unit Savings from Eliminating Pre-populated DMRs............................................ 4-19

Table 4-14: Total Annual Savings under Final Rule.................................................................. 4-20

Table 4-15: Rule Implementation Timing.................................................................................. 4-21

Table 4-16: Schedule of Savings and Costs (3% Discount Rate)............................................... 4-23

Table 4-17: Schedule of Savings and Costs (7% Discount Rate)............................................... 4-23

Table 4-18: Changes in Costs and Cost Savings from Proposed Rule....................................... 4-26

Table 5-1: Compliance Costs Incurred under the Rule ................................................................ 5-3

Table 5-2: Annualized Compliance Costs Incurred Under the Rule ............................................ 5-3

Table 5-3: Categorizing Sectors Affected by the Rule................................................................. 5-4

Table 5-4: Sectors with Information in SUSB.............................................................................. 5-6

Table 5-5: NPDES Facility Distribution by Employment Size Class.......................................... 5-8
vii 14 September 2015

Table 5-6: NPDES Facility Distribution by Revenue Size Class................................................. 5-8

Table 5-7: NPDES Parent Entity Distribution by Employment Size Class.................................. 5-9

Table 5-8: NPDES Parent Entity Distribution by Revenue Size Class........................................ 5-9

Table 5-9: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities in Sectors 

with Census Information, 3% Discount Rate ........................................................... 5-11

Table 5-10: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities in 

Sectors with Census Information, 7% Discount Rate .............................................. 5-11

Table 5-11: POTWs Matched to Census Municipalities, Townships, and Counties.................. 5-13

Table 5-12: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Local Governments Operating POTWs, 3% 

Discount Rate........................................................................................................... 5-14

Table 5-13: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Local Governments Operating POTWs, 7% 

Discount Rate........................................................................................................... 5-14

Table 5-14: NPDES Utility Facility Universe............................................................................ 5-16

Table 5-15: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Utility Parent Entities, 3% Discount Rate .. 5-

17

Table 5-16: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Utility Parent Entities, 7% Discount Rate .. 5-

17

Table 5-17: NPDES Facility Distribution by NAICS Code....................................................... 5-19

Table 5-18: NPDES Facility Distribution by NAICS Code....................................................... 5-20

Table 5-19: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Agricultural 

Facilities, 3% Discount Rate .................................................................................... 5-21

Table 5-20: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Agricultural 

Facilities, 7% Discount Rate .................................................................................... 5-21

Table 5-21: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities, 3% 

Discount Rate........................................................................................................... 5-22

Table 5-22: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities, 7% 

Discount Rate........................................................................................................... 5-22

Table 6-1: Total Annual Savings under Final Rule...................................................................... 6-2

Table 7-1: Projected Burden and Cost over the First Three Years of the Rule ............................ 7-2
viii 14 September 2015

Table of Figures

Figure ES-1: Electronic Reporting Costs/Savings Analysis – 3% Discount Rate........................ xiii

Figure ES-2: Electronic Reporting Costs/Savings Analysis – 7% Discount Rate........................ xiii

Figure 1-1: Current Flow of NPDES Data ................................................................................... 1-2

Figure 1-2: Post Implementation Flow of NPDES Data ............................................................ 1-11

Figure 2-1: Inputs to Burden and Cost Estimates......................................................................... 2-1

Figure 3-1: The Exchange Network ............................................................................................. 3-3

Figure 4-1: Estimating Data Entry Costs.................................................................................... 4-12

Figure 4-2: Electronic Reporting Savings/Costs Analysis – 3% Discount Rate ........................ 4-24

Figure 4-3: Electronic Reporting Savings/Costs Analysis – 7% Discount Rate ........................ 4-25
ix 14 September 2015

List of Acronyms

The table below lists the acronyms used throughout this document.

List of Acronyms

Acronym Acronym Meaning

ACWA Association of Clean Water Administrators

AFS Air Facility System

ANCR Annual Non-Compliance Report

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

CAMDBS Clean Air Markets Division Business System

CDX Central Data Exchange

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGP Construction General Permit

CIU Categorical Industrial User

CROMERR Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

CSS Combined Sewer System

CWA Clean Water Act

DMR Discharge Monitoring Report

EA Economic Analysis

eDMR Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report

ECHO Enforcement & Compliance History Online

ECOS Environmental Council of States

EDSC Environmental Data Standards Council

eGRID Emission & Generation Resource Integrated Database

EIA Energy Information Administration

ENLC Exchange Network Leadership Council

eNOI Electronic Notice of Intent

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

eProgram Report Electronic Program Report

EQ Exceptional Quality

ESA Electronic Signature Agreement

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FR Federal Register

FRS Facility Registry System

FTE Full Time Equivalent

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

HQ Headquarters

ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System

ICIS-NPDES Integrated Compliance Information System-National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

ICR Information Collection Request

IDEA Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis

IPI Industrial Production Index

IPT Integrated Project Team

IT Information Technology

IU Industrial Users

LEW Low Erosivity Waiver and Other Waivers from Stormwater Controls

MGD Million Gallons per Day

MGP Multi-Sector General Permit

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NASS National Agricultural Statistical Service

NEC No Exposure Certification

NeT NPDES e-Reporting Tool
x 14 September 2015

List of Acronyms

Acronym Acronym Meaning

NetDMR Net-based Discharge Monitoring Report

NMP Nutrient Management Plan

NODI No Data Indicators

NOI Notice of Intent

NOT Notice of Termination

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NTTAA National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

OECA EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OEI EPA’s Office of Environmental Information

O&M Operations and Maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OTIS Online Tracking and Information System

OW EPA’s Office of Water

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool

PBMS Performance Based Measurement System

PCS Permit Compliance System

PMI Program Management Information

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works

PPI Producer Price Index

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

QNCR Quarterly Non-Compliance Report

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RIDE Requisite ICIS-NPDES Data Elements

RNC Reportable Noncompliance (according to EPA Policy and Guidance)

SASS Semi-Annual Statistical Summary

SBA Small Business Administration

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SEV Single Event Violation

SIC Standard Industrial Classification

SIU Significant Industrial User

SNC Significant Noncompliance (according to EPA Policy and Guidance)

SSCS Sanitary Sewer Collection System

SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow

SSS Sanitary Sewer System

SUSB Statistics of U.S. Businesses

SWM Storm Water Management

TWTDS Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

WENDB Water Enforcement National Data Base

WGS World Geodetic System

XML eXtensible Markup Language
xi 14 September 2015

Executive Summary

ES.1 Purpose of the Rule

The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule will substitute 

electronic reporting for existing paper-based reports, 

saving time and resources for regulated entities and 

states, while improving compliance and better 

protecting the nation’s waters. The rule will require 

regulated entities and state and federal regulators to 

electronically report data currently required by the 

NPDES permit program in lieu of filing written paper 

reports.

The rule will require NPDES regulated entities to 

begin submitting certain data electronically one year 

after effective date of the rule, and will require 

authorized NPDES programs (states or EPA regions) 

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 rule will reduce the reporting burden currently 

borne by the states, improve overall facility 

compliance, allow better allocation and use of limited 

compliance and enforcement resources, and enhance 

transparency and public accountability by providing 

the public with timely information on potential 

sources of water pollution. When the final rule is fully 

implemented it will result in significant cost savings 

for regulated entities, states, territories, tribes, and 

EPA and more complete data could contribute to 

improved water quality.

This Economic Analysis (EA) quantifies the costs and 

savings of this final rule, while acknowledging many 

of the qualitative benefits that will result from its

implementation. This rule justifies itself on the basis 

of the savings/costs alone. 

Historically, EPA and authorized states have focused 

on the largest or “major” facilities as a way of 

prioritizing resources for permitting, enforcement, and 

data reporting to EPA. For example, EPA’s data 

sharing policy has specified that authorized NPDES 

programs enter certain data for major facilities electronically, but only encouraged this practice 

for nonmajors. Over time, there has been a growing recognition of the significance of the impacts 

that other sources can have on water quality. Stormwater discharges, concentrated animal feeding 

operations, mines, and raw sanitary sewage overflows are all significant contributors to water 

quality impairment but are not currently considered “major” facilities under the NPDES program.

Examples of NPDES Program 

Reports Submitted on Paper
xii 14 September 2015

The rule improves data quality and availability for these significant sources, thereby providing the 

states and EPA with more complete and comparable data on a substantial majority of NPDES 

regulated entities, and allowing targeted actions to address the biggest water quality problems.

ES.2 Savings, Costs, and Benefits

EPA estimates that the rule will save money for states, tribes, and territories authorized to 

administer the NPDES program as well as EPA and most NPDES permittees, while resulting in a 

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

full implementation (expected to be five years after the effective date of the rule), the anticipated 

annual net savings for authorized NPDES programs1is $22.6 million, $0.5 million for regulated 

entities, and $1.2 million for EPA.

2

The State of Ohio’s electronic reporting program for Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) 

demonstrates the potential benefits of electronic reporting. Ohio’s program resulted in a 99.9% 

adoption rate by regulated entities, with the following benefits:

 Improved data quality: errors dropped from 50,000 per month prior to electronic 

reporting to 5,000 per month afterwards.

 Significant savings in time and resources: prior to electronic reporting, Ohio needed five 

full time staff to support the DMR program. With electronic reporting, Ohio reduced 

DMR staffing to less than one full time staff member.

Improved data quality also allows Ohio to more accurately target areas of pollution, facilitating 

the State’s enforcement and compliance efforts.3 Under the rule, states with existing successful 

electronic reporting programs like Ohio’s would expand these programs to include additional 

data, if needed, potentially increasing these benefits.

Savings and Costs - Significant savings are anticipated once the final rule is fully implemented.

There will, however, be initial investment costs associated with necessary changes to information 

technology and infrastructure. During the first 10 years after the rule is finalized, it is expected to 

generate a net savings of roughly $156 million at a 3% discount rate, or $114 million at a 7% 

discount rate. Break-even should be achieved – i.e., cumulative savings will equal cumulative 

costs – in the fourth year of electronic reporting (See Figure ES-1 and Figure ES -2).

 

1

See Sections 1.2.1 and 1.3.1 for further explanation of NPDES program authorization.

2 The stated savings numbers are discounted at 3%, which are first realized in full, five years after 

the effective date of the rule. Non-discounted values are $26.2 million for authorized NPDES 

programs, $0.6 million for regulated entities, and $1.4 million for EPA.

3

See DCN 0011.
xiii 14 September 2015

Figure ES-1: Electronic Reporting Costs/Savings Analysis – 3% Discount Rate

Figure ES-2: Electronic Reporting Costs/Savings Analysis – 7% Discount Rate

The rule will vastly reduce the need for authorized NPDES programs to enter data submitted by 

regulated entities into information systems, which accounts for most of the savings. Those 

savings are partially offset by data entry associated with the modified universe of facilities for 

which authorized NPDES programs will be required to provide facility and permitting data to 
xiv 14 September 2015

EPA. The rule will also reduce the need for paper and postage by authorized NPDES programs 

and regulated entities. All of these costs and cost savings are incorporated into the estimates 

discussed above. 

In addition, based on Ohio’s experience with its electronic reporting system for these data, the 

rule should reduce the need for error checking of the data by authorized NPDES programs, and 

the need for regulated entities to revise and reenter data. If the reduction in errors in DMR data 

reported by Ohio can be extrapolated to all permitting authorities, EPA estimates there would be 

an additional total time and cost saving of approximately 130 full-time equivalents (FTEs) and 

$9.3 million in wages. Because they are an extrapolation only, however, these additional potential 

savings from reduced error checking are not included in the estimates discussed above or the total 

savings presented elsewhere in the analysis.

Burden Reduction – Burden for states and regulated entities will be reduced by an estimated net 

of 0.6 million hours in total over the first three years after the effective date of the rule. At full 

implementation (five years after the effective date of the rule) net burden reduction is estimated to 

total 0.9 million hours per year. The final rule will transform the NPDES program from a paper 

reporting program to a modern electronic program. The reductions translate into an annual 

savings to states and regulated entities at full implementation of $23.1 million. State paper 

reporting would be eliminated for: quarterly noncompliance report (QNCR) for major facilities; 

semi-annual statistical summary report for major facilities; annual non-compliance report 

(ANCR) for nonmajor facilities; and annual biosolids report from states to EPA.

Qualitative Benefits – Other anticipated benefits of the rule include improved quality and 

accuracy of the data available to regulatory agencies and the public; more timely and expanded 

use of the data to identify, target, and address problems; quicker availability of the data for use;

and increased accessibility and transparency of the data to the public. These benefits should allow 

states to shift precious resources from data management activities to activities more useful in

solving water quality and noncompliance issues. This shift will, in turn, contribute to increased 

compliance, and a level playing field for the regulated community.

EPA will make much of this enhanced and improved data available to the public, as it does now 

with the existing data, to provide communities and citizens with the best available information on 

facility and government performance. Such data provides a powerful incentive to improve 

performance by giving government, regulated entities and the public ready access to more 

complete compliance information. This incentive can serve to elevate the importance of 

compliance information and environmental performance within regulated entities, providing an 

opportunity for them to quickly address any noncompliance. More complete, accurate and timely 

data can provide the private sector and consumers with facility and company performance 

information. It provides regulators the ability to monitor and assess performance systematically 

and to quickly address significant issues that may be hidden in unmanageable paper reports, 

minimizing environmental and public health impacts. It creates an opportunity for two-way 

communication with regulated entities to immediately address data quality issues and to provide 

compliance assistance or take other action when potential problems are identified. Complete and 

accurate data also allows EPA to compare performance across authorized programs, leading to 

more effective national program management.

The rule will also lighten the reporting burden currently placed on the states. Upon successful 

implementation, the rule will provide states with regulatory relief from reporting associated with 

the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR), the Annual Non-Compliance Report (ANCR), 

the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report (SASS), and the biosolids information required to 
xv 14 September 2015

be submitted to EPA annually by states. Under the rule, the non-compliance and statistical 

summary reports from each authorized program will be replaced by a single National Noncompliance Report prepared by EPA headquarters.4

Under the rule, the resulting information flows will allow EPA and authorized NPDES programs

to manage the NPDES program more efficiently. With electronic reporting, EPA and states will 

be able to use self-reported regulated entity data in near real time. Permitted facilities will have 

more control over how and when their data are added to the information systems, and will be able 

to use the data to identify and address issues before they become violations. Electronic reporting 

also improves data quality and allows for data sharing across federal and authorized NPDES 

program regulators using the Exchange Network – a network EPA built to foster data sharing 

between EPA and the states. Bringing the additional information about both major and nonmajor 

regulated entities into ICIS-NPDES will allow authorized NPDES programs and EPA to better 

monitor and report on the status of the NPDES programs they administer. 

Having data that are more current, comprehensive, and accurate will improve targeting of federal 

and state resources to the most serious water quality and compliance problems. Improved NPDES 

data can significantly improve EPA’s knowledge of the regulated community; and that 

knowledge is essential for problem identification and for developing sound regulations, guidance, 

and policy. Regulated entities will benefit by knowing that the compliance information in EPA’s 

data systems is timely and accurate, and by taking advantage of the on-line data quality tools to 

ensure that the data they submit is accurate.

ES.3 Major Factors Taken into Consideration in Estimating Savings and 

Costs 

The following factors have the greatest impact on the savings and costs of the final rule:

 Cost of necessary changes to existing EPA and state data systems;

 States that have already begun developing electronic reporting (e.g., EPA estimates that 

35 states are already using electronic DMR systems);

 Estimated universe of regulated entities; 

 Number of regulated entities needing electronic signatures for electronic data entry; 

 Changes in who enters the data;

 Frequency of various data reports;

 Data to be collected;

 Time required to enter data into information systems; and

 The schedule for rule implementation.

In fact, a number of these factors changed between this analysis and the economic analysis for the 

proposed rule. As a result, the estimates of both ongoing annual costs and cost savings have 

increased from those estimated for the proposed rule. The estimated total initial implementation 

costs have remained nearly the same. The result is an increase in net savings at full 

implementation to authorized NPDES programs and EPA Regions, along with a decrease in net 

savings to regulated entities. Estimated cumulative net benefits over ten years have also 

increased.

 

4

See Sections 3.4.4 and 4.4.4.
xvi 14 September 2015

The changes in estimated costs and cost savings result from changes in the rule provisions from 

proposed to final, as well as changes in the underlying data and assumptions used in the economic 

analysis. The most significant of these changes are the following:

 Revisions to the estimated cost of electronic reporting tool implementation;

 Additional activities supporting rule implementation;

 Reduction in the potential for dual electronic/paper reporting during transition;

 Changes to the phase-in schedule;

 Reduction in the number of required data elements;

 Inclusion of password reset costs;

 Inclusion of the full cost of electronic tool implementation by states; 

 Inclusion of ongoing costs for states to manage data transfer to EPA and provide ongoing 

training and support for electronic reporting; and

 Incorporation of multiple DMR forms per submission.

The last change, number of DMR forms per submission, had the single largest impact on the 

estimates because of its impact on ongoing data entry and processing cost savings. See Section 

4.6 for complete discussion of changes from the proposed rule estimates and the significance of 

assumptions about the number of DMR forms. 

ES.4 Key Acts and Regulations that Must be Addressed by the EA

Small Entity Analysis – As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the final rule’s likely 

impact on small entities was evaluated. Following EPA guidance, a significant impact may occur 

when compliance costs are equal to or greater than 1% of the revenue of small parent entities.

While impacts of greater than 1% are estimated to be incurred due to the rule, impacts of greater 

than 1% 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 due to relatively low per entity 

compliance costs. Therefore, the rule is not expected to significantly impact a substantial number 

of small entities.

Regulatory Planning and Review (EO 12866) – This EO requires additional analyses for 

rulemakings with an economic impact of $100 million or more in any year. The Economic 

Analysis for this final rule indicates that the annual economic impact will be less than the $100 

million annual threshold, so the additional requirements are not applicable.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) – This Act requires undertaking additional analyses 

for rulemakings that impose burdens of $100 million or more in any year. The Economic 

Analysis for this final rule indicates the annual implementation costs will be less than the $100 

million threshold, so the additional requirements of the UMRA are not applicable.

ES.5 Key Steps for Implementation

Updating the NPDES information flow will allow states and EPA to each have a central 

repository of NPDES information and to readily share that information through the internet. The 

major activities necessary to update the way states share information with EPA are:

 Authorized NPDES program and EPA implementation of an electronic reporting system 

for submitting regulated entity data;
xvii 14 September 2015

 Authorized NPDES program and EPA implementation of an electronic reporting system 

for submitting authorized NPDES program data to EPA;

 Authorized NPDES programs making decisions regarding their initial recipient status;

 Authorized NPDES programs demonstrating their attorneys general accept electronic 

signatures in lieu of physical signature, thereby certifying compliance with EPA’s Cross 

Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR);

 Authorized NPDES programs preparing implementation plans and EPA review and 

approval of those plans;

 Authorized NPDES programs updating their Memoranda of Agreement with their 

Regional Administrator;

 Authorized NPDES program and EPA developing criteria for temporary and permanent 

waivers from electronic reporting;5

 Authorized NPDES program and EPA coordination via training webinars;

 Authorized NPDES program entering newly shared data for all regulated entities;

 EPA assessing participation rates and, where appropriate, conducting oversight using its 

Clean Water Act (CWA) authority and Information Collection Request (ICR) to compel 

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

and,

 Authorized NPDES program and EPA modifying permits to require electronic 

submissions.

Regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs will need to make changes in order to use the 

updated databases and reporting tools. The activities required to use the updated systems are:

 Regulated entity registration for and maintenance of user accounts in CDX or the state 

authorized NPDES program electronic system and submission of electronic signature 

agreements;

 Regulated entity training;

 Regulated entity submission of electronic NOIs, DMRs, and program reports; and,

 Authorized NPDES program electronic submission of programmatic Appendix A data to 

EPA.

During the initial implementation period (within five years after the effective date of the rule), 

some regulated entities might 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 has 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.

 

5 The analysis accounts for the costs to authorized NPDES programs and EPA to develop waiver criteria, as 

discussed in Section 4.3.3 and assumes that, in practice, a small percentage of regulated entities receive 

waivers, as discussed in Section 4.1.
xviii 14 September 2015

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

only until the permit is re-issued with electronic reporting requirements on the normal permit 

cycle. 
1-1 14 September 2015

Section 1. – Background and Overview of the Economic 

Analysis of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

1.1 Introduction

Through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic Reporting 

rule, EPA will convert current paper reporting requirements to electronic. In doing so, EPA will

establish a nationally consistent set of required information for the full scope of the NPDES 

program, for NPDES data that must be submitted to, or entered into, EPA’s Integrated 

Compliance Information System (ICIS)-NPDES. EPA needs regulated entity-specific information 

in order to provide national program direction and oversight; to ensure that implementation and 

enforcement of the NPDES program, both nationally and locally, will effectively protect human 

health and the environment; and to facilitate public access to NPDES information. This rule will 

also require that NPDES data be submitted to EPA electronically, either by regulated entities or 

authorized NPDES program, as appropriate, which will reduce the burden of data entry on states, 

tribes, and territories (hereinafter referred to as states) and EPA Regions. The rule does not 

require collection or reporting of any new data. 

This report analyzes the economic impact of the electronic reporting rule and presents the 

methodology, information sources, and detailed results of the Economic Analysis (EA). To 

understand the effects of the rule, however, this section documents how the NPDES program 

currently operates and the existing information resources used to support the NPDES program.

Figure 1-1 illustrates the current flow of NPDES data from responsible party (regulated entity, 

authorized NPDES program, EPA) into the data system. It also identifies the activities undertaken 

by each responsible party, as well as the type of data entered. Section 1.2 provides a description 

of the statutory and regulatory history of the NPDES program followed by a summary of existing 

NPDES reporting requirements and how the data have been and are being used (Section 1.3). The 

section concludes with a description of the final rule (Section 1.4) and lays out the organization of 

the remaining sections of the report (Section 1.5).
1-2 14 September 2015

Figure 1-1: Current Flow of NPDES Data

1.2 Statutory and Regulatory History of the NPDES Program

1.2.1 Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the NPDES program to regulate the discharges of 

pollutants to waters of the United States (33 U.S.C. §1342). EPA has issued comprehensive 

regulations implementing the NPDES program at 40 CFR part 122.

Under CWA §402(b) and 40 CFR part 123, states may be authorized to administer the NPDES 

program. The NPDES Program consists of various components, including: 1) the NPDES core 

program for municipal and industrial facilities;

6

2) Federal Facilities; 3) General Permitting; 4) 

Pretreatment Program; and 5) Biosolids. States can adopt the NPDES core program and one or 

more of the other components as part of their authorization. In accordance with 40 CFR subpart 

B, states that want authorization to administer the NPDES program submit to EPA a letter from 

the Governor requesting review and approval, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), a program 

description, a statement of legal authority (also known as an “Attorney Generals Statement” or 

“AG Statement”), and supporting state laws and regulations. The process of authorization 

includes a public review and comment period, and a public hearing (40 CFR §123.61(b)). If EPA 

disapproves the program, EPA remains the authorized NPDES program for that state (40 CFR 

§123.61(d)). If EPA approves the program, the state is authorized to administer the NPDES 

program. A state may request and receive authorization to administer one or more of the NPDES 

Program components. After EPA approves the state’s proposed program(s), all new permit 

applications for the program(s) are submitted to the authorized states for NPDES permit 

 

6 The core program refers to the ability to issue permits to direct discharges, conduct compliance activities, 

take enforcement actions, etc.
1-3 14 September 2015

issuance.7 EPA, through its regional offices, retains authorized NPDES program for all programs 

not specifically authorized to the states.

EPA regulations require authorized NPDES programs to keep records and submit to EPA such 

information as the Agency may reasonably require to ascertain whether the program as 

implemented complies with the requirements of the CWA and EPA’s regulations (40 CFR 

§123.43(d)). In addition, authorized NPDES programs are required to make available to EPA 

upon request any information authorized NPDES programs obtain or use in administering their 

NPDES programs (40 CFR §123.41(a)). 8Forty-six states and one territory have requested and 

received authority to administer one or more NPDES programs. As a result, EPA shares NPDES 

program implementation in varying degrees with 46 states and one territory and is the sole 

authorized NPDES program for four states, all of the tribes, and 15 territories.

EPA accounts for the burden associated with the reporting requirements of the CWA and EPA’s 

regulations under several ICRs, including the following:

 Consolidated NPDES ICR (2040-0004);

 Consolidated Animal Sectors ICR (2040-0250);

 Pesticides General Permit ICR (2040-0284);

 Airport Deicing ICR (2040-0285);

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

 National Pretreatment Program: Streamlining Final Rule (2040-0009);

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

 Cooling Water Intake Structures Existing Facility (Phase II) (Renewal) (2040-0257).

The ICR accompanying this final rule accounts for the change in burden associated with the shift 

to electronic reporting under the rule (see Section 7.2). Going forward, EPA plans to incorporate 

these changes in burden into the Consolidated NPDES ICR (2040-0004) as that ICR is re-issued. 

1.2.2 1985 PCS Policy

To implement 40 CFR 123.43(d) and other regulations, EPA has issued guidance on the 

information to be submitted electronically to a national database. In particular, the 1985 PCS 

Policy Statement (as amended in 2007)9and the PCS Quality Assurance Manual identify the 

timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and consistency expectations for state data entry into ICISNPDES. Both guidance documents were originally developed by EPA for use with PCS but were 

subsequently adapted and are still in effect for ICIS-NPDES. 

The PCS Policy Statement supports sound management of the NPDES program nationally and 

ensures that the program achieved the CWA’s environmental goals. The 1985 PCS Policy 

Statement specified that: 1) PCS would be the national data base of record for the NPDES 

program; 2) EPA Regions must use PCS directly; and 3) all NPDES authorized states, tribes and 

territories must either use PCS directly or develop and maintain and technology and protocols that 

transfer NPDES data to PCS. EPA also uses two mechanisms, a Memorandum of Agreement and 

CWA Section 106 Work Plan, for requiring data sharing between state NPDES programs and 

EPA.

 

7

See the following EPA webpage for a current listing of NPDES program authorizations: 

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/basics/State-Program-Status.cfm

8

See Section 1.3 for information on how this information is currently shared/stored.

9

See DCN 0056.
1-4 14 September 2015

1.2.3 1987 Water Quality Act and 2000 Wet Weather Water Quality Act

In response to growing concerns about stormwater issues, Congress passed the 1987 Water 

Quality Act which extended NPDES requirements to stormwater discharges. This action 

expanded the NPDES program to include stormwater discharges. In December 2000, Congress 

also amended the CWA with the “Wet Weather Water Quality Act.” These amendments added 

Section 402(q)(1) to require consistency with EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control 

Policy in permitting and enforcement activities.

1.3 Summary of the NPDES Program Reporting Requirements

1.3.1 Current Status

Three major groups are required to fulfill different reporting requirements under the NPDES 

program:

 NPDES regulated entities: These facilities are regulated by one or more components of 

the NPDES program. Facilities that discharge pollutants to the waters of the United States 

and therefore are required: 1) to apply for permits under NPDES; and, 2) to regularly 

report self-monitoring information (e.g., testing of pollutant concentrations in wastewater 

discharges, program reports). Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and other 

treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDSs) that generate biosolids are 

regulated by the Biosolids Program (40 CFR 503) and industrial facilities that discharge 

to POTWs are regulated by the Pretreatment Program (40 CFR 403). 

 NPDES Regulatory Authorities: The EPA Regions or authorized state, tribe, or 

territory responsible for administering the NPDES program within a given geopolitical 

unit (e.g., state).

 U.S. EPA: The agency maintains oversight across all components of the NPDES 

program. 

This section describes the current roles and responsibilities of each group within the NPDES 

program.

Regulated Entities

Regulated entities must comply with record-keeping and reporting requirements, and a variety of

standard conditions included in EPA regulations, NPDES permits, and other control mechanisms

(40 CFR 122.41). Record-keeping and reporting requirements often include preparation and 

submission to the authorized NPDES program of monthly discharge monitoring reports, which 

were traditionally paper documents.10 Additional reporting may include program reports as 

required by specific NPDES subprograms [e.g., CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, sewer 

overflows, and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)] (40 CFR 122.42).

Authorized NPDES Programs

The authorized NPDES program is the EPA Region or authorized state, tribe, or territory 

responsible for administering the NPDES program within a given geopolitical area. In some 

cases, a state may have been approved to administer certain NPDES programs, while the EPA 

regional office still manages the remaining subprograms or activities. The responsibilities of the 

 

10 Some regulated entities may test their own samples and mail DMRs directly to the state. Other regulated 

entities will send samples to an independent laboratory for testing. Contract laboratories may send the 

DMR back to the regulated entity for signature and submission or submit directly to the authorized NPDES 

program.
1-5 14 September 2015

authorized NPDES program include: writing NPDES permits or control mechanisms; receiving 

reports from permitted facilities and entering their information into the data system; and 

performing the compliance and oversight activities prescribed in the NPDES Compliance 

Monitoring Strategy.11

EPA

EPA has primary responsibility for effectively and consistently implementing the NPDES 

program across the country, thus ensuring that the public health and environmental protection 

goals of the CWA are met. EPA’s responsibilities include:

 Enforcing the requirements of the CWA and the NPDES program;

 Identifying the universe of facilities covered by the NPDES program;

 Developing sound regulations, guidance and policy;

 Conducting oversight of authorized states;

 Identifying the compliance status of facilities subject to NPDES regulations in a 

nationally consistent manner;

 Monitoring and reporting the status of implementing the CWA;

 Identifying potential non-compliance problems and their associated environmental 

impacts to effectively target resources;

 Demonstrating results achieved to meet NPDES program goals, including the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures reported to Congress, under 

Goal 2 (Clean and Safe Water) and Goal 5 (Compliance and Environmental 

Stewardship);

 Responding to inquiries from Congressional members;

 Administering the NPDES programs (policy setting, permitting, compliance monitoring, 

inspections and enforcement) in those states and subprograms where states have not 

assumed responsibility; and,

 Informing the public about the permitting and compliance status of facilities in their 

communities.

To accomplish these goals, EPA uses and maintains the Integrated Compliance Information 

System – National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES), a modernized system 

developed in 2005 to replace the legacy Permit Compliance System (PCS).

1.3.2 Regulated Entity Types

NPDES Permitted Facilities

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.”12 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 

 

11 See DCN 0188.

12 http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0116.pdf
1-6 14 September 2015

facilities designated as nonmajors than majors and most nonmajors have coverage under general 

permits (e.g., construction stormwater permits). At present, most of these facilities (major and 

nonmajor) submit the information required under the NPDES program on paper, with the 

exception of some facilities that are already using EPA or state electronic reporting systems (see 

Section 1.3.6).

Under the final rule, NPDES permittees would electronically submit their compliance monitoring 

data (e.g., DMRs, program reports) to their authorized NPDES program Some NPDES regulated 

entities have multiple NPDES compliance monitoring reporting requirements. For example, 

POTWs may submit the following compliance monitoring data to their authorized NPDES 

program: 

 DMRs [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)];

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

 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)].

The recipient of these compliance monitoring data depends on the NPDES authorization status of 

the state, tribe, or territory. For example, a POTW may send its DMRs to the state if it is 

authorized to implement the NPDES core program for municipal and industrial facilities and its 

Pretreatment Program Annual Report to an EPA Region if the state is not authorized to 

administer the pretreatment program.

Biosolids Facilities

Section 405 of the CWA sets the statutory framework for regulating sewage sludge (biosolids). 

EPA has established a protective regulatory framework to manage the use and disposal of 

biosolids at 40 CFR Part 503. Part 503 is a “self implementing” rule, which means that entities 

producing biosolids are regulated whether or not these requirements are included in a permit. 

Most facilities regulated by Part 503 also have an NPDES permit. Under the final rule NPDES 

regulated entities would electronically submit their Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program 

Report [40 CFR 503]. At present, these reports are submitted on paper.

Significant Industrial Users 

POTWs receive wastewater from households (domestic waste), as well as from a wide variety of 

commercial and industrial facilities, referred to as industrial users (IUs). The types of IUs range 

widely, from small restaurants to hospitals to large and complex organic chemical manufacturers. 

EPA has further identified some IUs as categorical industrial users (CIUs), i.e., IUs subject to 

EPA’s pretreatment standards developed for particular industrial categories, and significant 

industrial users (SIUs), i.e., IUs that are either CIUs or discharge process wastewater above the 

thresholds set in 40 CFR 403.5. EPA has developed a comprehensive pretreatment program 

implemented through EPA Regions, state, tribes, territories, and POTWs to control IU discharges 

of pollutants that might pass through or interfere with POTW treatment processes or contaminate 

sewage sludge, thereby posing a threat to human health or the environment. Under the final rule 

the SIUs and CIUs in municipalities without an approved pretreatment program would 

electronically submit the following data: (1) Periodic reports on continued compliance for CIUs 

[40 CFR 403.12(e)]; and (2) Periodic reports on continued compliance for Non-CIUs [40 CFR 

403.12(h)]. At present, these reports are submitted on paper.
1-7 14 September 2015

1.3.3 EPA Data Sharing Policy

The 1985 PCS Policy defines the required data necessary to enable PCS to function as a useful 

operational and management tool for the NPDES program. The list of required data elements is

called the Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB). Values for many of the data 

elements are updated on the permit cycle (every five years). Values for other data elements are 

entered as an activity or event occurs (e.g., effluent monitoring, inspections, violations, 

enforcement actions). Each state’s data is now stored in ICIS-NPDES (all PCS data has been 

transferred to ICIS-NPDES, and PCS is no longer in operation). The list of WENDB data 

elements uses the major/nonmajor distinction to identify the data states are required to input into 

ICIS-NPDES. For example, states are required by the PCS Policy to input DMR data into ICISNPDES for majors but only encouraged to do so for nonmajors.

1.3.4 Regulated Entity Supplied Data

EPA requires regulated entities to submit information as part of their permit applications, notices 

of intent (NOIs), Notice of Termination (NOT); No Exposure Certifications (NECs); Low 

Erosivity Waivers and Other Waivers from Stormwater Controls (LEWs), discharge monitoring 

reports (DMRs), and program reports (e.g., CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, sewer 

overflow/bypass event reports, MS4 program reports). Some authorized NPDES programs give 

regulated entities the option to file one or more of these documents electronically; however, the 

majority of these data are currently submitted to the authorized NPDES program in paper form.

For a complete listing of these data see NPDES Data Group Number 2 through 9 in Table 1 to 

Appendix A to 40 CFR 127.

Required Information for 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)]

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

Significant industrial user in municipalities without approved pretreatment programs must also 

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

Required Information for 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 
1-8 14 September 2015

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 facilityspecific 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)].

It is important to note that EPA general permit regulations (40 CFR 122.28) do not require all 

general permit covered facilities to submit NOIs for all general permits issued by EPA and 

authorized state NPDES programs. Some general permits provide for automatic coverage.

This means that neither EPA nor the authorized state, tribe, or territory programs will have 

information regarding exactly which facilities are regulated under these general permits.

General permits cover a wide range of facility types that range from the very large (e.g., offshore 

oil and gas facilities, seafood processors) to very small discharges. Discharges from facilities 

covered under general permits include a variety of pollutants, such as total suspended solids, 

biochemical oxygen demand, oil and grease, bacteria, nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, and toxics.

Basic facility information for some facilities covered by general permits is currently required to 

be entered into ICIS-NPDES in accordance with the PCS Policy. Requirements to submit DMRs 

or program reports (e.g., Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report, CAFO Annual 

Program Reports, MS4 Program Report, Pretreatment Program Annual Report) vary based on the 

type of general permit under which a facility is covered.

1.3.5 Authorized NPDES Program Supplied Data

NPDES permits are reviewed and potentially revised and reissued every five years. Basic facility 

data, basic permit data, and monitoring data are submitted by regulated entities to states on the 

NPDES application or renewal form. These are typically paper submissions. Authorized 

programs take these data and issue a new or revised permit (with permit limit sets13) and enter a 

portion of these facility and permit data into ICIS-NPDES. There are differing data entry 

requirements for majors and nonmajor facilities. 

The authorized NPDES program is also responsible for tracking and logging compliance 

monitoring, violation, and enforcement action information into ICIS-NPDES. The authorized 

NPDES program is responsible for receiving and processing reporting information submitted by 

regulated entities (e.g., DMRs). When received in paper form, the authorized NPDES program

 

13 A limit set consists of the parameters against which a regulated entity’s effluent is measured in order to 

determine whether the facility is in compliance with its permit. 
1-9 14 September 2015

must enter the required information into the NPDES system of record (ICIS-NPDES or a data 

system operated by the authorized NPDES program). There are differing ICIS-NPDES data entry 

requirements for major and nonmajor facilities.

Inspection, violation, and enforcement action information must be entered by the authorized 

NPDES program for major facilities as they occur. EPA’s current goal under the NPDES 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy is for 100% of major regulated entities to receive at least one 

Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Compliance Sampling Inspection, Performance Audit 

Inspection, Diagnostic Inspection, Compliance Bio-Monitoring Inspection, and/or Toxics 

Sampling Inspection every two fiscal years. 14 EPA has set the goal that individual nonmajor 

permits be inspected at least once during the permit cycle. For a complete listing of these data see 

NPDES Data Group Number 1 in Table 1 to Appendix A to 40 CFR 127.

1.3.6 Electronic Reporting

While electronic reporting is not currently required, there are tools regulated entities can use to 

file some reports electronically. For example, EPA’s electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) allows 

regulated entities in states where EPA is the authorized NPDES program to apply electronically 

for coverage under the Multi-Sector General Permit, the Construction General Permit, Vessels 

General Permit, and the Pesticides General Permit. Similarly, EPA’s NetDMR tool allows 

regulated entities to submit their discharge monitoring reports electronically. EPA estimates that 

38 state authorized NPDES programs have adopted some form of electronic reporting for one or 

more of the NPDES program areas (e.g., NetDMR, eDMR, or eNOI systems). Based on available 

information, most of these state programs are voluntary. Participation in these programs varies 

greatly from state to state, ranging from 10% to nearly 100% of permittees. EPA is also 

developing a new tool suite for NOIs and other general permit forms and program reports, the 

NPDES e-Reporting Tool (NeT). EPA’s 2015 Multi-Sector General Permit that controls 

industrial stormwater also uses NeT. EPA plans to make this tool available to the states as part of 

the implementation for this rule.

1.4 Description of the Final Rule

1.4.1 Statement of Need

Through this rule, EPA seeks to improve the accessibility, timeliness, consistency, and accuracy 

of data from all facilities regulated by the NPDES program. This effort will provide the public, 

EPA, states, and regulated entities with better access to more timely, complete, and accurate 

NPDES data. The needs of these user groups for NPDES data are described in more detail below.

The Public

At present, the public has limited information regarding a substantial portion of the NPDES 

regulated universe. One of EPA’s goals is to increase the transparency of its environmental 

programs and their results. This rule supports that goal by improving the quality and availability

of information regarding the compliance status of the nation’s water dischargers and the 

enforcement responses taken by authorized NPDES programs and EPA. Electronic reporting by 

NPDES regulated entities will increase the timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of NPDES 

information made available to the public. It is expected that with these changes in place, the 

public can more effectively monitor and address local and national concerns regarding the state of 

the waters of the United States.

 

14 See DCN 0188.
1-10 14 September 2015

EPA

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. This rule uses existing regulations to identity the

information EPA needs to receive from NPDES regulated entities and authorized NPDES 

programs in order to effectively manage the national NPDES program, including permitting and 

enforcement.

Authorized NPDES Programs

Authorized NPDES programs are currently inundated with paper reports from regulated entities.

Valuable resources are used reviewing those submissions for errors, working with regulated 

entities to correct errors, and then entering the data into information systems. The time required 

for these activities delays the availability of the data, and makes it difficult for authorized NPDES 

programs to identify real violations and compliance issues in a timely manner.

Regulated Entities

NPDES regulated entities have an interest in ensuring that the information used by their 

authorized NPDES program and EPA is as accurate and current as possible, because the 

permitting authorities use this information in evaluating compliance status. Facilities have an 

interest in ensuring that they are not mistakenly identified as being in noncompliance due to a 

state data entry error. Data errors occur most often when data are manually entered into an 

electronic data system from paper forms. In particular, these transcription errors can be the result 

of an omitted decimal place, errant unit for a pollutant parameter, or incorrect transcription from a 

handwritten value on a paper form. NPDES regulated entities have an interest in showing that 

their most current compliance status is also correctly identified by their permitting authority. 

Through electronic reporting, regulated entities can be more confident that their reports are 

received on time by the authorities and that their compliance status is characterized correctly.

1.4.2 Changes to the NPDES Program under the Final Rule

This final rule will require regulated entities to submit certain information electronically to their 

respective authorized NPDES program.

15 Appendix A to the final rule (40 CFR part 127) is the 

minimum set of NPDES program data that must be electronically collected, managed, and shared 

between NPDES-regulated facilities, authorized NPDES programs, and EPA.

16 Appendix A of 

this document identifies the data elements included in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127. EPA worked 

extensively with NPDES program experts from across the Agency and with authorized NPDES 

programs to develop and refine Appendix A. The purpose of Appendix A is to ensure that there is 

consistent and complete reporting nationwide, and to expedite the collection and processing of the 

data, thereby reducing burden and making the data more timely, accurate, complete, useful, and 

transparent for everyone.

 

15A state may request and receive authorization to administer one or more of the NPDES Program 

components. Consequently, a state may be authorized to administer the core program but not the 

pretreatment program. In this example, DMRs would be electronically submitted to the authorized state and 

the Pretreatment Program Annual Report would be electronically submitted to EPA.

16 States are free to require electronic reporting of additional information beyond the Appendix A data 

elements. For example, some states have state historical preservation requirements and collect these data on 

permit application forms. EPA’s electronic reporting tools can be tailored to support collection of this 

additional information. However, because these additional data are not required by the rule, any burden and 

cost associated with these additional data is outside the scope of this analysis and not included in the 

estimates here.
1-11 14 September 2015

Figure 1-2 illustrates the flow of NPDES data from a responsible party (regulated entity,

authorized NPDES program, or EPA) into the system of record following implementation of the 

final rule. It also identifies the activities undertaken by each responsible party as well as the type 

of data expected to be submitted to ICIS-NPDES when the requirement for electronic reporting is 

in place.

Figure 1-2: Post Implementation Flow of NPDES Data

Programmatic Data from the Authorized NPDES Program

Between 2002 and 2007, EPA and the states worked to identify the data needed by authorized 

NPDES programs to successfully implement and manage the NPDES program. Critical data 

elements and their end-uses were discussed by:

 The state and EPA members of the PCS Steering Committee;

 The PCS Modernization Executive Council; and,

 The expanded PCS Steering Committee, including the Environmental Council of States 

(ECOS) and the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA).

17

These discussions led to the April 2007 issuance of a draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement that

included the list of NPDES data authorized NPDES programs would report to EPA. EPA 

finalized a crosswalk from WENDB to ICIS-NPDES in December 2007.

Following receipt of numerous comments on the draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement from the 

states, EPA initiated a rulemaking to support a federal regulation requiring specific NPDES 

information from authorized NPDES programs.

 

17 Formerly Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Agencies (ASIWPCA).
1-12 14 September 2015

Between 2008 and 2011, the focus of this rulemaking was expanded to consider how much of the

NPDES information could reasonably be obtained electronically from authorized NPDES 

programs and NPDES regulated entities. EPA initiated an effort to carefully review data needs of 

various stakeholders, consider the types of information that would allow EPA to meet those 

needs, and then identify which reports should be submitted electronically. EPA also evaluated

whether the information should be sought directly from the NPDES regulated entities or from the 

authorized NPDES program, acknowledging that for certain activities and responsibilities (such 

as permit issuance, inspections, compliance determinations, and issuance of enforcement actions), 

the authorized NPDES program would be the logical source of the required NPDES information.

In a series of technical analyses, EPA examined the feasibility of electronic reporting, existing 

regulatory data and reporting requirements, and EPA priorities, and prepared preliminary

estimates of savings and costs. These analyses informed the development of the rule as well as

the list of NPDES data elements required by the rule (identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127).

During 2014 and 2015, EPA met with state technical experts to discuss all the data elements in 

Appendix A. In general, EPA simplified Appendix A to help make implementation of the final 

rule easier for authorized NPDES programs and NPDES regulated entities. 

The final rule requires that the Appendix A data elements, all of which are already required to be 

reported by regulated entities or authorized NPDES programs, be entered into ICIS-NPDES. The 

required data elements fall into the following data families:18

Facility and Permit Information: The Facility Data Family includes data such 

as name and street address of the regulated entity and a contact name. Several 

pieces of facility information will be required under the final rule to improve 

EPA’s management of regulated entities. Tribal Land data will allow EPA to 

identify effluents being discharged into waters in Tribal lands. Affiliation 

information (e.g. the name of the site engineer) is required to ensure reported 

data comes from the appropriate employee or representative.

The Permit Data Family includes basic permit information, tracking of a permit’s 

issuance, narrative permit conditions such as permit schedules, and permitted features 

(outfalls).

Data elements like DMR non-receipt tracking flags, RNC tracking flags, and applicable 

effluent guidelines have been added under the final rule to help EPA characterize and 

monitor a regulated entity’s compliance with their permit requirements. Data elements 

have also been added to address changes in standardized industrial classification 

taxonomies. The WENDB used the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes to 

designate a regulated entity’s industrial sector. Because the federal government has 

adopted the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS), Appendix A now 

provides the option to enter either SIC or NAICS codes. These changes will allow EPA to 

more effectively manage basic permit information for compliance and enforcement 

purposes.

Other permit data elements reflect changes to the NPDES program that have occurred 

since the original data set was established. Permit data elements associated with program 

areas established in the 1980s are needed in order to manage and measure the 

 

18 A full list of the data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 is provided in Appendix A of this 

document.
1-13 14 September 2015

environmental impact of operations and facilities now covered under the NPDES 

program. Both the size of the permitted site and the sources of the discharge will be 

reported. Wet weather components are included to manage stormwater run-off from 

impervious surfaces. CSO data elements are included to monitor for possible discharges 

of untreated human and industrial waste. Other elements, such as Control Authority 

Identifier tie treatment facility permits to the approved local pretreatment programs, if 

applicable. 

The Facility and Permit Data Families are treated similarly throughout this 

analysis and are referred to as Permit Data Elements throughout this report. 

Discharge Monitoring Reports: The DMR Data Family includes effluent monitoring 

data provided by NPDES facilities. DMR information includes data elements regarding

pollutant concentrations, wastewater flow, and other data about the effluent discharge.

Limits and Limit Sets: These data characterize limits and limit sets. Limit stay 

end date, reason for stay, enforcement action ID, and months a limit applies can 

be used to characterize and evaluate the appropriateness of effluent limits or stays 

of such limits.

Program Reports: The Program Reports Data Family includes program reports 

submitted for NPDES subprograms including: CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, 

sewer overflows, and MS4). Sewer overflows include sanitary sewer overflows, 

combined sewer overflows, and bypass events.

Compliance Monitoring: The Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Family documents 

compliance monitoring activities at permitted facilities. This family of data generally 

includes information associated with inspections such as inspection type, and dates 

associated with the inspection.

Compliance monitoring activity data allow EPA to track compliance monitoring 

of the regulated entity. Example data elements include: actual and planned end 

dates, the type of compliance monitoring, and identification of the programs 

monitored. These compliance monitoring activity data elements improve the 

Agency’s understanding of where environmental impacts take place.

Violations: The Violation Data Family includes data associated with violations such as 

single event, effluent, and compliance schedule violations.

Enforcement Actions: The Enforcement Action Data Family includes data 

regarding the enforcement action itself (e.g., documenting reason for deleting an 

action) as well as associated compliance schedules and penalties. 

Existing CWA regulations define what data must be reported by regulated entities and authorized 

NPDES programs. The final rule does not change those requirements. Similarly, existing 

regulations define the universe of NPDES regulated entities, and the final rule does not change 

those definitions.

The major changes resulting from the rule are that authorized NPDES programs will provide 

electronically to EPA more of the data they already collect for nonmajor (individual and general) 
1-14 14 September 2015

permits, and data submitted by regulated entities will be received electronically by EPA and 

authorized NPDES programs.

Previously, most authorized NPDES programs provided EPA with comprehensive data on major 

regulated entities, but only basic facility information and compliance information was required 

for nonmajors. In addition, data from regulated entities was usually received in paper form and 

authorized NPDES programs were required to process those submissions and enter all of the data 

into their information systems.

Electronic Reporting and Data Flow

The final rule does not change the reports any regulated entity is required to submit, but it does 

require certain reports to be submitted electronically. The rule will require regulated entities to 

electronically submit the following reports:

1. General Permit Reports

 Notice of Intent to discharge (NOI)

 Notice of Termination (NOT)

 No Exposure Certifications (NECs)

 Low Erosivity Waivers and Other Waivers from Stormwater Controls (LEWs)

2. Discharge Monitoring Reports

3. Program Reports

 CWA §316(b) Annual Report

 Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report

 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Annual Program Reports 

 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Report 

 Pretreatment Program Annual Report 

 Significant Industrial User Compliance Reports in Municipalities Without Approved 

Pretreatment Programs 

 Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports

These reporting requirements vary by permit type and subprogram, as presented in Table 1-1

below. EPA information systems will need to be modified to receive and send these electronic 

reports. In addition, authorized NPDES programs will need to modify their existing data 

processing technology and software, or adopt those provided by EPA, to receive these reports. 

Authorized NPDES programs operating their own NPDES data systems will also need to 

establish data flows to send all of the required data, regulated entity generated as well as 

authorized NPDES program generated, to ICIS-NPDES. 
1-15 14 September 2015

Table 1-1: Electronic Reporting Requirements by NPDES Subprogram

NPDES Subprogram

General

Permit 

Reports

DMR Program 

Reports

Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)

Standard Industrial Dischargers (may also file CWA §316(b) 

data) Yesa Yes No

CWA §316(b) Filers No Yes Yes

Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)b

SIUs in Municipalities with Pretreatment Program No No No

SIUs in Municipalities without Pretreatment Program No No Yes

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Yesa Yes Yes

Industrial and Construction Stormwater

Industrial Yesa Yes No

Construction Yesa Yesc No

Municipal Stormwaterd

Phase I municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) Yesa Yes Yes

Phase II MS4s Yesa No Yes

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

POTWs with Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs)e Yesa Yes Yesf

POTWs with Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs)e Yesa Yes Yesf

TWTDSs Yesa Yes Yesf

POTW NPDES Report Filers

Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Report Filers No Yes Yes

Pretreatment Program Report Filers No Yes Yes

Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report Filersg Yesa Yes Yes

a Only general permit covered facilities

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

The analysis assumes that a small percentage of construction stormwater regulated entities have DMR requirements 

due to an enforcement action.

d 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 and nonmajors.

e

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

composed of CSSs as CSSs.

f All POTWs and TWTDSs file one or more program reports, as shown under the section for POTW NPDES program 

report filers.

g

These POTWs and TWTDSs also have the potential for bypass events and the related noncompliance reporting, 

which will be done electronically under this rule.

1.5 Organization of the Report

This report examines the burden, costs, and savings to regulated entities, authorized NPDES 

programs, and EPA associated with the final rule. The remainder of this report is organized as 

follows:

 Section 2: Characterizes the permitted facility universe and the frequency of reporting.

 Section 3: Presents the regulated entity, authorized NPDES program and EPA activities 

that will be affected by the final rule. 

 Section 4: Estimates the total burden and savings associated with the final rule. 

 Section 5: Analyzes the impacts of the final rule on small entities.

 Section 6: Presents the benefits of the final rule.

 Section 7: Presents additional analyses conducted for the final rule.
2-1 14 September 2015

Section 2. – Estimating the Permit Universe and Required Data 

Reporting/Submittal 

2.1 Introduction 

Estimating the burden and cost associated with the final rule requires knowledge of: 1) the 

universe of permit types affected by the rule; as well as, 2) the required changes in the data flows 

between regulated entities and their authorized NPDES program and between authorized NPDES 

programs and EPA. These inputs are used to generate burden and cost estimates in Section 4, as 

shown in Figure 2-1. Rule requirements vary depending on the NPDES subprogram and type of 

permit. To estimate burden and cost, it is necessary to know:

 The entity responsible for generating the required data or data transfer. Some required 

data will be reported directly to EPA by permitted facilities. Other required data will be 

submitted to EPA by the authorized NPDES program (Reporting/submittal 

responsibilities are discussed in more detail in Section 3). 

 How frequently the data are reported by the regulated entity or submitted by the 

authorized NPDES program. Facility reporting and the submittals of the authorized 

NPDES program are both referred to in terms of an annual reporting frequency. For 

instance, a report that is submitted every 5 years has an annual reporting frequency of 0.2, 

whereas a report that is submitted monthly has an annual reporting frequency of 12.

It is important to note that the universe addressed in this economic analysis is somewhat different 

than the universe discussed in the preamble to the final rule. In this analysis the term “universe” 

essentially refers to permits, as distinct from facilities or regulated entities. The distinction is 

significant because it is possible for individual facilities to have multiple permits. In such cases, 

however, the facility will likely not be required to submit the same information twice (two 

permits requiring the same report). It is possible for a single regulated entity to make submissions 

for multiple permits. This is particularly true, for example, in the construction sector, where 

individual firms typically manage multiple sites with construction stormwater permits.

Figure 2-1: Inputs to Burden and Cost Estimates

2.1.1 Types of NPDES Permits

NPDES permits are issued to major and nonmajor facilities in the form of individual permits or 

general permits. Permit types are described in detail in Section 1. Permit types are summarized by 

subprogram in Table 2-1 (see Section 2.1.2 for a description of subprograms). Permit 

requirements may vary between individual and general permits, and between major and nonmajor 

facilities. For example, most individual major municipal stormwater regulated entities are 

required to submit discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) on a monthly basis whereas individual 

nonmajor municipal stormwater regulated entities generally do not. The cost analysis accounts for 
2-2 14 September 2015

the differences between major and nonmajor permits and between individual and general permits 

as described in the Sections 2.2 through 2.12.

Table 2-1: NPDES Regulated Entities and NPDES Permit Types by Subprogram

NPDES Subprogram

NPDES

Individual 

Majors

NPDES

Individual 

Nonmajors

NPDES

General 

Nonmajors

Other 

Mechanism

Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)

Standard Industrial Dischargers (may also file CWA 

§316(b) data)   

CWA §316(b) Filersa 

Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)b

SIUs in Municipalities with Pretreatment Program 

SIUs in Municipalities without Pretreatment Program 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)c  

Industrial and Construction Stormwater

Industrial   

Construction   

Municipal Stormwaterd

Phase I municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)  

Phase II MS4s  

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

POTWs with Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs)e   

POTWs with Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs)e   

TWTDSs   

POTW NPDES Report Filers

Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Report Filersf  

Pretreatment Program Report Filersf  

Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report Filersg   

a CWA §316(b) filers are a subset of standard industrial dischargers; most are classified as majors.

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 Most CAFOs are classified as nonmajors.

d 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 and nonmajors.

e

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

of CSSs as CSSs.

f Biosolids/sewage sludge and pretreatment program report filers are a subset of POTWs and TWTDSs; most have 

individual NPDES permits.

g These POTWs and TWTDSs also have the potential for bypass events and the related noncompliance reporting, which 

will be done electronically under this rule.

2.1.2 NPDES Subprograms

Permit requirements vary according to which subprogram(s) are applicable to a facility’s 

operations. These reporting requirements vary by permit type and subprogram, as presented in 

Table 2-2 below.
2-3 14 September 2015

Table 2-2: Electronic Reporting Requirements by NPDES Subprogram

NPDES Subprogram

General

Permit 

Reports

DMR Program 

Reports

Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)

Standard Industrial Dischargers (may also file CWA §316(b) 

data) Yesa Yes No

CWA §316(b) Filers No Yes Yes

Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)b

SIUs in Municipalities with Pretreatment Program No No No

SIUs in Municipalities without Pretreatment Program No No Yes

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Yesa Yes Yes

Industrial and Construction Stormwater

Industrial Yesa Yes No

Construction Yesa Yesc No

Municipal Stormwaterd

Phase I municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) Yesa Yes Yes

Phase II MS4s Yesa No Yes

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

POTWs with Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs)e Yesa Yes Yesf

POTWs with Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs)e Yesa Yes Yesf

TWTDSs Yesa Yes Yesf

POTW NPDES Report Filers

Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Report Filers No Yes Yes

Pretreatment Program Report Filers No Yes Yes

Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report Filersg Yesa Yes Yes

a Only general permit covered facilities

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

The analysis assumes that a small percentage of construction stormwater regulated entities have DMR requirements 

due to an enforcement action.

d 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 and nonmajors.

e

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

composed of CSSs as CSSs.

f All POTWs and TWTDSs file one or more program reports, as shown under the section for POTW NPDES program 

report filers.

g These POTWs and TWTDSs also have the potential for bypass events and the related noncompliance reporting, 

which will be done electronically under this rule.

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.

 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 
2-4 14 September 2015

many of these facilities also submit DMRs irregularly (e.g., unanticipated discharges due 

to large storm events).19 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)]}.

POTWs and TWTDSs

POTWs and 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 

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 

 

19 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.
2-5 14 September 2015

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)].

The recipient of these compliance monitoring data depends on the NPDES authorization status of 

the state, tribe, or territory. For example, a POTW may send its DMRs to the state if it is 

authorized to implement the NPDES core program for municipal and industrial facilities and its 

Pretreatment Program Annual Report to an EPA Region if the state is not authorized to 

administer the pretreatment program.
2-6 14 September 2015

2.1.3 Required Data

As noted in Section 1, data that regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs are required 

to submit is defined in existing CWA regulations. To facilitate understanding of the final rule, all 

of those existing data requirements are consolidated in Appendix A. These data are categorized 

into the data families listed in Table 2-3, which are defined in Section 1. Table 2-3 also indicates

whether it is the regulated entity or authorized NPDES program that initiates the data flow that is 

ultimately entered into ICIS-NPDES. For example, a regulated entity currently “initiates” a data 

flow by reporting their DMR information to the authorized NPDES program, which then submits 

the required data to ICIS-NPDES.

Table 2-3: Required Data Families and Entity Initiating 

Reporting/Submittal Activity

Regulated Entity

Initiates Activity

Authorized NPDES 

Program Initiates Activity

Permits 

Limits 

Limit Sets 

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) 

Program Reports 

Compliance Monitoring 

Violations 

Enforcement Actions 

Note that only data elements associated with a related permit type and subprogram will be entered

in any particular submission. For example, program report data elements will not be entered for 

industrial and construction stormwater permits because these facilities are not required to file 

program reports. Additionally, some data elements are specific to only one subprogram, such as 

data elements required to be entered for CAFO program reports.

2.1.4 Organization of this Section

Sections 2.2 through 2.11 present details regarding the universe of regulated entities, permit types

(e.g., major individual), and annual reporting frequencies for each data family in each 

subprogram’s data flow. For each subprogram, the number of permits by permit type is based on 

information available in EPA data systems or other relevant sources. The annual reporting 

frequency estimation methods and information sources for each data family are presented as well. 

Section 2.12 provides a summary of the permit universe and annual frequencies across all 

subprograms and permit types.

2.2 Standard Industrial Dischargers and CWA §316(b) Filers

Standard industrial direct dischargers include industrial facilities that discharge to surface water. 

These facilities have been regulated since the inception of the NPDES Program. Some of these 

facilities also have reporting requirements under CWA §316(b).

2.2.1 Permit Universe

Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits

The number of major and nonmajor facilities operating under individual permits was estimated by 

querying ICIS-NPDES (the Office of Water’s system of record) for active major and nonmajor 

standard industrial dischargers as of May 2015.
2-7 14 September 2015

Nonmajor General Permits

EPA and state authorized NPDES programs may issue general permits for standard industrial 

direct dischargers. The number of facilities covered under general permits is based on the Office 

of Water’s system of record as of May 2015. The number of permits shown in this category also 

includes entities covered under EPA’s Vessels General Permit and Pesticides General Permit. 

These entities are already reporting electronically and, therefore, have no additional reporting 

requirements. However, they would bear some implementation costs for registration in electronic 

reporting systems, as discussed in Section 4.4.1. The number of entities covered under the 

Vessels General Permit and Pesticides General Permit is based on data provided by the Office of 

Water in March 2015 (Chan, 2015; Faulk, 2015). 

General permits with no reporting requirements (such as residential septic systems) were 

excluded from the analysis because they are not affected by the rule; this category also excludes 

general permits covered under other subprogram analyses (e.g., CAFOs) to avoid double counting 

costs and cost savings.

CWA §316(b) Filers

Under the final rule, EPA will require that certain permit data elements relating to cooling water 

intakes and thermal variances be reported electronically to ICIS-NPDES for major regulated 

entities. It also will require electronic reporting of CWA §316(b) Annual Reports. Affected 

facilities are typically industrial facilities or power plants that use large volumes of cooling water 

from lakes, rivers, estuaries, or oceans. Because information specific to these facilities will need 

to be reported, it was necessary to separately characterize the universe of NPDES regulated 

entities with cooling water intakes or thermal variances, and the subset of those that must file 

CWA §316(b) Annual Reports. It was assumed that these facilities are a subset of the universe of 

standard industrial dischargers and that all of them are major dischargers. 

The NPDES Amendment of Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for 

New Facilities Federal Register Notice (67 FR 78947, December 26, 2002) provides a list of SIC 

and NAICS codes of entities likely to use cooling water intake structures to withdraw water from 

waters of the U.S. and that have or require a NPDES permit. To construct the universe of major 

permits for which cooling water intake data elements will need to be reported, ICIS-NPDES and 

PCS were queried for active major permits within these SIC and NAICS codes. The number of 

active major permits obtained from ICIS-NPDES and PCS was used as the count of regulated 

entities, as of 2011, for which cooling water intake data elements must be reported. 

The number of regulated entities for which thermal variance data elements must be reported was 

estimated by assuming that approximately 47% of cooling water intake facilities have thermal 

variances, based on information provided by EPA’s Office of Water, using national estimates 

from EPA’s 316(b) proposed rule. The distribution of thermal variances was estimated at the state 

level using the distribution of cooling water intake facilities. 

The Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Services’ joint Biological Opinion on 

EPA’s 316(b) final rule estimated that 153 facilities overlap with designated critical habitat.20

While not all of these facilities will have to submit CWA §316(b) Annual Reports, there will be 

other facilities in the range of threatened and endangered species habitats that will have to submit 

CWA §316(b) Annual Reports. To account for the additional facilities, the analysis rounds up the 

number of facilities submitting CWA §316(b) Annual Reports to 200. The distribution of 

 

20 http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/Final-316b-Biological-Opinion-andAppendices-May-19-2014.pdf
2-8 14 September 2015

facilities submitting CWA §316(b) Annual Reports was estimated at the state level using the 

distribution of cooling water intake facilities. 

2.2.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family

Except where stated otherwise, the annual reporting frequencies described in this section apply to 

individual major, individual nonmajor and general nonmajor standard industrial dischargers.

Permits

Permit data must be entered into ICIS-NPDES for standard industrial dischargers. Permit data are

entered with the permit cycle, once every five years, which translates to an annual reporting

frequency of 0.2. The same annual reporting frequency is used for cooling water intake and 

thermal variance permit data elements.

In addition, the analysis accounts for additional data entry associated with minor changes at the 

permitted facility (e.g., change in owner or operator name). It assumes that a small number of 

permit data elements (e.g., contact name and/or phone number or contact information) will need 

to be updated with an annual reporting frequency of 0.1, reflecting that such changes might occur 

for 10% of permitted facilities each year.

Limits and Limit Sets for Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits

All individual standard industrial dischargers must have limits and limit sets data entered into 

ICIS-NPDES. Limits and limit sets change according to the permit cycle, and therefore have an 

annual reporting frequency of 0.2.

Limits and Limit Sets for Nonmajor General Permits

Limits and limit sets for nonmajor general standard industrial dischargers are set in the master 

permit, such that these data elements need not be entered for each regulated entity. Therefore, 

limits and limit sets have an annual reporting frequency of 0 for nonmajor general facilities.

DMRs

Most permits with DMR requirements must submit DMRs on a monthly basis. Therefore, DMRs 

have an annual reporting frequency of 12. The analysis assumes that all individual permits (both 

major and nonmajor) and 90% of general permits for standard industrial dischargers must submit 

DMRs.

Program Reports

The subset of facilities that submit CWA §316(b) Annual Reports do so annually. Therefore, the 

annual reporting frequency for program reports data is 1.

Compliance Monitoring

The annual frequency of compliance monitoring reports was estimated using data from EPA’s 

Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) State Water Dashboard.21 According to the 

ECHO data, on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 through 2014) approximately 56% 

of major individual permit facilities, 26% of nonmajor individual permit facilities, and 7% of 

nonmajor general permit facilities underwent inspections each year. Data were not available on 

inspection frequency by subprogram. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across 

 

21 http://echo.epa.gov/trends/comparative-maps-dashboards/state-waterdashboard?state=National&view=activity
2-9 14 September 2015

subprograms as estimates of the annual reporting frequency for compliance monitoring for 

standard industrial dischargers (0.56 for major individual permits, 0.26 for nonmajor individual 

permits, and 0.07 for nonmajor general permits).

Violations

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 67% of major individual permit facilities and 53% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had at least one instance of non-compliance each year. Data 

were not available on violation frequency by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for violations for standard industrial dischargers and assumes that 

nonmajor general permit facilities have the same violation frequency as nonmajor individual 

permit facilities (0.67 for major individual permits and 0.53 for nonmajor individual and general

permits).

In general, EPA has expected authorized NPDES programs to share Single Event Violation 

(SEV) data on facilities defined as majors. Because the final rule also provides for entry of SEV 

data on nonmajor facilities, the analysis includes reporting of SEV data elements for nonmajor 

facilities with an annual frequency of 0.09. This annual frequency is based on data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard, which show that on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 

through 2014) approximately 9% of major individual permit facilities had SEVs. 

Enforcement Actions

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 30% of major individual permit facilities and 19% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had concluded enforcement actions each year. Data were not 

available on concluded enforcement actions by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for concluded enforcement actions for standard industrial dischargers 

and assumes that nonmajor general permit facilities have the same concluded enforcement action

frequency as nonmajor individual permit facilities (0.30 for major individual permits and 0.19 for 

nonmajor individual and general permits).

2.2.3 Summary

Table 2-4 summarizes the number of standard industrial dischargers, the subset of CWA §316(b) 

filers, and the annual frequencies for each required data family.
2-10 14 September 2015

Table 2-4: Standard Industrial Discharger and CWA §316(b) Universe and Annual 

Reporting Frequency

Individual Majors Individual Nonmajors General Nonmajors

Standard Industrial Dischargers 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

Facilities Submitting CWA §316(b) Annual 

Reports 200 0 0

Data Family Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Permitsb0.2 0.2 0.2

Limits 0.2 0.2 0.0

Limit Sets 0.2 0.2 0.0

DMRs 12.0 12.0 12.0

Program Reports 1

c

0 0

Compliance Monitoring 0.56 0.26 0.07

Violationsd0.67 0.53 0.53

Enforcement Actions 0.30 0.19 0.19

a

Includes 9,125 pesticide applicators and 63,000 vessels that are already filing electronically.

b

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.

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

d

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. 

2.3 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)

As discussed in Section 2.11, most POTWs receive wastewater from industrial users. These 

industrial facilities 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.

2.3.1 Permit Universe

Both the total number of SIUs in municipalities with approved pretreatment programs and the 

number of SIUs in each state in municipalities without approved pretreatment programs was 

estimated by EPA based on available data from permitting authorities. Only the latter group (i.e., 

SIUs where EPA or the authorized State is the control authority) would report electronically 

under the rule. This includes all SIUs in Connecticut, Vermont, Alabama, Mississippi, and 

Nebraska, because these states exclusively oversee SIU compliance and oversight activities 

instead of requiring their POTWs to develop their own legal authority and procedures, as 

described in 40 CFR 403.10(e).

2.3.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family

Under the rule, the only reporting requirement applicable to SIUs is the submission of compliance 

reports to the applicable authorized NPDES programs. This report is bi-annual; therefore the 

annual reporting frequency for program reports is 2.

2.3.3 Summary

Table 2-5 summarizes the number of SIU regulated entities and the annual frequencies for each 

required data family.
2-11 14 September 2015

Table 2-5: Significant Industrial User (SIU) Permit Universe and Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Individual Majors Individual Nonmajorsa General Nonmajors

SIUs in Municipalities with Pretreatment 

Program 0 29,060 0

SIUs in Municipalities without Pretreatment 

Program 0 2,487 0

Data Family Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Permits n/a n/a n/a

Limits n/a n/a n/a

Limit Sets n/a n/a n/a

DMRs n/a n/a n/a

Program Reports n/a 2

b

n/a

Compliance Monitoring n/a n/a n/a

Violations n/a n/a n/a

Enforcement Actions n/a n/a n/a

a 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.

b The rule requires electronic submission of the bi-annual compliance report only for SIUs in municipalities without 

pretreatment programs.

2.4 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)

A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is an agricultural operation where a large 

number of animals are kept and raised in confined situations, and is defined based on the number 

of animals at the facility. Animal waste and wastewater from CAFOs can enter water bodies from 

spills or breaks of waste storage structures. CAFOs are classified as point sources and are 

regulated under NPDES. 

2.4.1 Permit Universe

Major Individual Permits

By definition, there are no major CAFO permits.

Nonmajor Individual and General Permits

Estimates of the number of CAFOs were provided by the Office of Water (OW) based on EPA's 

NPDES CAFO status report.22 According to these data, there are approximately 6,600 CAFOs 

with NPDES permits. Estimates of the number of CAFOs per state were provided by OW; 

however the distribution between nonmajor individuals and nonmajor generals was unknown. A 

query of ICIS revealed 386 individual permit covered CAFO facilities and 1,613 general permit 

covered CAFO facilities (Hudock, 2010). This ratio (386/1,613) was used to apportion OW’s

state-level estimates between individual and general permits.

2.4.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family

Except where stated otherwise, the annual reporting frequencies described in this section apply to 

both individual and general permit covered CAFO facilities. 

Permits

Permit data elements will be entered with the permit cycle, once every five years, which 

translates to an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. In addition, the analysis accounts for additional 

 

22 http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/tracksum%20endyear2013.pdf
2-12 14 September 2015

data entry associated with minor changes at the permitted facility (e.g., change in owner or 

operator name). It assumes that a small number of permit data elements (e.g., contact name and/or 

phone number or contact information) will need to be updated with an annual reporting frequency 

of 0.1, reflecting that such changes might occur for 10% of permitted facilities each year.

Limits and Limit Sets

Limits and limit sets are required for facilities that submit DMRs. CAFOs are generally not 

required to submit DMRs and so are not required to have the limits and limit sets data families 

entered into ICIS-NPDES. The annual reporting frequency for limits and limit sets is therefore 0. 

DMRs 

DMRs are generally not required for CAFOs; therefore the annual reporting frequency is zero. 

Program Reports

CAFOs have an annual program report requirement, therefore the annual reporting frequency for 

program reports data is 1. 

Compliance Monitoring

The annual frequency of compliance monitoring reports was estimated using data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard. According to the ECHO data, on average over the last three fiscal 

years (2012 through 2014) approximately 56% of major individual permit facilities, 26% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities, and 7% of nonmajor general permit facilities underwent 

inspections each year. Data were not available on inspection frequency by subprogram. 

Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the annual 

reporting frequency for compliance monitoring for CAFOs (0.26 for nonmajor individual permits 

and 0.07 for nonmajor general permits).

Violations

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 67% of major individual permit facilities and 53% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had at least one instance of non-compliance each year. Data 

were not available on violation frequency by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for violations for CAFOs and assumes that nonmajor general permit 

facilities have the same violation frequency as nonmajor individual permit facilities (0.53 for 

nonmajor individual and general permits). 

In general, EPA has expected authorized NPDES programs to share Single Event Violation 

(SEV) data on facilities defined as majors. Because the final rule also provides for entry of SEV 

data on nonmajor facilities, the analysis includes reporting of SEV data elements for nonmajor 

facilities with an annual frequency of 0.09. This annual frequency is based on data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard, which show that on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 

through 2014) approximately 9% of major individual permit facilities had SEVs. This frequency 

may be an overestimate because some SEVs will be self-reported by the permitted facilities (e.g., 

through CAFO annual reports) and, thus, will not require data entry by the authorized NPDES 

program.

Enforcement Actions

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 30% of major individual permit facilities and 19% of 
2-13 14 September 2015

nonmajor individual permit facilities had concluded enforcement actions each year. Data were not 

available on concluded enforcement actions by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for concluded enforcement actions for CAFOs and assumes that 

nonmajor general permit facilities have the same concluded enforcement action frequency as 

nonmajor individual permit facilities (0.19 for nonmajor individual and general permits).

2.4.3 Summary

Table 2-6 summarizes the number of CAFO regulated entities and the annual frequencies for each 

required data family.

Table 2-6: CAFOs Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency

Individual Majors Individual Nonmajors General Nonmajors

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 0 1,266 5,291

Data Family Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Permitsan/a 0.2 0.2

Limits n/a 0.0 0.0

Limit Sets n/a 0.0 0.0

DMRs n/a 0.0 0.0

Program Reports n/a 1 1

Compliance Monitoring n/a 0.3 0.1

Violationsbn/a 0.5 0.5

Enforcement Actions n/a 0.2 0.2

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. 

2.5 Industrial Stormwater

Industrial stormwater permits are for discharges from sites where material is stored or handled 

outside and therefore can pollute stormwater runoff.

2.5.1 Permit Universe

Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits

The number of industrial stormwater individual permits in each state was estimated using data 

downloaded from ECHO in May 2015. Because the ECHO data are believed to be incomplete for 

this subprogram, authorized states that reported no industrial stormwater permits were assigned 

national average numbers (two major individual permits and nine nonmajor individual permits). 

Nonmajor General Permits

The number of facilities covered by industrial stormwater general permits (a.k.a., multi-sector 

general permits) was obtained from EPA’s Office of Water based on data as of mid-fiscal year 

2015. The Office of Water data for Regions 2 and 8, however, included individual permits. 

Therefore, to avoid double counting, for states and territories in these EPA Regions, the analysis 

subtracted the number of individual permits (estimated as discussed above) from the reported 

total number of industrial stormwater permits.

Note that facilities conducting certain categories of industrial activity may file NECs in place of 

NOIs if their industrial materials and operations are not exposed to stormwater. The analysis 
2-14 14 September 2015

accounts for data associated with NECs as discussed in Section 2.5.2 under Permit Data for 

General Permits.

2.5.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family

Except where stated otherwise, the annual frequencies described in this section apply to major 

individual, nonmajor individual, and nonmajor general stormwater permits.

Permit Data for Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits

Permit data elements for individually permitted industrial stormwater facilities will be entered 

with the permit cycle, once every five years, which translates to an annual reporting frequency of 

0.2. In addition, the analysis accounts for additional data entry associated with minor changes at 

the permitted facility (e.g., change in owner or operator name). It assumes that a small number of 

permit data elements (e.g., contact name and/or phone number or contact information) will need 

to be updated with an annual reporting frequency of 0.1, reflecting that such changes might occur 

for 10% of permitted facilities each year.

Permit Data for General Permits

Permit data elements are entered for industrial facilities filing NECs, as well as for facilities 

applying for NOIs. Data from EPA’s NOI search tool from states with well-populated data was 

used to estimate the number of new multi-sector general permit NOIs filed each year. The annual 

reporting frequency for permit data elements was estimated by combining the percentages of the 

MSGP universe filing those documents annually, as follows:

1. Querying EPA NOI search tool for all multi-sector general permit NOIs filed by year 

over the past five years by state.

2. Limiting data to just those states that are well populated with NOIs.

3. Estimating average number of NOIs for each state.

4. Summing #3 across states. 

5. Dividing the result of #4 by the estimate of the total universe for the same time 

period (9%).

6. Querying EPA NOI search tool for all no exposure certifications filed in 2009.

7. Dividing number of no exposure certifications filed in 2009 by the number of multisector general permit NOIs to obtain the percentage of the total universe filing no 

exposure certifications in one year (9%).

8. Summing the percentage of the total universe filing NOIs in one year (9%) and the 

percentage of the total universe filing no exposure certifications in one year (9%) to 

obtain the percentage of the total universe for which permit data elements must be 

entered in one year (18%).

The percentage calculated in step #8 represents the annual reporting frequency for permit data. 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for permit data elements for facilities covered under 

industrial stormwater general permits is 0.18.

EPA also accounted for facilities that terminate operations and need to submit a NOT by 

assuming that approximately 5% of all facilities with NOIs and NECs would terminate operations 

per year. Thus, to account for NOTs, EPA increased the count of permit data submissions by 5%.

In addition, the analysis accounts for additional data entry associated with minor changes at the 

permitted facility (e.g., change in owner or operator name). It assumes that a small number of 

permit data elements (e.g., contact name and/or phone number or contact information) will need 
2-15 14 September 2015

to be updated with an annual reporting frequency of 0.1, reflecting that such changes might occur 

for 10% of permitted facilities each year.

Limits and Limit Sets for Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits

Individual industrial stormwater permits must have limits and limit sets data entered into ICISNPDES. Limits and limit sets change according to the permit cycle, and therefore have an annual 

reporting frequency of 0.2.

Limits and Limit Sets for Nonmajor General Permits

Limits and limit sets for multi-sector general permits are set in the master permit, such that these

data elements need not be entered for each regulated entity. Therefore, limits and limit sets have 

an annual reporting frequency of 0 for nonmajor general facilities.

DMRs 

DMRs are required for some facilities covered under the EPA-issued multi-sector general permits 

three times a year. Although state general permit reporting requirements and the requirements of 

certain individual permits could potentially be different, it is assumed that all industrial 

stormwater permitees submit DMRs with an annual reporting frequency of 3.

Program Reports

Program reports are not required for industrial stormwater facilities under the final rule, and 

therefore the annual reporting frequency is zero. Note, certain permits may require program 

reports but such requirements are permit-specific and not associated with requirements under the 

rule.

Compliance Monitoring

The annual frequency of compliance monitoring reports was estimated using data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard. According to the ECHO data, on average over the last three fiscal 

years (2012 through 2014) approximately 56% of major individual permit facilities, 26% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities, and 7% of nonmajor general permit facilities underwent 

inspections each year. Data were not available on inspection frequency by subprogram. 

Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the annual 

reporting frequency for compliance monitoring for stormwater facilities (0.56 for major 

individual permits, 0.26 for nonmajor individual permits, and 0.07 for nonmajor general permits).

Violations

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 67% of major individual permit facilities and 53% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had at least one instance of non-compliance each year. Data 

were not available on violation frequency by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for violations for stormwater facilities and assumes that nonmajor 

general permit facilities have the same violation frequency as nonmajor individual permit 

facilities (0.67 for major individual and 0.53 for nonmajor individual and general permits).

In general, EPA has expected authorized NPDES programs to share Single Event Violation 

(SEV) data on facilities defined as majors. Because the final rule also provides for entry of SEV 

data on nonmajor facilities, the analysis includes reporting of SEV data elements for nonmajor 

facilities with an annual frequency of 0.09. This annual frequency is based on data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard, which show that on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 
2-16 14 September 2015

through 2014) approximately 9% of major individual permit facilities had SEVs. This frequency 

may be an overestimate because some SEVs will be self-reported by the permitted facilities and, 

thus, will not require data entry by the authorized NPDES program. 

Enforcement Actions

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 30% of major individual permit facilities and 19% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had concluded enforcement actions each year. Data were not 

available on concluded enforcement actions by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for concluded enforcement actions for stormwater facilities and 

assumes that nonmajor general permit facilities have the same concluded enforcement action 

frequency as nonmajor individual permit facilities (0.30 for major individual permits and 0.19 for 

nonmajor individual and general permits). 

2.5.3 Summary

Table 2-7 summarizes the number of industrial stormwater regulated entities and the annual 

frequencies for each required data family.

Table 2-7: Industrial Stormwater Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency

Individual Majors Individual Nonmajors General Nonmajor

Industrial Stormwater 132 563 92,282

Data Family Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Permitsa0.2 0.2 0.18b

Limits 0.2 0.2 0.0

Limit Sets 0.2 0.2 0.0

DMRs 3.0 3.0 3.0

Program Reports 0 0 0

Compliance Monitoring 0.56 0.26 0.07

Violationsc0.67 0.53 0.53

Enforcement Actions 0.30 0.19 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

The permit reporting frequency for general nonmajors accounts for facilities filing NECs, as well as NOIs.

c

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. 

2.6 Construction Stormwater

Operators of construction sites that are one acre or larger (including smaller sites that are part of a 

larger common plan of development) may be required to obtain authorization to discharge 

stormwater under a NPDES construction stormwater permit.

2.6.1 Permit Universe

Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits

The number of construction stormwater individual permits in each state was estimated using data 

downloaded from ECHO in May 2015. Because the ECHO data are believed to be incomplete for 

this subprogram, authorized states that reported no construction stormwater permits were 
2-17 14 September 2015

assigned national average numbers (no major individual permits23 and 10 nonmajor individual 

permits). 

Nonmajor General Permits

The number of facilities covered by construction stormwater general permits was obtained from 

EPA’s Office of Water based on data as of mid-fiscal year 2015. The Office of Water data for 

Regions 2 and 8, however, included individual permits. Therefore, to avoid double counting, for 

states and territories in these EPA Regions, the analysis subtracted the number of individual 

permits (estimated as discussed above) from the reported total number of construction stormwater 

permits.

Note that small construction facilities may file LEW certifications in place of NOIs if the site has 

a low predicted rainfall and the rainfall erosivity factor (R factor) is less than 5 during the period 

of construction activity. EPA regulations also permit other waivers from stormwater controls. See 

40 CFR 122.26(b)(15). The analysis accounts for data associated with LEWs as discussed in 

Section 2.6.2 under Permit Data for General Permits.

2.6.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family

Except where stated otherwise, the annual frequencies described in this section apply to major 

individual, nonmajor individual, and nonmajor general stormwater permits.

Permit Data for Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits

Permit data elements for individually permitted construction stormwater facilities will be entered 

with the permit cycle, once every five years, which translates to an annual reporting frequency of 

0.2. In addition, the analysis accounts for additional data entry associated with minor changes at 

the permitted facility (e.g., change in owner or operator name). It assumes that a small number of 

permit data elements (e.g., contact name and/or phone number or contact information) will need 

to be updated with an annual reporting frequency of 0.1, reflecting that such changes might occur 

for 10% of permitted facilities each year.

Permit Data for General Permits

Permit data elements are entered for construction facilities filing LEWs, as well as for facilities 

filing NOIs. Data from EPA’s NOI search tool from states with well-populated data was used to 

determine the number of NOIs received annually. The annual reporting frequency for permit data 

elements was estimated by combining the percentages of the construction general permit universe 

filing NOIs and low erosivity waivers annually, as follows:

1. Querying EPA NOI search tool for all construction general permit NOIs filed by year 

over the past five years by state.

2. Limiting data to just those states that are well populated with NOIs.

3. Estimating the average number of NOIs annually.

4. Summing #3 across states. 

5. Dividing the result of #4 by the estimate of the total universe (16%).

6. Querying EPA NOI search tool for all low erosivity waivers filed in 2009.

7. Dividing number of low erosivity waivers filed in 2009 by the number of 

construction general permit NOIs to obtain the percentage of the universe filing low 

erosivity waivers in one year (1%).

 

23 The single major individual construction stormwater permit shown in Error! Reference source not 

found. was identified in the ECHO data; it did not result from this extrapolation.
2-18 14 September 2015

8. Summing the percentage of the total universe of construction sites filing NOIs in one 

year (16%) and the percentage of the total universe filing low erosivity waivers in 

one year (1%) to obtain the percentage of the total universe for which permit data 

elements must be entered in one year (17%).

The percentage calculated in step #8 represents the annual reporting frequency for permit data. 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for permit data elements for facilities covered under the 

construction general permits is 0.17.

EPA also accounted for facilities that terminate operations and need to submit a NOT by 

assuming that approximately 20% of all facilities with NOIs and LEWs would terminate 

operations per year. Thus, to account for NOTs, EPA increased the count of permit data 

submissions by 20%.

In addition, the analysis accounts for additional data entry associated with minor changes at the 

permitted facility (e.g., change in owner or operator name). It assumes that a small number of 

permit data elements (e.g., contact name and/or phone number or contact information) will need 

to be updated with an annual reporting frequency of 0.1, reflecting that such changes might occur 

for 10% of permitted facilities each year.

Limits, Limit Sets, and DMRs

Limits and limit sets are required for facilities that submit DMRs. DMRs are not required for 

facilities covered under EPA construction general permits. Although state general permit 

reporting requirements and the requirements of certain individual permits could potentially be 

different, it is assumed that 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. Individual permitted 

facilities will need to have corresponding limits and limit sets entered with the same frequency. 

Limits and limit sets for general permits are set in the master permit, such that these data elements 

need not be entered for each regulated entity. Therefore, limits and limit sets have an annual 

reporting frequency of 0 for nonmajor general facilities.

Program Reports 

Program reports are not required for construction stormwater regulated entities under the final 

rule, and therefore the annual reporting frequency is zero. Note, certain permits may require 

program reports but such requirements are permit-specific and not associated with requirements 

under the rule.

Compliance Monitoring

The annual frequency of compliance monitoring reports was estimated using data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard. According to the ECHO data, on average over the last three fiscal 

years (2012 through 2014) approximately 56% of major individual permit facilities, 26% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities, and 7% of nonmajor general permit facilities underwent 

inspections each year. Data were not available on inspection frequency by subprogram. 

Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the annual 

reporting frequency for compliance monitoring for stormwater facilities (0.56 for major 

individual permits, 0.26 for nonmajor individual permits, and 0.07 for nonmajor general permits).
2-19 14 September 2015

Violations

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 67% of major individual permit facilities and 53% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had at least one instance of non-compliance each year. Data 

were not available on violation frequency by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for violations for stormwater facilities and assumes that nonmajor 

general permit facilities have the same violation frequency as nonmajor individual permit 

facilities (0.67 for major individual permits and 0.53 for nonmajor individual and general 

permits). 

In general, EPA has expected authorized NPDES programs to share Single Event Violation 

(SEV) data on facilities defined as majors. Because the final rule also provides for entry of SEV 

data on nonmajor facilities, the analysis includes reporting of SEV data elements for nonmajor 

facilities with an annual frequency of 0.09. This annual frequency is based on data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard, which show that on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 

through 2014) approximately 9% of major individual permit facilities had SEVs. This frequency 

may be an overestimate because some SEVs will be self-reported by the permitted facilities and, 

thus, will not require data entry by the authorized NPDES program. In addition, for construction 

stormwater facilities, the final rule only requires SEV data when the authorized NPDES program 

also issues a formal enforcement action against the inspected construction site. To be 

conservative, however, the analysis assumes SEVs at construction facilities will be accompanied 

by enforcement actions and includes expanded SEV reporting for construction stormwater 

facilities.

Enforcement Actions

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 30% of major individual permit facilities and 19% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities concluded enforcement actions each year. Data were not 

available on concluded enforcement actions by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for concluded enforcement actions for stormwater facilities and 

assumes that nonmajor general permit facilities have the same concluded enforcement action 

frequency as nonmajor individual permit facilities (0.30 for major individual permits and 0.19 for 

nonmajor individual and general permits). 

2.6.3 Summary

Table 2-8 summarizes the number of construction stormwater regulated entities and the annual 

frequencies for each required data family.
2-20 14 September 2015

Table 2-8: Construction Stormwater Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency

Individual Majors Individual Nonmajors General Nonmajors

Construction Stormwater 1 638 243,227

Data Family Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Permitsa0.2 0.2 0.17b

Limitsc1.0 1.0 0.0

Limit Setsc1.0 1.0 0.0

DMRsc1.0 1.0 1.0

Program Reports 0 0 0

Compliance Monitoring 0.56 0.26 0.07

Violationsd0.67 0.53 0.53

Enforcement Actions 0.30 0.19 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

The permit reporting frequency for general nonmajors accounts for facilities filing LEWs, as well as NOIs.

c

The analysis assumes 1% of stormwater construction 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.

d

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. This is conservative as expanded SEV reporting is required for 

construction facilities only when accompanied by a formal enforcement action.

2.7 Municipal Stormwater

Municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) collect stormwater runoff and are designated as 

Phase I and Phase II MS4s. The Phase I rule, issued in 1990, requires medium and large cities or 

certain counties with populations of 100,000 or more to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their 

stormwater discharges. The Phase II rule, issued in 1999, requires regulated small MS4s in 

urbanized areas, as well as small MS4s outside the urbanized areas that are designated by the 

authorized NPDES program, to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges.

2.7.1 Permit Universe

By definition, the Phase I MS4s, which include large and medium cities, are the only major 

facilities in the municipal stormwater program. For the purpose of estimating costs, it was 

assumed that all Phase II MS4s are nonmajor facilities. EPA’s Office of Water supplied a list of 

Phase I and Phase II MS4 permits as of June 2014. This list was used to count the number of 

individually permitted municipalities. This list was combined with data from EPA’s NPDES 

General Permit Inventory24 to estimate the number of municipalities covered by the listed MS4 

general permits. 

2.7.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family

Except where stated otherwise, the annual frequencies described in this section apply to major 

individual, nonmajor individual, and nonmajor general stormwater permits.

Permits

MS4s permit data must be entered into ICIS-NPDES. Permit data are entered with the permit 

cycle, once every five years, which translates to an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. In addition, 

the analysis accounts for additional data entry associated with minor changes at the permitted 

facility (e.g., change in owner or operator name). It assumes that a small number of permit data 

elements (e.g., contact name and/or phone number or contact information) will need to be 

 

24 http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/permitissuance/genpermits.cfm
2-21 14 September 2015

updated with an annual reporting frequency of 0.1, reflecting that such changes might occur for 

10% of permitted facilities each year.

Limits and Limit Sets

Limits and limit sets, where applicable, must be entered in ICIS-NPDES for Phase I MS4 

stormwater individual permits. Limits and limit sets change according to the permit cycle, and 

therefore have an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. Limits and limit sets for Phase I MS4 

stormwater general permits are set in the master permit, such that these data elements need not be 

entered for each regulated entity. Phase II MS4 stormwater permits are not required to submit 

DMRs and so are not required to have the limits and limit sets data families entered into ICISNPDES. Therefore, limits and limit sets for municipal stormwater permits other than Phase I MS4 

individual permits have an annual reporting frequency of 0. 

DMRs 

Annual reporting frequencies are linked to the requirement that DMRs must be sent on a monthly 

basis. Therefore, for Phase I MS4s, DMRs have an annual reporting frequency of 12. DMRs are 

not required for Phase II MS4s. Therefore, for Phase II MS4s, the annual reporting frequency is 

zero. 

Program Reports

Phase I MS4 programs have an annual program report requirement, and therefore the annual 

reporting frequency is 1. Phase II MS4s are required to send program reports in the second and 

fourth year of the permit cycle, and therefore the annual reporting frequency is 0.4.

Compliance Monitoring

The annual frequency of compliance monitoring reports was estimated using data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard. According to the ECHO data, on average over the last three fiscal 

years (2012 through 2014) approximately 56% of major individual permit facilities, 26% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities, and 7% of nonmajor general permit facilities underwent 

inspections each year. Data were not available on inspection frequency by subprogram. 

Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the annual 

reporting frequency for compliance monitoring for stormwater facilities (0.56 for major 

individual permits, 0.26 for nonmajor individual permits, and 0.07 for nonmajor general permits).

Violations

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 67% of major individual permit facilities and 53% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had at least one instance of non-compliance each year. Data 

were not available on violation frequency by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for violations for stormwater facilities and assumes that nonmajor 

general permit facilities have the same violation frequency as nonmajor individual permit 

facilities (0.67 for major individual permits and 0.53 for nonmajor individual and general 

permits). 

In general, EPA has expected authorized NPDES programs to share Single Event Violation 

(SEV) data on facilities defined as majors. Because the final rule also provides for entry of SEV 

data on nonmajor facilities, the analysis includes reporting of SEV data elements for nonmajor 

facilities with an annual frequency of 0.09. This annual frequency is based on data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard, which show that on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 
2-22 14 September 2015

through 2014) approximately 9% of major individual permit facilities had SEVs. This frequency 

may be an overestimate because some SEVs will be self-reported by the permitted facilities (e.g., 

through stormwater annual reports) and, thus, will not require data entry by the authorized 

NPDES program. In addition, for construction stormwater facilities, the final rule only requires 

SEV data when the authorized NPDES program also issues a formal enforcement action against 

the inspected construction site. To be conservative, however, the analysis assumes SEVs at 

construction facilities will be accompanied by enforcement actions and includes expanded SEV 

reporting for construction stormwater facilities.

Enforcement Actions

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 30% of major individual permit facilities and 19% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had concluded enforcement actions each year. Data were not 

available on concluded enforcement actions by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for concluded enforcement actions for stormwater facilities and 

assumes that nonmajor general permit facilities have the same concluded enforcement action 

frequency as nonmajor individual permit facilities (0.30 for major individual permits and 0.19 for 

nonmajor individual and general permits). 

2.7.3 Summary

Table 2-9 summarizes the number of stormwater regulated entities and the annual frequencies for 

each required data family.

Table 2-9: Municipal Stormwater Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency

Individual Majors Individual Nonmajors General Nonmajors

Phase I MS4s 249 0 9

Phase II MS4s 0 204 5,093

Data Family Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency (Phase 

I MS4s)

Annual Reporting 

Frequency (Phase 

II MS4s)

Permitsa0.2 0.2 0.20 0.20

Limits 0.2 0 0 0

Limit Sets 0.2 0 0 0

DMRs 12.0 0 12.0 0

Program Reports 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.4

Compliance Monitoring 0.56 0.26 0.07 0.07

Violationsb0.67 0.53 0.53 0.53

Enforcement Actions 0.30 0.19 0.19 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. 

2.8 Combined Sewer System (CSS) POTWs

Combined sewer systems (CSSs) are sewers that are designed to collect rainwater runoff, 

domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same collection system. Typically, CSSs 

transport all of their wastewater to a sewage treatment plant where it is treated and then 

discharged to a water body. During periods of heavy rainfall or snowmelt the wastewater volume 

in a combined sewer system can exceed the capacity of the sewer system or treatment plant(s). 

For this reason, combined sewer systems may be designed to overflow during peak inflow events 

and discharge excess combined wastewater directly to nearby streams, rivers, or other water 

bodies. These combined sewer overflows (CSOs) contain not only stormwater but also untreated 
2-23 14 September 2015

human and industrial wastes, toxic materials, and debris. It is assumed that all states with NPDES 

authorized NPDES program will administer their CSS program. EPA administers the CSS 

program in the remaining states. POTWs that operate CSS can also have bypass events [40 CFR 

122.41(m)] and are also required to report such events when sewage bypasses any portion of a 

treatment facility.

2.8.1 Permit Universe

The number of POTWs with CSSs in each state was estimated using data downloaded from 

ECHO in May 2015. The numbers of facilities derived from the ECHO data match numbers 

shown in the Office of Wastewater Management list of combined sewer systems within 3%. The 

analysis uses the ECHO data because they are more recent and identify individual major, 

individual nonmajor, and general permits separately. As discussed in Section 2.9.1, the analysis 

divides the total universe of POTWs into CSSs and SSSs and treats those that are only partially 

composed of CSSs as CSSs. This assumption is reasonable since such systems will need to report 

information on that portion that is a CSS. 

2.8.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family

Except where stated otherwise, the annual frequencies described in this section apply to both 

major and nonmajor CSS POTWs. 

Permits

CSS permit data must be entered into ICIS-NPDES. Permit data are entered with the permit 

cycle, once every five years, which translates to an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. In addition, 

the analysis accounts for additional data entry associated with minor changes at the permitted 

facility (e.g., change in owner or operator name). It assumes that a small number of permit data 

elements (e.g., contact name and/or phone number or contact information) will need to be 

updated with an annual reporting frequency of 0.1, reflecting that such changes might occur for 

10% of permitted facilities each year.

Limits and Limit Sets

All CSS permits must have limits and limit sets data entered into ICIS-NPDES. Limits and limit 

sets change according to the permit cycle, and therefore have an annual reporting frequency of 

0.2.

DMRs 

Annual reporting frequencies are linked to the requirement that DMRs must be sent on a monthly 

basis. Therefore, DMRs have an annual reporting frequency of 12. 

Program Reports

CSSs must submit a program report for every overflow and bypass event. Therefore, the 

estimated annual reporting frequency for program report data was set as the number of overflow 

and bypass events divided by the number of CSSs. The number of overflow events and 

corresponding number of CSSs was taken from EPA’s 2004 Report to Congress on sewer 

overflows.25 The number of bypass events was assumed to be 1,000 per year. Based on this 

calculation, the estimated annual reporting frequency is 12.51.

 

25 http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/cso/2004-Report-to-Congress.cfm
2-24 14 September 2015

Compliance Monitoring

Compliance monitoring information must be entered for every overflow event, according to EPA 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy. Therefore, the estimated annual reporting frequency for 

compliance monitoring data was set as the number of overflow events divided by the number of 

CSSs (taken from the 2004 Report to Congress). Based on this calculation; the estimated annual 

reporting frequency is 11.22.

Violations

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 67% of major individual permit facilities and 53% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had at least one instance of non-compliance each year. Data 

were not available on violation frequency by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for violations for CSSs and assumes that nonmajor general permit 

facilities have the same violation frequency as nonmajor individual permit facilities (0.67 for 

major individual permits and 0.53 for nonmajor individual and general permits). 

In general, EPA has expected authorized NPDES programs to share Single Event Violation 

(SEV) data on facilities defined as majors. Because the final rule also provides for entry of SEV 

data on nonmajor facilities, the analysis includes reporting of SEV data elements for nonmajor 

facilities with an annual frequency of 0.09. This annual frequency is based on data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard, which show that on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 

through 2014) approximately 9% of major individual permit facilities had SEVs. This frequency 

may be an overestimate because some SEVs will be self-reported by the permitted facilities and, 

thus, will not require data entry by the authorized NPDES program. For example, sewer overflow 

events are SEVs and will be self-reported by the permitted CSS as discussed above under 

program reports.

Enforcement Actions

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 30% of major individual permit facilities and 19% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had concluded enforcement actions each year. Data were not 

available on concluded enforcement actions by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for concluded enforcement actions for CSSs and assumes that

nonmajor general permit facilities have the same concluded enforcement action frequency as 

nonmajor individual permit facilities (0.30 for major individual permits and 0.19 for nonmajor 

individual and general permits). 

2.8.3 Summary

Table 2-10 summarizes the number of CSS POTW regulated entities and the annual frequencies 

for each required data family.
2-25 14 September 2015

Table 2-10: CSS POTW Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency

Individual Majors Individual Nonmajors General Nonmajors

POTWs with CSSs 462 244 68

Data Family Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Permitsa0.2 0.2 0.2

Limits 0.2 0.2 0.2

Limit Sets 0.2 0.2 0.2

DMRs 12.0 12.0 12.0

Program Reports 12.51 12.51 12.51

Compliance Monitoring 11.22 11.22 11.22

Violationsb0.67 0.53 0.53

Enforcement Actions 0.30 0.19 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. 

2.9 Sanitary Sewer System (SSS) POTWs and TWTDSs

Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) are sewers designed to collect and transport all domestic sewage 

that flows into them to a POTW. Properly designed, operated, and maintained SSSs are designed 

to prevent overflows. However, occasional unintentional discharges of raw sewage from 

municipal sanitary sewers occur in almost every system. These types of discharges are called 

sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and they contain untreated human and industrial wastes. It is 

assumed that all states with NPDES authorized NPDES program will administer their SSS 

program, and that EPA administers the SSS program in the remaining states. POTWs that operate 

SSS can also have bypass events [40 CFR 122.41(m)] and are also required to report such events 

when sewage bypasses any portion of a treatment facility.

2.9.1 Permit Universe

Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits

The total number of POTWs in each state was derived from EPA’s Clean Watersheds Needs 

Survey (specifically, Table I-1).26 The number of POTWs with SSSs was estimated by subtracting 

the number of POTWs with CSSs (see Section 2.8.1) and assuming, based on data available in 

ICIS-NPDES, that 27% of POTWs with SSSs are majors and the remaining 73% are nonmajors. 

This approach divides the total universe of POTWs into CSSs and SSSs and treats those that are 

only partially composed of CSSs as CSSs. This assumption is reasonable since such systems will 

need to report information on that portion that is a CSS.

In addition to POTWs, SSO reporting is also required of other treatment works treating domestic 

sewage (TWTDSs). Because the Clean Watershed Needs Survey does not account for TWTDSs, 

ICIS-NPDES data for 2015 were queried for non-POTWs with SIC of 4952, which is the 

applicable industry code for TWTDSs. This query resulted in approximately 8,900 TWTDSs, 

which were added to the total number of POTW-SSSs. The analysis assumes that 9% of TWTDSs 

are majors and the remaining 91% are nonmajors, based on data from ECHO.

Nonmajor General Permits

Note that four states (North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wisconsin) issue permits to 

SSSs under a general permit. In this analysis, it is assumed that all SSS POTW and TWTDS 

nonmajor permits in these four states are nonmajor general permits (Weiss, 2011). 

 

26 http://owpubauthor.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/cwns/upload/cwns2008rtc.pdf
2-26 14 September 2015

2.9.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family

Except where stated otherwise, the annual frequencies described in this section apply to both 

major and nonmajor SSS POTWs and TWTDSs.

Permits

SSS POTW permit data must be entered into ICIS-NPDES. Permit data are entered with the 

permit cycle, once every five years, which translates to an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. In 

addition, the analysis accounts for additional data entry associated with minor changes at the 

permitted facility (e.g., change in owner or operator name). It assumes that a small number of 

permit data elements (e.g., contact name and/or phone number or contact information) will need 

to be updated with an annual reporting frequency of 0.1, reflecting that such changes might occur 

for 10% of permitted facilities each year.

Limits and Limit Sets

All SSS POTW permits must have limits and limit sets data entered into ICIS-NPDES. Limits 

and limit sets change according to the permit cycle, and therefore have an annual reporting 

frequency of 0.2.

DMRs 

All SSS POTWs must submit DMRs for their permitted dischargers to surface waters. Annual 

reporting frequencies are linked to the requirement that DMRs must be sent on a monthly basis. 

Therefore, DMRs have an annual reporting frequency of 12. 

Program Reports

SSS POTWs must submit a program report for every overflow and bypass event. Therefore, the 

estimated annual reporting frequency for program report data elements for these POTWs was set 

as the number of overflow and bypass events divided by the number of SSSs. The number of 

overflow events and corresponding number of SSSs was taken from EPA’s 2004 Report to 

Congress on sewer overflows.27 The number of bypass events was assumed to be 2,000 per year. 

Based on this calculation; the estimated annual reporting frequency is 2.65.

Compliance Monitoring

Compliance monitoring information must be entered for every overflow event, according to the 

EPA Compliance Monitoring Strategy. Therefore, the estimated annual reporting frequency for 

compliance monitoring data was set as the number of overflow events divided by the number of 

SSSs (taken from the 2004 Report to Congress). Based on this calculation; the estimated annual 

reporting frequency is 2.57.

Violations

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 67% of major individual permit facilities and 53% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had at least one instance of non-compliance each year. Data 

were not available on violation frequency by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for violations for SSSs and assumes that nonmajor general permit 

facilities have the same violation frequency as nonmajor individual permit facilities (0.67 for 

major individual permits and 0.53 for nonmajor individual and general permits). 

 

27 http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/cso/2004-Report-to-Congress.cfm
2-27 14 September 2015

In general, EPA has expected authorized NPDES programs to share Single Event Violation 

(SEV) data on facilities defined as majors. Because the final rule also provides for entry of SEV 

data on nonmajor facilities, the analysis includes reporting of SEV data elements for nonmajor 

facilities with an annual frequency of 0.09. This annual frequency is based on data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard, which show that on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 

through 2014) approximately 9% of major individual permit facilities had SEVs. This frequency 

may be an overestimate because some SEVs will be self-reported by the permitted facilities and, 

thus, will not require data entry by the authorized NPDES program. For example, sewer overflow 

events are SEVs and will be self-reported by the permitted SSS as discussed above under 

program reports.

Enforcement Actions

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 30% of major individual permit facilities and 19% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had concluded enforcement actions each year. Data were not 

available on concluded enforcement actions by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit 

facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the 

annual reporting frequency for concluded enforcement actions for SSSs and assumes that 

nonmajor general permit facilities have the same concluded enforcement action frequency as 

nonmajor individual permit facilities (0.30 for major individual permits and 0.19 for nonmajor 

individual and general permits). 

2.9.3 Summary

Table 2-11 summarizes the number of SSS POTW and TWTDS regulated entities and the annual 

frequencies for each required data family.

Table 2-11: SSS POTW and TWTDS Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency

Individual Majors Individual Nonmajors General Nonmajors

POTWs with SSSs only 3,533 9,197 1,281

TWTDSs 779 7,510 655

Data Family Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Permitsa0.2 0.2 0.2

Limits 0.2 0.2 0.2

Limit Sets 0.2 0.2 0.2

DMRs 12.0 12.0 12.0

Program Reports 2.65 2.65 2.65

Compliance Monitoring 2.57 2.57 2.57

Violationsb0.67 0.53 0.53

Enforcement Actions 0.30 0.19 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. 

2.10 Biosolids

The biosolids NPDES subprogram applies to those facilities that use or dispose of treated sewage 

sludge, also referred to as “biosolids.” Biosolids reporting criteria mostly apply to POTWs that 

ship their biosolids offsite for use as fertilizer, with the addition of some non-POTW facilities that 

produce and distribute biosolids. Furthermore, while some facilities generate biosolids, they are

not required to report to EPA unless they ship the biosolids offsite. Therefore, the biosolids 
2-28 14 September 2015

universe used in the analysis only represents those facilities that annually transfer biosolids 

offsite, which accounts for most biosolids reporting activity.

2.10.1 Permit Universe

Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits

The number of major and nonmajor permits with biosolids reporting requirements was estimated 

using data from EPA’s Clean Watersheds Needs Survey.

28

Nonmajor General Permits

While nonmajor general biosolids permits exist, it was not possible to determine the exact 

number based on available data. Because the costs would not differ based on the individual versus 

general permit classification, it was assumed that all biosolids facilities are regulated under 

individual permits. Therefore, for the purpose of estimating potential costs, the universe of 

nonmajor general biosolids permits is zero.

2.10.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family

Except where stated otherwise, the annual reporting frequencies described in this section apply to 

both major and nonmajor biosolids facilities.

Permits

Biosolids facilities are POTWs, TWTDSs, or standard industrial dischargers regulated under 

other NPDES programs, such as SSSs. As such, the data entry associated with most permit data 

elements is included in the analysis of the CSS POTW, SSS POTW, or standard industrial 

discharger universes.

29 However, those permit data elements specific to the biosolids program 

were assumed to have an annual reporting frequency of 0.2, because they are assumed to be 

generated on the permit cycle.

Limits and Limit Sets

As stated above, biosolids facilities are POTWs, TWTDSs, or standard industrial dischargers. 

These facilities do submit DMRs with corresponding limits and limit sets, but the data entry and 

processing associated with those limits and limit sets are accounted for under the CSS POTW, 

SSS POTW, or standard industrial discharger universes. Therefore, biosolids facilities have no 

biosolids specific discharges, which means the frequency for submitting limit and limit set data is 

zero for this group of facilities.

DMRs 

As stated above, biosolids facilities are POTWs, TWTDSs, or standard industrial dischargers.

These facilities do submit DMRs, but the data entry and processing associated with those reports 

are accounted for under the CSS POTW, SSS POTW, or standard industrial discharger universes.

Biosolids facilities have no biosolids specific discharges, which means the frequency for 

submitting DMRs is zero for this group of facilities. 

 

28 http://owpubauthor.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/cwns/upload/cwns2008rtc.pdf

29 Including data entry associated with minor changes at the permitted facility (e.g., change in owner or 

operator name).
2-29 14 September 2015

Program Reports

Biosolids permits have an annual program report 

requirement. Therefore, the annual reporting frequency 

for program reports data is 1.

Compliance Monitoring

As stated above, all biosolids facilities are POTWs, 

TWTDSs, or standard industrial dischargers. Therefore 

the violation information associated with these 

facilities is accounted for under the CSS POTW, SSS 

POTW, or standard industrial discharger permit 

universes and, to prevent double counting, the 

reporting frequency for compliance monitoring is zero.

Violations

As stated above, all biosolids facilities are POTWs, 

TWTDSs, or standard industrial dischargers. Therefore 

the violation information associated with these 

facilities is accounted for under the CSS POTW, SSS 

POTW, or Standard Industrial Discharger permit

universes and, to prevent double counting, the 

reporting frequency for violations is zero.

Enforcement Actions

As stated above, all biosolids facilities are POTWs, TWTDSs, or standard industrial dischargers.

Therefore the violation information associated with these facilities is accounted for under the CSS 

POTW, SSS POTW, or standard industrial discharger permit universes and, to prevent double 

counting, the reporting frequency for enforcement actions is zero.

2.10.3 Summary

Table 2-12 summarizes the number of regulated entities required to file biosolids/sewage sludge 

data and the annual frequencies for each required data family.

Table 2-12: Biosolids Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency

Individual Majors Individual Nonmajors General Nonmajors

Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Report Filers 4,209 694 0

Data Family Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Permits 0.2a 0.2a n/a

Limits 0.0 0.0 n/a

Limit Sets 0.0 0.0 n/a

DMRs 0.0 0.0 n/a

Program Reports 1 1 n/a

Compliance Monitoring 0.0 0.0 n/a

Violations 0.0 0.0 n/a

Enforcement Actions 0.0 0.0 n/a

a Annual reporting frequency applies only to those permit data elements specific to the biosolids program. All other permit 

data elements are captured by CSS POTWs, SSS POTWs, TWTDSs, or standard industrial dischargers.

EPA Region 7 Annual Biosolids 

Reports (2014)
2-30 14 September 2015

2.11 Pretreatment

POTWs collect wastewater from homes, commercial buildings, and industrial facilities and 

transport it via a sewer collection system, to the treatment plant. At the treatment plant, the 

POTW removes harmful organisms and other contaminants from the sewage so it can be 

discharged safely into the receiving stream. Generally, POTWs are designed to treat domestic 

sewage; however, most POTWs also receive wastewater from industrial users. The General 

Pretreatment Regulations establish responsibilities of the POTW to develop and implement local 

limits for industrial users (IUs)/dischargers to the sewer system to control pollutants that may 

pass through or interfere with POTW treatment processes or that may contaminate sewage sludge.

States may issue IU permits even though the IU discharges to the sewer collection system for 

further treatment at the POTW. POTWs with approved pretreatment programs must administer a 

local program covering IUs and report to their authorized NPDES program regarding the

administration of their pretreatment program.

2.11.1 Permit Universe

Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits

The total number of approved pretreatment programs in each state was estimated by EPA based 

on available data from permitting authorities. These data did not distinguish between major and 

nonmajor permit holders. Data available in ICIS-NPDES, however suggests that 93% of POTWs 

with a pretreatment program are majors and the remaining 7% are nonmajors. Note that no 

POTWs file pretreatment program data in Connecticut, Vermont, Alabama, Mississippi, and 

Nebraska, because these states exclusively oversee SIU compliance and oversight activities 

instead of requiring their POTWs to develop their own legal authority and procedures, as 

described in 40 CFR 403.10(e).

Nonmajor General Permits

There are no general permits for nonmajor POTWs with approved pretreatment programs. 

Therefore, the universe for this category is zero.

2.11.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family

Except where stated otherwise, the annual frequencies described in this section apply to both 

major and nonmajor pretreatment permits.

Permits

As pretreatment facilities are a subset of POTWs, the data entry associated with most permit data 

elements is included in the analysis of the CSS or SSS POTWs.

30 However, those permit data 

elements specific to the pretreatment program were assumed to have an annual reporting 

frequency of 0.2, because they are assumed to be generated on the permit cycle.

Limits and Limit Sets

All pretreatment permits must have limits and limit sets data entered into ICIS-NPDES. Limits 

and limit sets change according to the permit cycle, and therefore have an annual reporting 

frequency of 0.2.

 

30 Including data entry associated with minor changes at the permitted facility (e.g., change in owner or 

operator name). 
2-31 14 September 2015

DMRs 

Annual reporting frequencies are linked to the requirement that DMRs must be sent on a monthly 

basis. Therefore, DMRs have an annual reporting frequency of 12. 

Program Reports

Pretreatment programs have an annual program report 

requirement; therefore the annual reporting frequency 

for program reports is 1. Note that, in addition to 

applying to regulated POTWs with approved 

pretreatment programs, the program report 

requirement also applies to 36 states that are 

authorized to administer the pretreatment program 

and to nine EPA regions (covering the 14 states that 

are not authorized for the pretreatment program). 

Under existing reporting requirements, these states 

and 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 cost and cost savings associated 

with electronic submission of pretreatment program 

reports from states and regions, in addition to 

pretreatment program reports from approved POTWs. 

Compliance Monitoring

The annual frequency of compliance monitoring reports was estimated using data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard. According to the ECHO data, on average over the last three fiscal 

years (2012 through 2014) approximately 56% of major individual permit facilities, 26% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities, and 7% of nonmajor general permit facilities underwent 

inspections each year. Data were not available on inspection frequency by subprogram. 

Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the annual 

reporting frequency for compliance monitoring for pretreatment facilities (0.56 for major 

individual permits and 0.26 for nonmajor individual permits).

Violations

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 67% of major individual permit facilities and 53% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had at least one instance of non-compliance each year. Data 

were not available on violation frequency by subprogram. Therefore, the analysis uses these 

averages across subprograms as estimates of the annual reporting frequency for violations for 

pretreatment (0.67 for major individual permits and 0.53 for nonmajor individual permits). 

In general, EPA has expected authorized NPDES programs to share Single Event Violation 

(SEV) data on facilities defined as majors. Because the final rule also provides for entry of SEV 

data on nonmajor facilities, the analysis includes reporting of SEV data elements for nonmajor 

facilities with an annual frequency of 0.09. This annual frequency is based on data from EPA’s 

ECHO State Water Dashboard, which show that on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 

through 2014) approximately 9% of major individual permit facilities had SEVs. This frequency 

may be an overestimate because some SEVs will be self-reported by the permitted facilities (e.g., 

EPA Region 9 Annual Pretreatment 

Reports (2009)
2-32 14 September 2015

through pretreatment annual reports) and, thus, will not require data entry by the authorized 

NPDES program.

Enforcement Actions

According to EPA’s ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years 

(2012 through 2014) approximately 30% of major individual permit facilities and 19% of 

nonmajor individual permit facilities had concluded enforcement actions. Data were not available 

on concluded enforcement actions by subprogram. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages 

across subprograms as estimates of the annual reporting frequency for concluded enforcement 

actions for pretreatment facilities (0.30 for major individual permits and 0.19 for nonmajor 

individual permits).

2.11.3 Summary

Table 2-13 summarizes the number of regulated entities submitting preatreatment program data 

and the annual frequencies for each required data family.

Table 2-13: Pretreatment Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency

Individual Majors Individual Nonmajors General Nonmajors

Pretreatment Program Report Filers 1,462 

114 0

Data Family Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Annual Reporting 

Frequency

Permitsb0.2a0.2an/a

Limits 0.2 0.2 n/a

Limit Sets 0.2 0.2 n/a

DMRs 12.0 12.0 n/a

Program Reportsc1 1 n/a

Compliance Monitoring 0.56 0.26 n/a

Violationsd0.67 0.53 n/a

Enforcement Actions 0.30 0.19 n/a

a Annual reporting frequency applies only to those permit data elements specific to the pretreatment program. All other 

permit data elements are captured by CSS and SSS POTWs.

b

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.

c

In addition to applying to the universe of permits shown above, the program report requirement also applies to states 

and EPA regions where they are the Control Authority for the pretreatment program.

d

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. 
2-33 14 September 2015

2.12 Summary

Table 2-14 shows the number of individual major, individual nonmajor, and general nonmajor 

permits under each subprogram. As described in Figure 2-1, the universe numbers presented here 

are a major input into the cost analysis. Combining the frequencies and universes with the data 

entry and report processing costs (discussed in Section 4) determines the total savings and cost 

associated with the final rule. Table 2-15 presents the annual frequencies by data family for each 

permit type under each subprogram. Note, however, that not all of the regulated entities 

enumerated in Error! Reference source not found. submit every type of report. To clarify this 

point, Table 2-16 shows the number of filers for each type of report (NOIs, DMRs, and program 

reports) under each subprogram. 

Table 2-14: 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/Bypass 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 and 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. 
2-34 14 September 2015

Table 2-15: 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.
2-35 14 September 2015

Table 2-16: Number of Filers by NPDES Subprogram and Report Type

Subprogram Permit Type NOI Filers DMR Filers Program Report 

Filers

Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)

Standard Industrial 

Dischargers

Individual Major 0 1,683 0

Individual Nonmajor 0 18,993 0

General Nonmajor 45,948 41,353 0

CWA §316(b) Filersa

0 0 200

Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) In 

Municipalities without Pretreatment Programb 0 0 2,487

Concentrated Animal 

Feeding Operations

Individual Nonmajor 0 0 1,266

General Nonmajor 5,291 0 5,291

Industrial & Construction Stormwater

Industrial

Individual Major 0 132 0

Individual Nonmajor 0 563 0

General Nonmajor 92,282 92,282 0

Construction

Individual Major 0 0 0

Individual Nonmajor 0 6 0

General Nonmajor 83,871c2,432 0

Municipal Stormwaterd

Phase I MS4s Individual Major 0 249 249

General Nonmajor 9 9 9

Phase II MS4s Individual Nonmajor 0 0 204

General Nonmajor 5,093 0 5,093

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

POTWs with CSSse

Individual Major 0 462 462f

Individual Nonmajor 0 244 244f

General Nonmajor 68 68 68f

POTWs with SSSs only 

and TWTDSse

Individual Major 0 4,312 4,312f

Individual Nonmajor 0 16,706 16,706f

General Nonmajor 1,935 1,935 1,935f

POTW NPDES Report Filers

Biosolids/Sewage 

Sludge Report Filersa

Individual Major 0 0 4,209

Individual Nonmajor 0 0 694

Pretreatment Program 

Report Filers

Individual Major 0 1,462 1,462

Individual Nonmajor 0 114 114

a DMR filings by these facilities are captured by CSS POTWs, SSS POTWs, TWTDSs, or standard industrial 

dischargers.

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 Assumes 2.9 construction stormwater general permits per firm.

d 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 and nonmajors.

e

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

composed of CSSs as CSSs. 

f Accounts for the submission of sewer overflow and bypass event reports.
2-36 14 September 2015

References

Chan, Jennifer. 2015. Office of Water, U.S. EPA.

Hudock, Andrew. 2010. Office of Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. EPA.

Faulk, Jack. 2015. Office of Water, U.S. EPA.

U.S. EPA. 2004. Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs. EPA 833-R-04-

001. August. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/cso/2004-Report-to-Congress.cfm

U.S. EPA. 2010. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008: Report to Congress. EPA-832-R-10-002.

http://owpubauthor.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/cwns/upload/cwns2008rtc.pdf

U.S. EPA. 2013. NPDES CAFO Rule Implementation Status -- National Summary, Endyear 

2013. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/tracksum%20endyear2013.pdf

U.S. EPA. 2015. Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) State Water Dashboard. 

Accessed April 2015. http://echo.epa.gov/trends/comparative-maps-dashboards/state-waterdashboard?state=National&view=activity

U.S. EPA. 2015. NPDES General Permit Inventory. Accessed May 2015. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/permitissuance/genpermits.cfm

Weiss, Kevin. 2011. Office of Water, U.S. EPA.

.
3-1 14 September 2015

Section 3. – Activities Affected by the Final NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule

3.1 Introduction

The final rule will update the way regulated entities, authorized NPDES programs, and EPA 

provide and share NPDES information. EPA and state authorized NPDES programs will update

their IT systems so that regulated entities can electronically submit NPDES information, and EPA 

and the states can share the information. When the rule is fully implemented, regulated entities

will submit their information to their authorized NPDES program electronically. Authorized 

NPDES programs will share that data with EPA, and will also share with EPA the data they 

generate. During the initial implementation period (within five years after the effective date of the 

rule), some regulated entities might be required to submit NOIs, DMRs, and program reports both 

electronically and on paper, depending on the reporting requirements set out in their permits.

After implementation, the rule will produce significant annual savings. During implementation,

the costs will exceed the savings, as described below. Table 3-1 identifies which entities incur 

costs and cost savings associated with the implementation phase and ongoing administration of 

the NPDES program under the rule.

Table 3-1: Distribution of Savings and Costs of the Rule

Regulated 

Entity

Authorized 

NPDES Program

EPA

Updating IT systems to share information Costs Costs

Electronic reporting during transition Costs Costs

Switching to electronic reporting systems Savings/Costs Savings/Costs

Sharing NPDES information electronically Savings/Costs Savings/Costs

The activities necessary to update how regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs

submit information to and share information with EPA are:

 Authorized NPDES program and EPA implementation of an electronic reporting system 

for submitting regulated entity data;

 Authorized NPDES program and EPA implementation of an electronic reporting system 

for submitting authorized NPDES program data to EPA;

 Authorized NPDES programs making decisions regarding their initial recipient status;

 Authorized NPDES programs demonstrating their attorneys general accept electronic 

signatures in lieu of physical signature, thereby certifying compliance with EPA’s Cross 

Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR);

 Authorized NPDES programs preparing implementation plans and EPA review and 

approval of those plans;

 Authorized NPDES programs updating their Memoranda of Agreement with their 

Regional Administrator;

 Authorized NPDES program and EPA developing criteria for temporary and permanent 

waivers from electronic reporting;

 Authorized NPDES program and EPA coordination via training webinars;

 Authorized NPDES program entering newly shared data for all regulated entities;

 EPA assessing participation rates and, where appropriate, conducting oversight using its 

CWA authority and ICR to compel NPDES-regulated entities to utilize their NPDES 

program’s electronic reporting system; and,
3-2 14 September 2015

 Authorized NPDES programs and EPA modifying permits to require electronic 

submissions.

Regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs will need to make changes in order to use the 

updated data bases and reporting tools. The activities required to use the updated systems are:

 Regulated entity registration for and maintenance of user accounts in CDX or the state 

authorized NPDES program electronic system and submission of electronic signature 

agreements;

 Regulated entity training;

 Regulated entity submission of electronic NOIs, DMRs, and program reports; and,

 Authorized NPDES program electronic submission of programmatic Appendix A data to

EPA.

When electronic submission is operational, regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs

will experience ongoing savings from operational efficiencies. During the first five years, there 

will be costs associated with the initial development and implementation of electronic reporting 

for regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs, as well as submittal of programmatic data 

elements to ICIS-NPDES by the authorized NPDES program. This section outlines: 1) the 

activities required to establish electronic reporting systems, 2) the requirements of electronic 

reporting during the implementation period, and 3) ongoing savings and costs associated with 

preparing and sharing all required NPDES data.

3.2 Updating the Reporting Process

Updating the NPDES information flow will allow state authorized NPDES programs and EPA to 

share information through the internet and have a central repository of NPDES information.

Currently, NPDES information is managed in ICIS-NPDES.

31 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. 

The final rule will require EPA and state authorized NPDES programs to capture all required 

data, establish electronic reporting systems, and for states to certify that their systems are 

CROMERR-compliant. The rule does not preclude authorized NPDES programs from 

maintaining their own information systems. EPA expects that authorized NPDES programs will 

move all regulated entities to electronic reporting within five years of the effective date of the 

rule. This section discusses the changes required by the rule.

 

31 EPA completed the migration of data from PCS to ICIS-NPDES for all states in 2013.
3-3 14 September 2015

3.2.1 State Authorized NPDES program and EPA Implementation of a Data 

Exchange

To implement electronic reporting,32 EPA and the state authorized NPDES programs will need to 

establish and operate an IT system organized so that state authorized NPDES program data 

systems and EPA’s ICIS-NPDES operate as a coordinated CWA program management system

that can work together. The system will use existing technology and standards from the National 

Environmental Information Exchange Network as a basis for the new data exchange. The 

Exchange Network allows network members to share environmental information over the internet

in two directions. Figure 3-1 shows how states and EPA can access each other’s information 

through the network.

Figure 3-1: The Exchange Network

Each state currently has a network node allowing states and EPA to access and share information

over the internet. The final rule will leverage this capability to reduce the costs associated with 

data entry and transfer, ultimately improving access to NPDES information for program 

management.

State system modification costs depend on whether the state NPDES system already uses the 

Exchange Network. States that have a preexisting data flow with EPA only need to map the data 

elements to the appropriate fields in their own systems. EPA currently provides a downloadable 

tool that assists authorized NPDES programs in the mapping process. Authorized NPDES 

programs that do not use the Exchange Network will need to configure a full data flow. To 

facilitate these processes, EPA will offer webinars outlining the changes required by the rule and 

providing solutions for common problems.

Although regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs are both responsible for generating 

NPDES data, EPA is responsible for creating and maintaining electronic reporting tools, such as 

NetDMR, and the central repository of NPDES information – ICIS-NPDES. The NetDMR and 

NeT systems already exist, but will need enhancement to accommodate the all of the data defined 

 

32 This analysis defines IT implementation as the deployment and development of an electronic reporting 

system for submission of data from regulated entities to their authorized NPDES program and exchanges 

between authorized NPDES programs and EPA.
3-4 14 September 2015

in Appendix A, and to accommodate the higher submission volumes that will result from the final

rule. EPA will also create a new electronic tool allowing regulated entities to submit their 

program reports online. Once these tools are implemented, EPA will incur operating and 

maintenance costs into the future.

State authorized NPDES programs may develop and operate their own reporting tools to meet 

rule requirements. Because EPA will offer national tools supporting each of the regulated entity

submissions to permit authorities, state system changes are not required. However, the analysis 

assumes that states currently operating their own systems will bear a cost to expand these systems 

to store all Appendix A data. It also assume that these states will bear ongoing costs to manage 

the transfer of data from their systems to EPA and to provide ongoing training and technical 

support to regulated entities using their systems.

3.2.2 Compliance with the Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule

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

legally equivalent to hardcopy documents by meeting the requirements of EPA’s Cross Media 

Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR).33 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.

3.2.3 Supplying Facility, Limit and Limit Set data

In order for the electronic system to properly route regulated entity information between state 

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 will need to share their facility 

information, limits and limit sets with EPA. Currently, much of the monitoring information for 

nonmajor permits is maintained on paper files or electronically in state computer systems and is

not being passed to ICIS-NPDES. EPA does not have detailed information regarding the 

authorized NPDES program information systems, and whether or not they conform to the 

requirements of the final rule. For that reason, EPA assumes each authorized NPDES program

will manually enter appropriately formatted limit and limit set information into the new system 

within one year of the effective date of the rule so that regulated entities will be able to use the 

system when the rule requires them to sign up for electronic accounts during that time. In reality, 

many states may have already automated much of this data, in which case their costs will be less 

than estimated in this analysis. 

3.2.4 Additional Implementation Activities

As part of updating the reporting process, authorized state NPDES programs and EPA will need 

to undertake several additional implementation activities, which include:

 Making decisions regarding initial recipient status;

 Preparing and reviewing/approving implementation plans;

 Updating Memoranda of Agreement with Regional Administrators;

 

33 http://www.epa.gov/cromerr/states.html
3-5 14 September 2015

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

 Undertaking training webinars; 

 Conducting oversight; and,

 Modifying permits (to require electronic submissions).

This analysis includes the cost of all of these activities, using assumptions outlined in detail in 

Section 4.

3.3 Electronic Reporting during Transition

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

electronically, EPA will use its existing authority under the CWA along with current technology 

and an ICR to require 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 has 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 permit is re-issued with electronic reporting requirements on the normal permit 

cycle. Still, this analysis accounts for this potential for dual reporting for a percentage of facilities 

during the transition period.

3.4 Using the Updated System

The updated system will change the way information is shared by regulated entities, authorized 

NPDES programs, and EPA. These changes will increase the operational efficiency of the 

NPDES program by eliminating the need for authorized NPDES programs to transcribe paper 

reporting documents into the system of record and the manual comparison of facility DMRs to 

the limits and limit sets established in the permit. Furthermore, these changes will reduce the 

amount of coordination needed between state authorized NPDES programs and EPA to produce 

the annual NPDES reports required by 40 CFR 123.45(c). This section describes the assumptions 

and sources of savings and costs associated with using the updated systems.

3.4.1 Regulated Entity Registration and Training

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

need to set up accounts, either on the Central Data Exchange (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 electronic signature 

agreement (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 
3-6 14 September 2015

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

identification 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 3-2 shows the registration and training requirements for regulated entities. In addition, 

some small 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. Finally, EPA’s 

electronic reporting systems include 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). 
3-7 14 September 2015

Table 3-2: 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.

3.4.2 Regulated Entity Discharge Monitoring and Program Report Submission 

Currently, regulated entities submit most of their DMRs and program reports in hard copy 

through the mail. The authorized NPDES program receives these reports and, for major regulated 

entities, manually transcribes the DMRs and some data elements from the program reports into 

ICIS-NPDES or authorized NPDES program’s system. The authorized NPDES program then 

archives the paper files.34 The final rule will require regulated entities to submit these reports 

electronically. Electronic reporting by regulated entities will eliminate paper and postage costs as 

well as the time required to physically transfer paper forms from regulated entities to the 

authorized NPDES program and then enter the required data into authorized NPDES program

systems or ICIS-NPDES. Some EPA Regions and other authorized NPDES programs send prepopulated DMR forms to regulated entities. Under the final rule this activity will also be 

unnecessary and the associated paper and postage costs will be eliminated.

 

34 Currently, EPA requires program reports and DMRs to be collected, however there is no requirement for 

that information to be entered into an electronic data system. A number of states are maintaining paper 

filing systems for these reports.
3-8 14 September 2015

3.4.3 Additional Required Data from the Authorized NPDES Program

As discussed in Section 1, the final rule will increase the amount of data authorized NPDES 

programs are required to share electronically with EPA. The rule requires authorized NPDES 

programs to enter into an electronic information system any of the data elements listed in 

Appendix A that are not submitted electronically by their regulated entities. This requirement will 

apply to major, nonmajor, and general permits. Some of this information was previously available 

from the regulated entity and was manually entered into ICIS-NPDES. Other information was 

previously submitted by the regulated entity in hardcopy form and stored at the authorized 

NPDES program until needed for compliance oversight or annual reporting to EPA. With 

electronic reporting, regulated entity information will electronically flow into the authorized 

NPDES program’s data system, eliminating the need for manual data entry and resulting in 

savings to the authorized NPDES program. These savings might be partially offset by the need 

for authorized NPDES programs to enter programmatic information, such as: 1) regulated entity

data previously stored in hardcopy form; or 2) compliance monitoring, inspection, or enforcement

information that was not previously entered into ICIS-NPDES. The cost of submitting these data

to ICIS-NPDES is partially mitigated by auto-populating specific fields, such as the date an 

electronic report is received.

For example, in order to compare DMRs to their permits’ required limits, the authorized NPDES 

program will need to enter all limits and limit sets into ICIS-NPDES. Currently this information 

is only required for major permits. Under the final rule, this information will be required for all 

permit types. Individual permits will need their specific limits and parameters entered by the 

authorized NPDES program permit writer. For general permits, the task is simplified by bundled 

limit sets that permit writers can apply to all facilities covered by the same general permit. For 

example, offshore drilling general permits will be able to use all limit sets pertaining to that 

activity by selecting the bundled offshore drilling limit sets from a dropdown menu.

3.4.4 Replacing the Annual Non-Compliance Report, Quarterly Non-Compliance 

Report, and Semi-Annual Statistical Summaries with the New National NonCompliance Report

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 non-compliance information to the Regional Administrator, who submits them to EPA 

headquarters. Under the final 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 final rule will eliminate this reporting requirement, resulting in 

savings for state authorized NPDES programs and EPA Regions. The final rule will also replace 

the annual, quarterly, and semi-annual reports with a National Non-Compliance Report that EPA 

headquarters will develop, resulting in savings for states, EPA Regions and EPA headquarters.

EPA savings will be partially offset by the headquarters effort required to program and produce 

the new National Non-Compliance Report.

3.5 Summary

Following implementation, the rule will result in ongoing savings for both regulated entities and 

authorized NPDES programs due to the operational efficiencies of electronic reporting, reduced 

data errors, and eliminating postage and paper costs. Once authorized NPDES programs establish 

electronic reporting systems, there will be net savings driven by eliminating DMR and program 

report data entry, in addition to operational efficiencies from improved data quality and no longer 
3-9 14 September 2015

having to mail, receive, or process paper reports.35 ICIS-NPDES and authorized NPDES program

systems will be able to automatically compare all DMR monitoring information to the limits of 

the respective NPDES permits and flag non-compliance, thus simplifying EPA and authorized 

NPDES program compliance oversight and rapidly identifying noncompliance that may threaten 

the health of receiving waters. Establishing a single, authoritative repository of NPDES 

information, will eliminate the need for the recurring effort and cost of developing and publishing 

periodic non-compliance reports from authorized NPDES programs. EPA headquarters will incur

ongoing costs of implementing and maintaining the IT infrastructure necessary for electronic 

reporting, as well as publishing the new National Non-Compliance Report. The methodology 

used to estimate these savings and costs is discussed in Section 4. The benefits of improved ICISNPDES information associated with this rule are presented in Section 6.

 

35 Authorized NPDES programs will incur costs associated with additional compliance and enforcement 

data entry.
4-1 14 September 2015

Section 4. – Estimating the Economic Impacts of the Final

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

4.1 Introduction

This section describes how the savings and costs of the final rule were estimated. These savings

and costs are experienced by regulated entities, authorized NPDES programs, and EPA 

headquarters. The estimates are used to calculate the total net savings of the final rule and to 

determine the impact of the rule on small businesses in Section 5. Estimates of the cost of the rule 

are developed for four categories: 1) implementation; 2) data entry; 3) submission processing;

and 4) submission. To determine the impacts on each category, EPA solicited states, Regions, and 

program experts to identify the burden associated with the current data flow and reporting 

processes, and identify how these processes would change. The following sections discuss how 

the changes were monetized and the total savings and costs associated with the final rule. 

Estimating the incremental savings and costs involved the following steps:

 Determine EPA and authorized NPDES program costs associated with updating the way 

NPDES information is shared;

 Determine authorized NPDES program savings and costs associated with changes in data 

entry of NPDES information;

 Determine authorized NPDES program savings associated with changes in processing of 

NPDES information; 

 Determine regulated entity savings and costs associated with electronic submission of 

NPDES information; and, 

 Determine other implementation costs for regulated entities and authorized NPDES 

programs required by or resulting from compliance with the final rule.

Section 4.2 shows the labor costs used in the analysis. Section 4.3 provides a description of costs 

associated with updating information sharing among authorized NPDES programs and EPA. 

Section 4.4 discusses the savings and costs associated with using the updated systems. Section 4.5

discusses EPA’s planned implementation phase-in approach, as well as the savings/cost schedules 

and return on investment for the final rule.

The costs and savings associated with the final rule include:

 Updating the IT systems;

 Data processing needed for authorized NPDES programs to accept electronic reporting 

from NPDES regulated entities;

 Data entry for regulated entity electronic reporting during the transition;

 Data processing needed to ensure the transfer of all required NPDES data from 

authorized NPDES programs into ICIS-NPDES;

 Reduced data entry for authorized NPDES programs once regulated entities enter data 

directly into the electronic systems;

 Elimination of paper mailing and processing of DMRs and permits; and

 Elimination of ANCR, QNCR, and SASS reports.

As shown in Table 4-1, savings and costs are incurred by regulated entities, authorized NPDES 

programs, and EPA. 
4-2 14 September 2015

Table 4-1: Distribution of Savings and Costs of the Rule

Regulated Entity Authorized 

NPDES Program

EPA

Updating IT systems to share information Costs Costs

Electronic reporting during transition Costs Costs

Switching to electronic reporting systems Savings/Costs Savings/Costs

Sharing NPDES information electronically Savings/Costs Savings/Costs

Three significant baseline assumptions are made for the savings and cost analysis. The first is that 

currently there is full compliance with existing data requirements.36 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 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 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 analysis may overestimate savings and implementation costs for both the regulated 

entity and authorized NPDES program.

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

developed under the rule (see Section 4.3.3), 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 

savings (i.e., an increasing percentage of facilities receiving waivers decreases the estimated net 

savings).

4.2 Labor Costs

To estimate the cost associated with data entry, processing, and submission activities (Section 3), 

the analysis uses 2014 hourly wage rates for three job categories: managerial, 

programmer/technical, and data clerk/administrative; each of which include 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.

37

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

 

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

detail in Section 4.4.3. Although this activity is an existing requirement, this analysis includes its full cost, 

which may slightly overestimate the incremental cost of the rule.

37 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t04.htm
4-3 14 September 2015

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 4-2).38

Table 4-2: 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/Administrative Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour $33.42 $26.79 

4.3 Cost of Updated Information Sharing among Authorized NPDES 

Programs and EPA

As described in Section 3, implementing the rule will require state authorized NPDES programs

and EPA to establish an electronic reporting system. As shown in the data flow diagram in 

Section 1 (Figure 1-2), the data capture process begins with regulated entities submitting their 

data into the electronic system provided by their authorized NPDES program or EPA. Several 

 

38 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.
4-4 14 September 2015

state authorized NPDES programs 39 receive DMR information through state-operated eDMR 

systems that are different from EPA’s NetDMR in that they only send regulated entity data to the 

state authorized NPDES program, whereas NetDMR sends regulated entity data to both the state 

authorized NPDES program and EPA.

As discussed in Section 3, authorized NPDES programs enter data into ICIS-NPDES using direct, 

hybrid, and batch methods. Direct users manage their programmatic information in ICIS-NPDES 

and use EPA’s electronic reporting tools to capture regulated entity submissions. Hybrid 

authorized NPDES programs use ICIS-NPDES for some information and batch upload their 

DMR information. Batch authorized NPDES programs manage their information in state systems, 

and batch upload all of their information to EPA. For these systems to accept electronic data from 

the regulated entities and transfer that information between EPA and authorized NPDES 

programs, alterations to both state and EPA IT systems are necessary. EPA will provide optional

electronic reporting tools for regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs to use, and will

provide a central repository housing all nationally required NPDES information. This section 

details the estimated implementation costs for authorized NPDES programs and EPA to set up 

this system.

4.3.1 Electronic Reporting Tool Implementation Costs

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 IT system 

modifications were derived by comparing the architecture of the current system against the 

requirements of the rule. Table 4-3 presents EPA’s estimated cost of implementation for the new 

tools. It also includes the cost to add the new Appendix A data elements to ICIS-NPDES.40 Table 

4-3 also shows EPA’s estimated annual operations and maintenance cost, discussed further in 

Section 4.3.2.

Table 4-3: EPA Implementation Costs for Electronic Reporting Tools

Cost Categories Total Cost ($)

Initial Implementation

System Enhancements $8,023,000 

Adding Data Elements $1,680,000 

Total $9,703,000 

Annual Operations and Maintenance

Enhancements to NetDMR $109,000 

NeT: NOI functionality $423,000 

NeT: Program Report functionality $423,000 

Total $955,000 

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 costs for 

those NPDES-authorized programs to expand their databases is based on EPA’s costs to add data 

 

39 State authorized NPDES programs are the subset of all authorized NPDES programs where the state 

administers the NPDES program, as opposed to the EPA Region. Each state authorized NPDES program 

will have to update its system, whereas those states were the NPDES program is administered by the EPA 

Region will use the updated ICIS-NPDES.

40 Estimates for initial implementation provided by EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, Data Systems and Information Management Branch in July 2015.
4-5 14 September 2015

elements to ICIS-NPDES, or $1.68 million per state, as shown in Table 4-3. With 21 states 

adding data elements, the total database expansion cost is $35.3 million dollars. This estimate is

conservative as several states already manage some of the new Appendix A data elements.

The final rule deletes latitude and longitude metadata (e.g., Facility Site Source Map Scale 

Number, Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure) from Appendix A. 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, for a per state implementation cost of $2,800. Conservatively 

assuming all 26 batch and hybrid states must convert coordinate systems, the total cost is 

$72,800. 

State implementation costs also vary based on whether the state has a CROMERR certified data 

system already in place. Certifying that the state system is CROMERR compliant requires the 

state Attorney General to review the applicable state laws to ensure that the electronic documents 

required under the rule are the legal equivalent to the hardcopy documents currently collected.

The analysis estimates that cost to be approximately $41,100 per state.41 The total cost of 

CROMERR certification is $411,000 dollars.

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 programs. Therefore, once data standards42 are 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. The total cost to

create all exchange templates is $1.9 million dollars.

Table 4-4 summarizes the costs to authorized NPDES programs to implement electronic reporting 

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

 

41 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.

42 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. 
4-6 14 September 2015

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. 

Table 4-4 also shows estimated annual operations, maintenance, and support cost, discussed 

further in Section 4.3.2.

Table 4-4: State Authorized NPDES Program Implementation Costs for Electronic 

Reporting Tools

Cost Categories Number of States Unit Cost ($) Total Cost ($)

Initial Implementation

Adding Data Elements 21 $1,680,000 $35,280,000 

Converting Coordinate Systems 26 $2,800 $72,800 

CROMERR Certification 10 $41,100 $411,000 

Data Mapping $1,886,000 

Total $37,650,000 

Annual Operations, Maintenance, and Support

Managing Data Transfer to EPA 26 $121,258 $3,153,000 

Training and Technical Support 47 $242,516 $11,398,000 

Total $14,551,000 

4.3.2 Electronic Tool Operations and Maintenance Cost

As shown in Error! Reference source not found., 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 cost of EPA activities newly required to 

support the rule are estimated at $955,000.

43

As shown in Table 4-4, 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) of programmer/technical labor per 

state per year.44 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.45 To be conservative, the analysis uses the upper bound of this range and 

assumes 2 FTEs of programmer/technical labor per state per year. The total incremental annual 

cost to states for operations, maintenance, and support activities is estimated at $14.6 million per 

year.

4.3.3 Other Implementation Costs

As part of updating the reporting process, authorized state NPDES programs and EPA will need 

to undertake several other implementation activities, in addition to upgrading electronic systems. 

Error! Reference source not found. summarizes these costs, which were developed using 

assumptions discussed in the paragraphs below. Although many of these activities occur within 

the first year after the effective date of the rule, others take place later during rule implementation 

 

43 Estimates for annual operations and maintenance taken from EPA’s DRAFT Clean Water Act Action 

Plan: Electronic Reporting Technical Evaluations, Prepared by Booz Allen, July 2010; escalated to 2014 

dollars using the BLS Employment Cost Index for government workers.

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

45 Based on comments from Colorado, Washington, Kansas, and South Dakota.
4-7 14 September 2015

or recur intermittently. The costs shown in Table 4-5 are undiscounted and account for recurrence 

only of certain activities (i.e., EPA oversight). Section 4.5 provides further details regarding 

assumptions about implementation timing and the impact of timing and discount rates on return 

on investment. 

Table 4-5: Administrative Costs to Implement Electronic Reporting

Cost Categories EPA Authorized NPDES 

Programs

Training Webinars $21,000a$24,700 

Initial Recipient Status Decisions $0 $55,700 

Waiver Criteria Developmentb$2,400 $111,000 

Implementation Plans $111,000 $1,006,000 

Modifying Memoranda of Understanding $0 $111,000 

Modifying Permits $62,200 $1,161,000 

EPA Oversightc$1,179,000 $0 

Total $1,376,000 $2,469,000 

a

Includes attendance by regional and headquarters staff, in addition to development cost.

b

Includes initial development only, not renewal.

c Reflects undiscounted total cost of two rounds of oversight using assumptions discussed below.

Training Webinars

To ensure that state authorized NPDES programs are properly informed of the changes to the 

ICIS-NPDES 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, at a total cost of $5,800. State authorized NPDES 

programs will incur a cost of $24,700 for the time required to attend the webinars (assuming three 

technical staff from each state attend each call). In addition, staff from each EPA region and 

headquarters will attend the webinars, at a total cost of $15,200.

Initial Recipient Status

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. The total cost of these initial recipient decisions is $55,700.

Waiver Criteria

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 approval 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. The total cost of waiver criteria development is $111,000 to 

authorized programs, plus $2,400 for EPA to develop waiver criteria for where EPA Regions 

administer the program. Authorized NPDES programs will also need to re-submit their waiver 
4-8 14 September 2015

process descriptions to EPA for review and approval on a five year cycle. The analysis 

conservatively assumes the cost of renewal would be the same as the cost of initial development.

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.

46 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 at a 

cost of $21,400 per authorized program. The total cost for all authorized programs to prepare 

implementation plans is $1,006,000. In addition, the analysis assumes that EPA will spend 40 

hours of managerial time to review and approve each implementation plan, for a total cost of 

approximately $111,000.

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. The total cost of these updates is $111,000 to authorized programs.

Permit Modifications

As the rule is phased in, states and EPA regions will make minor modifications to permits to 

require electronic reporting (and, where applicable, remove language that explicitly requires 

paper reporting). The analysis assumes that making these minor modifications will require 5 

minutes per permit. The total cost of these permit modifications is $1,161,000 for authorized 

states and $62,200 for EPA regions.

EPA Oversight

As discussed in Section 3.3, 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:

 

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

are considered separately in this analysis.
4-9 14 September 2015

 EPA will spend a total of 80 hours of technical labor to assess and report participation 

rates. 

 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 (see Table 4-12). 

 EPA would need to undertake this activity in five states for individual permitted facilities 

and ten states for facilities covered under general permits.47

 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). 

 20% of facilities will require a second letter, one year later, to achieve full participation. 

 There will be two rounds of oversight letters: the first based on DMR participation rates 

during Phase 1 implementation and the second based on participation rates for Phase 2 

data (e.g., program reports, NOIs).

Given these assumptions, the total cost of EPA oversight letters is $1,179,000.

4.3.4 Total Costs

Table 4-6 presents the total implementation costs for both EPA and states, including 

implementation and operations and management. Specifically, authorized NPDES programs will 

incur approximately $40.1 million dollars in implementation costs while EPA will incur $11.1

million dollars for implementation. After implementation, EPA will spend $955,000 annually to 

operate and maintain the electronic system while states will spend $14.6 million annually for 

maintenance and support. As discussed in Section 4.3.3, while many implementation activities 

occur within the first year after the effective date of the rule, others take place later or recur 

intermittently. The costs shown in Table 4-6 are undiscounted and account for recurrence only of 

certain activities (i.e., waiver criteria and EPA oversight). Section 4.5 provides further details 

regarding assumptions about implementation timing and the impact of timing and discount rates 

on return on investment.

Table 4-6: Total Cost of Updating the Submission Process

Implementation Annual Operations and 

Maintenancea

States $40,119,000 $14,573,000 

EPA $11,079,000 $955,000 

Total $51,198,000 $15,528,000 

a

Includes undiscounted cost of renewing waiver criteria every five years

4.4 Regulated Entity and Authorized NPDES Program Savings and Costs

Associated with Using the Updated Systems

Implementing the updated submittal process will change regulated entity and authorized NPDES 

program activities resulting in both savings and costs. Authorized NPDES programs will make 

minor permit modifications,

48 which will require the regulated entity to report electronically.

Authorized NPDES programs will be required to electronically submit to EPA all data elements 

 

47 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. 

48 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title40-vol21/xml/CFR-2009-title40-vol21-sec122-63.xml
4-10 14 September 2015

identified in Appendix A, including forwarding to EPA data the authorized NPDES programs

receive electronically from regulated entities. As each authorized NPDES program implements ereporting systems meeting the minimum requirements, the updated data system will change the 

flow of NPDES data from the regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs to EPA such 

that duplicate data entry is eliminated. This section presents the derivation of the costs of 

generating and transferring the required data in electronic format from regulated entities to 

authorized NPDES programs and from authorized NPDES programs to EPA.

4.4.1 Regulated Entity Registration and Training Costs

As described in Section 3, regulated entities will be required to submit electronic reports, which 

will entail the registration and training requirements shown in Table 3-2. In addition, some small 

entities would need to acquire a new, business email address. The analysis assumes 10% of 

regulated entities would need to take this action during the registration process. Finally, regulated 

entities that use EPA (but not state) electronic tools and report less frequently than every 90 days 

will need to reset their password when they report. EPA makes the following assumptions 

regarding each registration and training activity:

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

registering for an electronic account in CDX, for a cost of $43.17;

 One manager will spend 11 minutes to complete and mail an ESA, for a cost of $13.88, 

including postage (see Table 4-12);

 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, 

for a cost of $220.18; 

 One manager will spend 0.5 hours to acquire a new, business email address using a free 

email service, for a cost of $37.06; and

 One manager and one technical staff member will each spend 3 minutes (0.05 hours) to 

reset their password, for a cost of $6.48.

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.

49 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.50

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:

 As described in Section 2, 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.

 

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

2008).

50 http://www.epa.gov/netdmr/about/training.html
4-11 14 September 2015

 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. 

Taking these factors into account, the total initial cost of regulated entity registration and training

is estimated at $21.2 million dollars. This total 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 reregister using EPA’s new CROMERR compliant tool, but would not experience any additional 

costs or cost savings as a result of the rule.

Those regulated entities that use EPA (but not state) electronic tools and report less frequently 

than every 90 days also would bear a recurring cost to reset their passwords. The total annual cost 

of this activity is estimated at $852,000.

The analysis also considers that EPA might need to take over initial recipient status under 40 CFR 

127.27(d) in one or more states. Permittees in these states would need to re-register in EPA’s 

electronic systems. Assuming that EPA takes this action in two average-sized states during or 

after rule implementation, the total re-registration cost to regulated entities would be $817,000.

This cost is undiscounted; Section 4.5 provides further details regarding assumptions about the 

timing of this activity.

4.4.2 Data Entry Costs

The final rule will increase the amount of information authorized NPDES programs must share 

with EPA. As noted elsewhere, regulated entities are currently submitting all of their required 

data (WENDB and Appendix A to 40 CFR 127) to their respective authorized NPDES programs.

Under the rule, more data will be shared with EPA through use of ICIS-NPDES. The increase in 

data flowing to ICIS-NPDES, coupled with electronic reporting, has the effect of decreasing the

number of data elements authorized NPDES programs are required to enter into ICIS-NPDES 

from paper DMRs and program reports, while increasing the number of regulated entities for 

which compliance and enforcement data will be required. As shown in Figure 4-1, estimating data 

entry costs relies on combining the number of permits with the number of data elements, the 

frequency at which those elements are reported, data entry time per data element, and wage rates 

for authorized NPDES program staff entering the data elements.
4-12 14 September 2015

Figure 4-1: Estimating Data Entry Costs

Section 2 describes the number of permits and activity frequency. Table 4-7 shows the 

incremental change in data elements for each permit type and data family. The incremental 

number of data elements for certain data flows is negative because of the following factors:

 Appendix A eliminates certain previously required data elements;

 The number of data elements that are prepopulated or system generated and, thus, do not 

require manual data entry, has increased; and 

 For NOIs, DMRs, and program reports, electronic reporting will allow data to flow 

directly into ICIS-NPDES, as opposed to being entered by hand. 

Estimated data entry times were developed by surveying nine states with regard to the time 

requirements associated with entering various data elements. The following sections describe the 

state survey and the data crosswalk used to estimate the per data element time to each 

subprogram.
4-13 14 September 2015

Table 4-7: Authorized NPDES Program Incremental Electronic Reporting by Data Family and Permit Type

Subprogram Permit Type

Incremental Number of Data Elements

PermitsaLimits Limit 

Sets DMRs Program Reports

Compliance 

Monitoring Violationsb Enforcement Actions

Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)

Standard 

Industrial 

Dischargers

Individual Major -17 1 3 -10 0 4 3 3

Individual Nonmajor -5 23 10 -10 0 4 8 3

General Nonmajor -23 0 0 -10 0 4 8 3

CWA §316(b) 

Filers

Cooling Water Intake 

Data 8

c

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Thermal Variance Data 3

c

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CWA §316(b) Annual 

Reports n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a

SIUs In Municipalities without 

Pretreatment Programd n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a

CAFOs Individual Nonmajor 10 23 10 0 1 11 8 3

General Nonmajor -21 0 0 0 1 11 8 3

Industrial & Construction Stormwater

Industrial

Individual Major -14 1 3 -10 0 4 3 3

Individual Nonmajor -2 23 10 -10 0 4 8 3

General Nonmajor -12 0 0 0 0 4 8 3

Construction

Individual Major -8 1 3 -10 0 4 3 3

Individual Nonmajor 4 23 10 -10 0 4 8 3

General Nonmajor -20 0 0 0 0 4 8 3

Municipal Stormwatere

Phase I MS4s Individual Major -10 1 3 -10 -2 5 3 3

General Nonmajor -22 0 0 -10 -2 5 3 3

Phase II MS4s Individual Nonmajor 7 23 10 0 -2 5 8 3

General Nonmajor -22 0 0 0 -2 5 8 3

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

POTWs with 

CSSsf

Individual Major -1 1 3 -10 -2

f

5 3 3

Individual Nonmajor 10 23 10 0 1

f

5 8 3

General Nonmajor -23 0 0 0 1

f

5 8 3

POTWs with 

SSSs only and 

TWTDSsf

Individual Major -10 1 3 -10 -2

f

5 3 3

Individual Nonmajor 1 23 10 0 1

f

5 8 3

General Nonmajor -23 0 0 0 1

f

5 8 3

POTW NPDES Report Filers

Biosolids/

Sewage Sludge 

Report Filers

Individual Major 6

g

0 0 0 -2 1 8 0

Individual Nonmajor 8

g

0 0 0 1 1 8 0

Pretreatment 

Program 

Report Filers

Individual Major 11g1 3 -10 -6 5 3 3

Individual Nonmajor 13g23 10 0 1 5 8 3

a In addition to the permit data elements shown, the analysis includes data entry for 6 data elements for permitted facilities that must make minor 

permit changes.

b In addition to the violation data elements shown, the analysis includes data entry for 4 data elements associated with expanded SEV reporting for 

nonmajor facilities.

c Accounts for permit data elements specific to cooling water intakes and thermal variances. All other permit data elements are captured by standard 

industrial dischargers.

d

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 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.

f

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

f Accounts for the submission of sewer overflow reports.

g Accounts for 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.
4-14 14 September 2015

State Survey

To characterize the cost of data entry, EPA surveyed nine states: four batch user states; two 

hybrid user states; and three direct user states. The states, listed in Table 4-8, were selected to 

provide a distribution across modes of submission (batch, hybrid, and direct) and size (based on 

numbers of NPDES permits). It is assumed that the unit burden estimates reported by these states 

are representative of what will be experienced by all states, territories, tribes, and EPA Regions to

comply with the rule.

Table 4-8: Surveyed States by User Type

State User Type

Maine Batch

Minnesota* Batch

Florida Batch

Kentucky Batch

Arkansas Hybrid

Tennessee* Hybrid

Hawaii Direct

South Dakota Direct

New York Direct

*Represents user type at time of survey; user type has 

changed since the original survey.

The survey asked state representatives for the time required for the state to enter the information 

currently required for each data family described in Section 1 for the “typical” permit. The survey 

then presented the required data for each data family and asked how long it took to enter each of 

the data, again for the “typical” permit.

Data Entry Crosswalk

The time estimates collected in the state survey were first divided by the number of data elements 

in each data family to determine an average time per data family for each mode of ICIS-NPDES 

submission (batch, hybrid, and direct) and subprogram. These times were then averaged to 

determine the average data entry time per data element for each submission mode and 

subprogram. Finally, the average times were multiplied by state data clerk wage rates to 

determine the average state costs of data entry per data element. Table 4-9 displays the average 

data entry cost per data element by submission mode and subprogram.

Table 4-9: Average Data Entry Time (in minutes) and Cost Per Data Element (2014 Dollars)

NPDES 

User 

Type

Industrials and Stormwater POTWs

Standard 

Industrial CAFO Stormwater Biosolids Pretreatmentb CSS SSS

Min. Cost Min. Cost Min. Cost Min. Cost Min. Cost Min. Cost Min. Cost

Batch 5.45 $3.04 2.99 $1.67 5.45 $3.04 2.61 $1.45 5.42 $3.02 5.27 $2.93 5.47 $3.05 

Direct 2.49 $1.39 2.34 $1.30 2.57 $1.43 2.61 $1.45 2.55 $1.42 2.45 $1.36 2.50 $1.39 

Hybrid 1.62 $0.90 1.73 $0.96 1.62 $0.90 2.61 $1.45 1.59 $0.89 1.53 $0.85 1.62 $0.90 

a Only one surveyed state, South Dakota, is authorized to administer the Biosolids program. Therefore, their time 

estimates are used for all states.

b Cost and burden for SIUs is the same as those for Pretreatment program.

Initial Data Entry

In order for the electronic system to route regulated entity DMRs and program reports correctly, 

authorized NPDES programs will have to populate ICIS-NPDES with all of the required facility 

identification information, limits, and limit sets. While much of this information is already 

available electronically through ICIS-NPDES, states will have to provide the data elements 

already required to be reported by permittees but not already in ICIS-NPDES in electronic 
4-15 14 September 2015

format. Some states may already have the additional data elements available electronically. 

However, for the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumed that states would incur costs associated 

with entering the data into ICIS-NPDES electronically to ensure the data meets the new data 

standards. This assumption results in a conservative estimate, and actual costs will be less for 

those authorized NPDES programs that have already entered this data into electronic systems. 

The cost of manual data entry is $3.9 million dollars for state authorized NPDES programs and 

$336,000 for EPA Regions.

Authorized NPDES Program Data Entry Costs

As discussed above, this analysis estimates authorized NPDES program data entry costs by

combining the number of permits with the number of data elements, the frequency at which those 

elements are reported, data entry time per data element, and wage rates. Next, costs are 

aggregated by authorized NPDES program to distinguish between state and EPA Region 

authorized NPDES programs. The annual costs associated with state authorized NPDES programs

and EPA Regions entering the programmatic data is $3.9 million dollars and $30,000, 

respectively. This estimate does not include the savings to authorized NPDES programs from data 

flows where the incremental data entry burden is negative (e.g., due to electronic reporting of 

NOIs, DMRs, and program reports received from the regulated universe).

Regulated Entity Costs for Electronic Reporting During Transition

EPA will phase in the electronic collection of NPDES program data on the following schedule.

Phase 1: EPA will electronically receive the basic facility and permit information from the 

authorized NPDES program, DMR information from all facilities, NOIs from general permit 

covered facilities for Federally-issued general permits, and biosolids program reports from 

facilities where EPA is the authorized biosolids program. EPA will also begin to electronically 

receive information from authorized NPDES programs regarding inspections, violation 

determinations, and enforcement actions. 

Phase 2: EPA will electronically receive information from general permit covered facilities for 

state authorized NPDES program-issued general permits, biosolids program reports from 

facilities where the state is the authorized biosolids program, and all other program reports from 

all facilities. 

As discussed in Section 3.3, 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. 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 private sector data clerk wage rate (see Table 4-2) to determine the cost per submission, 

which is then 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 (see Section 4.6 for further discussion of the impact of this assumption).

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 transition period, as permits are modified to require electronic, instead of paper 
4-16 14 September 2015

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. The total undiscounted cost of electronic reporting during the transition 

period, is $464,000. Once the rule is fully implemented, dual reporting will cease.

4.4.3 Other Ongoing Administrative Activities

Under the final rule, authorized states and EPA regions will bear costs for other minor activities 

in addition to ongoing data entry. These minor activities include forwarding biosolids permit 

information and notifications to SIUs.

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, at a cost of $36.47 

including mailing costs (a large envelope, see Table 4-12). Given these assumptions, the total cost 

of forwarding biosolids permit information is $15,000 per year for states that are authorized for 

the NPDES program, but not the biosolids program.

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. The analysis assumes a single annual notice, in which 75% percent of 

SIUs are contacted via email and 25% are contacted by mailed letter. It assumes that the email 

notifications require 8 hours of clerical time total for each authorized program. It assumes that 

each individual letter requires 0.1 hours of clerical time, for a cost of $3.89 including mailing 

costs (see Table 4-12). Given these assumptions, the total cost of SIU notifications is $10,000 per 

year for authorized states and $4,100 per year for EPA regions.

4.4.4 National Non-Compliance Report

One reason EPA is moving forward with the rule is to improve reporting on the efforts and 

efficacy of the NDPES program to the public and Congress. EPA will use the programmatic

information from authorized NPDES programs to develop a National Non-Compliance Report 

that will replace the Annual and Quarterly Non-Compliance Reports and the Semi-Annual 

Statistical Summary. The National Non-Compliance Report will require 36 hours of EPA 

technical time and 4 hours of managerial time, for an annual cost of $2,300.

4.4.5 Total Annual Processing, Submission and Data Entry Costs of Using the 

Updated System

This section outlines the cost of the rule after the implementation period. All IT modification 

costs have been accounted for and all regulated entities have completed their registration and 

training requirements. The costs shown in Table 4-10 include the cost of operating, maintaining, 

and supporting the updated system, the recurring data entry cost incurred by authorized NPDES 

programs due to the programmatic data elements (the shift from WENDB to Appendix A and to 

having to enter information for nonmajor regulated entities), and the cost of other ongoing 

activities. There are no net ongoing data entry costs to regulated entities, but some entities bear an 

ongoing cost associated with password resets. Data entry and processing savings due to electronic 
4-17 14 September 2015

reporting are discussed in the Section 4.4.7. As shown in Table 4-10, the annual (undiscounted) 

data entry and operating costs of the updated system are $20.3 million.

Table 4-10: Annual Cost of Data Entry and Operations for the Updated System after 

Implementation

Rule Components EPA HQ EPA

Regions States Regulated Entities Total

Electronic Reporting Operation, 

Maintenance, and Support $955,000 $14,551,000 $15,506,000 

Required Programmatic Data Entry $30,000 $3,857,000 $3,887,000 

Other Administrative Activitiesa$500 $4,100 $47,000 $852,000 $903,600 

National Non-Compliance Report $2,300 $2,300 

Total for All Components $958,000 $34,000 $18,455,000 $852,000 $20,299,000 

a

Includes biosolids permit data forwarding, SIU notifications, waiver criteria renewal (every five years), and password 

resets.

4.4.6 Total Costs of the Final Rule

Table 4-11 shows the initial cost of rule implementation. The (undiscounted) cost to regulated 

entities is $22.4 million, and costs to EPA and state authorized NPDES programs to implement 

electronic reporting are $11.4 million and $44.0 million, respectively. These costs do not include 

the annual ongoing costs that continue after full implementation, shown in Table 4-10. While 

many of the costs shown in Table 4-11 are incurred within the first year after the effective date of 

the rule, they including certain recurring or ongoing activities that should cease once full 

implementation is achieved (e.g., dual reporting, re-registration). Section 4.5 provides further 

details regarding assumptions about implementation timing and the impact of timing and discount

rates on return on investment.

Table 4-11: Total Initial Implementation Costs of the Rule

Rule Components EPA HQ EPA

Regions States Regulated Entities Total

Reporting Tool Implementation $9,703,000 $37,650,000 $47,353,000

Other Administrative Activitiesa$1,308,000 $67,500 $2,469,000 $3,844,500

Registrationb$21,978,000 $21,978,000

Initial Data Entry/Reporting During 

Transition $336,000 $3,912,000 $464,000 $4,712,000

Total for All Components $11,011,000 $404,000 $44,031,000 $22,442,000 $77,888,000

a See Table 4-5

b

Includes re-registration, assuming EPA would take over initial recipient status in two average-sized states under 40 

CFR 127.27(d).

4.4.7 Submission and Processing Savings from Electronic Reporting

Regulated Entity Submission Savings

Once regulated entities establish their electronic accounts, they will experience savings due to the 

fact that they no longer have to mail their DMRs or program reports to the authorized NPDES 

program. Table 4-12 lists the components of mailing costs for regulated entities. Because the 

electronic reporting tools will include the ability to check for certain types of errors, the regulated 

entities will also see savings related to improved data quality and less need to revise and reenter 

their submissions. However, savings to regulated entities associated with improved data quality 

are not quantified in this analysis.
4-18 14 September 2015

Table 4-12: 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)

Specifically, regulated entities submitting program reports electronically will save on paper and 

postage. According to EPA program experts, the most expensive program reports, pretreatment 

program reports, average 100 pages. Electronic submission of pretreatment program reports, 

therefore, will save regulated entities $6.95 per report. The analysis assumes that all other

program reports average 1.5 pages, and require one standard size envelope and postage.

Electronic submission of other program reports, therefore, will save regulated entities $0.55 per 

report. The total annual savings for all regulated entities submitting program reports 

electronically is approximately $60,000.

DMR submission savings are similar to program report savings except that the frequency of DMR 

submission is higher than that of program reports. 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 (see 

Section 4.6 for further discussion of the impact of the number of DMR forms). 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 

Section 2, DMR submission rates vary from annual to monthly according to the subprogram and 

permit type.

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. Taking these factors into account, the total annual regulated entity savings from 

electronic DMR submission is $862,000 for general permit regulated entities and $533,000 for 

individual permit regulated entities, totaling $1,395,000 per year. 

Authorized NPDES Program Processing Savings

Electronic submission will also create savings for authorized NPDES programs by eliminating the 

cost of processing incoming DMRs and program reports, mailing out pre-populated DMRs and by 

reducing data entry. 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 
4-19 14 September 2015

state or EPA data system, and usually store them in a physical filing system. Excluding data 

entry, which is addressed in the next section, this process is estimated to take a data entry clerk 20 

minutes per DMR form and 7.5 minutes per program report.51 Following rule implementation, 

those processing activities will be automated. As a result, authorized NPDES programs will save 

$4.18 for every program report received electronically. They will save $11.14 for every DMR 

form, or $11.14 to $44.56 per DMR submission after accounting for assumptions about the 

number of DMR forms per submission (see Section 4.6 for further discussion of the impact of the 

number of DMR forms). The total savings from electronic processing of DMRs and program 

reports is $21.2 million and $1.9 million for authorized NPDES programs and EPA, respectively.

EPA Regions and state authorized NPDES programs will also experience savings by no longer 

sending pre-populated DMR forms to regulated entities. Currently, EPA Regions and 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 4-13 details the per permit savings from eliminating the preparation and mailing of 

pre-populated DMR forms. 

Table 4-13: 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

Finally, authorized NPDES programs will have reduced data entry requirements for DMRs and 

program reports due to the rule. As noted above, the authorized NPDES program enters 

information from the paper NOIs, DMRs, and program reports into the system. Following 

implementation of the rule, authorized NPDES programs will receive electronic NOIs, DMRs, 

and program reports from the regulated entities, eliminating the need for data entry. The annual 

savings is $23.5 million dollars and $446,000 for authorized NPDES programs and EPA, 

respectively. Much of these savings result from elimination of data entry associated with DMRs

and incorporate assumptions discussed above about the number of DMR forms per submission 

(see Section 4.6 for further discussion of the impact of the number of DMR forms).

Total Annual Savings after Full Implementation

Table 4-14 shows the aggregated annual savings estimated for regulated entities, states, and EPA 

Regions at full implementation.

52 Regulated entities will save $1.5 million dollars due to 

eliminating paper and mailing costs for DMRs and program reports. State authorized NPDES 

programs will save $23.5 million dollars on data entry and $21.2 million dollars on DMR and 

program report processing. EPA Regions will save $446,000 on data entry and $1.9 million on 

DMR and program report processing. Annual savings associated with eliminating the Annual 

Non-Compliance Report and Quarterly Non-Compliance Reports as well as the Semi-Annual 

 

51 Estimates provided by EPA Office of Compliance.

52 Due to the complexity of the NPDES program, the total annual savings are not the sum of the unit 

savings multiplied by the total universe. Confounding elements include but are not limited to permit 

universe overlap, varying reporting requirements based on the permit type, number of DMR forms per 

submission, and the frequency of reporting. Supporting spreadsheets provide details on how these costs are 

aggregated. 
4-20 14 September 2015

Statistical Summary (SASS) for state authorized NPDES programs and EPA are $872,000 and 

$97,000, respectively. Across all changes called for in the final rule, annual savings total $2.5 

million for EPA, $45.6 million for states, and $1.5 million for regulated entities with a total 

annual savings of $49.5 million (undiscounted).

Table 4-14: Total Annual Savings under Final Rule

Type of Savings EPA States Regulated Entities Total

Data Entry Savings $446,000 $23,515,000 $0 $23,961,000

Processing Savings $1,920,000 $21,243,000 $1,454,000 $24,617,000

Eliminating the ANCR, 

QNCR, and SASS $97,000 $872,000 $0 $969,000

Total $2,463,000 $45,630,000 $1,454,000 $49,547,000

EPA understands that there are barriers that states face to fully implementing electronic reporting 

for ICIS-NPDES requirements as well as other e-government initiatives. These barriers include

technological and economic barriers such as high investment and maintenance costs and 

institutional and political barriers such as lack of legal bases, trust, and transparency (Savoldelli et 

al, 2014). As such, this rule helps to ameliorate such barriers and provide the framework by 

which States can move forward to realize the substantial benefits associated with e-reporting.

4.5 Summary: Implementation and Return on Investment

This section presents EPA’s planned phase in approach and return on investment. 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 4-15 provides complete details on the 

timing of these and other activities supporting rule implementation.

The analysis 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 costs are incurred at the start of the 

implementation period, the analysis below does not discount these costs and, therefore, may 

overestimate their present value, resulting in a lower estimate of total net savings. 
4-21 14 September 2015

Table 4-15: Rule Implementation Timing

Timing

(beyond 

effective 

date of the 

rule)

State Activities EPA Activities Regulated Entity Activities

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

Years 1 

through 4

 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)

Within 2 

Years  Change Statutes

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.

b

The analysis conservatively assumes the cost of all electronic tool development occurs within 1 year. 

c

The analysis conservatively assumes all initial registration costs occur within 1 year.

To estimate the discounted value of future costs, EPA guidance states that discount rates of 3% 

and 7% should be used for economic analyses. Table 4-16 and Table 4-17 show the flow of 

savings and costs over time using each discount rate. As can be seen in Table 4-16 and Table 

4-17, the annual savings exceed annual costs during the first year of electronic reporting (Year 1), 

with cumulative savings exceeding cumulative costs in the fourth year of electronic reporting 

(Year 4), under both the 3% and 7% discount rates.
4-22 14 September 2015

As shown in Table 4-16, when using a 3% discount rate, the total annual savings at full 

implementation (five years after the effective date of the rule) is $41.9 million dollars and total 

annual cost is $17.6 million dollars, yielding a net annual savings of approximately $24.3 million. 

The net savings over ten years is $156 million dollars.

As shown in Table 4-17, when using a 7% discount rate, the total annual savings at full 

implementation is estimated at $34.6 million, the total annual cost of the rule is $14.5 million, 

yielding a net annual savings of approximately $20.1 million. The net savings over ten years is 

$114 million dollars.

Appendix D breaks out the costs and cost savings in more detail, showing how they accrue to 

approved NPDES programs, regulated entities, and EPA.
4-23 14 September 2015

Table 4-16: Schedule of Savings and Costs (3% Discount Rate)

Year1 Annual Costs Annual Savings Annual Net Savings Cumulative Total Costs 

Cumulative Total 

Savings 

Cumulative Net 

Savings 

0 $ 74,390,000 $ - $ (74,390,000) $ 74,390,000 $ - $ (74,390,000)

1 $ 20,130,000 $ 44,020,000 $ 23,890,000 $ 94,520,000 $ 44,020,000 $ (50,500,000)

2 $ 19,730,000 $ 42,770,000 $ 23,040,000 $ 114,240,000 $ 86,790,000 $ (27,450,000)

3 $ 19,230,000 $ 41,560,000 $ 22,330,000 $ 133,470,000 $ 128,350,000 $ (5,120,000)

4 $ 18,200,000 $ 40,380,000 $ 22,180,000 $ 151,670,000 $ 168,740,000 $ 17,070,000 

5 $ 17,590,000 $ 41,900,000 $ 24,310,000 $ 169,260,000 $ 210,640,000 $ 41,380,000 

6 $ 17,510,000 $ 41,500,000 $ 23,990,000 $ 186,760,000 $ 252,130,000 $ 65,370,000 

7 $ 16,590,000 $ 40,290,000 $ 23,700,000 $ 203,350,000 $ 292,420,000 $ 89,070,000 

8 $ 16,330,000 $ 39,110,000 $ 22,780,000 $ 219,680,000 $ 331,530,000 $ 111,850,000 

9 $ 15,540,000 $ 37,970,000 $ 22,430,000 $ 235,230,000 $ 369,510,000 $ 134,280,000 

10 $ 15,170,000 $ 36,870,000 $ 21,700,000 $ 250,400,000 $ 406,380,000 $ 155,980,000 

Note that numbers in table have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

1. Years after the effective date of the rule.

Table 4-17: Schedule of Savings and Costs (7% Discount Rate)

Year1 Annual Costs Annual Savings Annual Net Savings Cumulative Total Costs 

Cumulative Total 

Savings 

Cumulative Net 

Savings 

0 $ 74,390,000 $ - $ (74,390,000) $ 74,390,000 $ - $ (74,390,000)

1 $ 19,380,000 $ 42,370,000 $ 22,990,000 $ 93,770,000 $ 42,370,000 $ (51,390,000)

2 $ 18,280,000 $ 39,630,000 $ 21,350,000 $ 112,040,000 $ 82,010,000 $ (30,040,000)

3 $ 17,150,000 $ 37,070,000 $ 19,920,000 $ 129,190,000 $ 119,080,000 $ (10,110,000)

4 $ 15,630,000 $ 34,670,000 $ 19,040,000 $ 144,820,000 $ 153,750,000 $ 8,940,000 

5 $ 14,540,000 $ 34,640,000 $ 20,100,000 $ 159,360,000 $ 188,390,000 $ 29,030,000 

6 $ 13,930,000 $ 33,020,000 $ 19,090,000 $ 173,280,000 $ 221,410,000 $ 48,120,000 

7 $ 12,710,000 $ 30,860,000 $ 18,150,000 $ 185,990,000 $ 252,260,000 $ 66,270,000 

8 $ 12,040,000 $ 28,840,000 $ 16,800,000 $ 198,030,000 $ 281,100,000 $ 83,070,000 

9 $ 11,030,000 $ 26,950,000 $ 15,920,000 $ 209,060,000 $ 308,050,000 $ 98,990,000 

10 $ 10,370,000 $ 25,190,000 $ 14,820,000 $ 219,430,000 $ 333,240,000 $ 113,810,000 

Note that numbers in table have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

1. Years after the effective date of the rule.
4-24 14 September 2015

Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-2 show the return on investment over a ten year period using 3% and 7%

discount rates, respectively. Dollar values are reported on the y-axis and the number of years after 

the effective date of the rule on the x-axis. Annual costs are represented as red bars and annual 

savings as blue bars. The cumulative savings/costs are the sum of current and all prior year 

savings/costs. As shown on both graphs, the cumulative savings begin to outweigh the cumulative 

costs during the fourth year of electronic reporting. Using a 3% discount rate, the return on 

investment over the ten year period is 62%. Using a 7% discount rate, the return on investment 

over the same period is 52%.

Figure 4-2: Electronic Reporting Savings/Costs Analysis – 3% Discount Rate
4-25 14 September 2015

Figure 4-3: Electronic Reporting Savings/Costs Analysis – 7% Discount Rate
4-26 14 September 2015

4.6 Changes from Proposed Rule Estimates and Sensitivity to Number of 

DMR Forms

Table 4-18 compares the costs and cost savings estimated in this analysis to corresponding values 

in the economic analysis for the proposed rule. The estimates of both initial implementation costs 

and ongoing annual costs have increased. At the same time, the estimates of ongoing annual 

savings have also increased. The result is a decrease in net savings at full implementation to 

authorized NPDES programs and regulated entities. Estimated cumulative net savings over ten 

years have also decreased. Annual and cumulative net savings, however, remain positive.

Table 4-18: Changes in Costs and Cost Savings from Proposed Rule

Cost/Cost Savings Proposed Rule 

Economic Analysis

Final Rule 

Economic Analysis

Percent 

Change

Undiscounted Initial Implementation Costs

Reporting Tool Implementation $11,062,000 $47,353,000 328.1%

Other Administrative Activities $989,000 $3,844,500 288.7%

Registration $16,524,500 $21,978,000 33.0%

Initial Data Entry/Reporting During Transition $15,878,000 $4,712,000 -70.3%

Total Initial Implementation Cost $44,453,500 $77,888,000 75.2%

Undiscounted Ongoing Annual Costs

Electronic Reporting Operation, Maintenance, and 

Support $925,000 $15,506,000 1576.3%

Required Programmatic Data Entry $2,376,000 $3,887,000 63.6%

Other Administrative Activities $0 $903,600 n/a

National Non-Compliance Report $2,200 $2,300 4.5%

Total Ongoing Annual Cost $3,303,200 $20,299,000 514.5%

Undiscounted Ongoing Annual Savings

Data Entry Savings $20,104,000 $23,961,000 19.2%

Processing Savings $15,695,000 $24,617,000 56.8%

Eliminating the ANCR, QNCR, and SASS $861,000 $969,000 12.5%

Total Ongoing Annual Savings $36,660,000 $49,547,000 35.2%

Net Savings at Full Implementation (3% Discount Rate)

Authorized NPDES Programs $28,700,000 $22,600,000 -21.3%

Regulated Entities $1,200,000 $500,000 -58.3%

EPA Regions $500,000 $2,000,000 300.0%

EPA Headquarters -$800,000 -$800,000 0.0%

10 Year Net Savings

3% Discount Rate $220,330,000 $155,980,000 -29.2%

7% Discount Rate $172,360,000 $113,810,000 -34.0%

The changes in estimated costs and cost savings result from changes in the rule provisions from 

proposed to final, as well as changes in the underlying data and assumptions used in the economic 

analysis. The most significant of these changes are as follows:

 Revisions to the estimated cost of EPA reporting tool implementation: the final rule 

economic analysis uses the most recent estimates from EPA’s Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, Data Systems and Information Management Branch. These 

estimates reflect the latest understanding of the cost to EPA of the required electronic 

reporting system enhancements. In particular, although the number of data elements to be 

added has decreased since the proposed rule (see below), the estimated total cost to add 

data elements to EPA’s database has increased. Because the analysis applies the same 

EPA database expansion cost to state database expansion, this change results in an 

increase in estimated initial implementation costs for states, as well as EPA. 

 Additional activities supporting rule implementation: the final rule provides for a number 

of activities in support of initial implementation that were not considered in the economic 
4-27 14 September 2015

analysis for the proposed rule, including preparation of state implementation plans, 

waiver criteria, initial recipient decisions, memoranda of agreement updates and EPA 

oversight activities. These activities (identified as “Other Administrative Activities” 

above) increase the estimated initial implementation cost. 

 Reduction in the potential for dual electronic/paper reporting during transition: the 

proposed rule required regulated entities in states with authorized NPDES program but no 

electronic reporting system to report electronically to EPA during the rule 

implementation period, in addition to their current paper reporting to the state. The final 

rule requires electronic reporting to states, rather than EPA, and reduces the 

circumstances under which dual reporting is likely to occur (see Section 3.3). This 

change to the dual reporting scenario reduces the initial implementation cost.

 Changes to the phase-in schedule: the final rule provides an additional three years for 

Phase 2 data collection. Under the final rule, full implementation does not occur until five 

years after the effective date versus two years under the proposed rule. When discount 

rates are applied, this change reduces net savings. It also means that dual reporting during 

the transition period continues for a longer timeframe (although this latter impact is more 

than offset by the change to the dual reporting scenario discussed above). 

 Reduction in the number of required data elements: since the proposed rule, EPA has 

streamlined the number of data elements required by Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 and 

determined that a larger number of data elements can be pre-populated or system 

generated. This change reduces ongoing data entry costs.

 Inclusion of password reset costs: as discussed in Section 3.4.1, regulated entities that use 

EPA (but not state) electronic tools and report less frequently than every 90 days would 

bear a recurring cost to reset their passwords. Inclusion of this cost reduces the net 

savings to regulated entities, with the majority of the impact resulting from password 

resets by general permit covered industrial stormwater facilities. The analysis assumes all

general permit covered industrial stormwater facilities will require password reset three 

times per year, which is likely an overestimate as not all of these facilities are required to 

submit that frequently.

 Inclusion of the full cost of electronic tool implementation by states: the economic 

analysis for the proposed rule assumed that some development of state electronic 

reporting systems would occur in the absence of the rule. Therefore, it attributed only 

80% of the cost of state electronic tool implementation to the rule. To be conservative, 

the final rule economic analysis incorporates the full cost of state electronic tool 

implementation. This change increases the initial implementation costs.

 Inclusion of ongoing maintenance and support costs for states: as discussed in Section 

4.3.2, the economic analysis for the final rule includes costs for authorized NPDES 

programs to manage data transfer to EPA and provide ongoing training and support to 

regulated entities. These costs are based on comments received from state regulatory 

agencies on the proposed rule. The economic analysis for the proposed rule did not 

include these costs. This change results in an increase in ongoing annual costs to states, 

with a corresponding decrease in annual net savings.

 Incorporation of multiple DMR forms per submission: the economic analysis for the 

proposed rule assumed one DMR form per DMR submission. This assumption was very 
4-28 14 September 2015

conservative because all facilities that submit DMRs submit at least one form and many 

facilities have multiple outfalls, entailing multiple DMR forms. The economic analysis 

for the final rule assumes four DMR forms per submission for major individual permits, 

two for nonmajor individual permits, and one for general permits. This assumption is still 

conservative (as discussed below), but results in a relatively large increase in ongoing 

data entry and processing cost savings. It also increases the cost of dual reporting during 

transition (although the latter impact is more than offset by the change to the dual 

reporting scenario discussed above). See below for further discussion of the assumption 

about the number of DMR forms per submission.

Other, less significant changes to the analysis since the proposed rule include the following:

 Escalating costs to 2014 (instead of 2012) dollars;

 Updating reporting frequencies to use the most recent data;

 Updating the permit universe to use the most recent data;

 Including additional categories of regulated entities (e.g., individually permitted 

industrial and construction stormwater facilities, entities covered under EPA’s Vessels 

General Permit and Pesticides General Permit);

 Incorporating an ongoing percentage of facilities receiving temporary or permanent 

waivers from electronic reporting (see Section 4.1);

 Adding the cost for states to convert their electronic reporting system latitude and 

longitude to the newer, modern WGS84 coordinate system (see Section 4.3.1); 

 Accounting for additional data entry associated with minor changes at permitted facilities

(e.g., change in owner or operator name);

 Accounting for SEV reporting for nonmajor facilities;

 Accounting for electronic submission of CWA §316(b) annual reports;

 Accounting for electronic submission of pretreatment program reports from states and 

regions, in addition to pretreatment program reports from approved POTWs (see Section 

2.11.2); 

 Accounting for the cost of forwarding biosolids/sewage sludge permit information and 

making notifications to SIUs (see Section 4.4.3);

 Accounting for the option for construction stormwater general permit operators to report 

using a hybrid of electronic and paper reporting (see Section 4.4.1); 

 Accounting for acquisition of a new business email address by some small entities (see 

Section 3.4.1); and

 Moving the biosolids/sewage sludge annual report to Phase 1 for facilities in states where 

EPA is the authorized biosolids program.

Number of DMR Forms per Submission

Due to the high submission frequency, DMRs account for the majority of ongoing data entry and 

processing cost savings. The quantity of DMR data submitted, and therefore the data entry 

savings to authorized NPDES programs, is directly proportional to the number of DMR forms. A 

portion of processing savings (specifically, printing costs and time for authorized NPDES 

program to process paper forms) is also directly proportional to the number of DMR forms. 

Therefore, the estimate of ongoing costs savings due to electronic reporting is highly sensitive to 

the number of DMR forms per submission. 

As discussed above, all facilities that submit DMRs submit at least one form and many facilities 

have multiple outfalls, entailing multiple DMR forms. Based on data available in ICIS-NPDES, 

the average number of DMR forms per submission is six for major permits and three for minor 
4-29 14 September 2015

permits. To be conservative, and because the facilities currently in ICIS-NPDES could be above 

average in terms of monitoring requirements, the analysis assumed lower estimates: four DMR 

forms per submission for major individual permits and two for nonmajor individual permits. 

Because data for nonmajor general permits are limited, the analysis uses only one form per 

submission for these facilities. 

The following alternate results illustrate the impact of these assumptions regarding DMR forms 

per submission. If the analysis used the strict averages based on data available in ICIS-NPDES 

(six forms per submission for major individual permits and two for nonmajor individual permit, 

retaining one form per submission for nonmajor general permits), the results would be as follows:

 Undiscounted ongoing annual savings would be $54.8 million, an increase of 11% from 

the current estimate;

 Net savings to authorized NPDES programs at full implementation (assuming a 3% 

discount rate) would be $26.8 million, an increase of 19% from the current estimate; and

 Ten year net savings (assuming a 3% discount rate) would be $200.6 million, an increase 

of 29% from the current estimate.

If the analysis used one form per submission regardless of permit type (as in the economic 

analysis for the proposed rule), the results would be as follows:

 Undiscounted ongoing annual savings would be $33.8 million, a decrease of 32% from 

the current estimate and a decrease of 8% from the estimate in the economic analysis for 

the proposed rule;

 Net savings to authorized NPDES programs at full implementation (assuming a 3% 

discount rate) would be $9.5 million, a decrease of 58% from the current estimate and a 

decrease of 67% from the estimate in the economic analysis for the proposed rule; and

 Ten year net savings (assuming a 3% discount rate) would be $20.7 million, a decrease of 

87% from the current estimate and a decrease of 91% from the estimate in the economic 

analysis for the proposed rule.
4-30 14 September 2015

References

Savoldelli, Alberto, Codagnone, C. and Misuraca, G. Understanding the E-Government 

Paradox: Learning from Literature and Practice on Barriers to Adoption, Government 

Information Quarterly 31, 2014, S63-S71.
5-1 14 September 2015

Section 5. – Small Entity Analysis

5.1 Introduction

This section addresses the potential impacts of the final rule on small entities, which are limited 

by definition to NPDES regulated entities.

53 As described in previous sections, affected regulated 

entities will experience both savings and costs due to the rule. Specifically, they will incur costs 

to register with CDX or a similar data portal in order to transmit required data directly to ICISNPDES and establish an electronic signature agreement in order to use the data portal. 

Additionally, some regulated entities will incur costs to: 1) participate in training on how to 

electronically report DMRs; 2) acquire a new, business email address; 3) intermittently reset their 

CDX password; and/or 4) report both electronically and on paper during the rule transition 

period. Following rule implementation, regulated entities will realize savings through eliminating

mailing paper documents, such as DMRs and other required reports, to the authorized NPDES 

program. Because the electronic reporting tools will include the ability to check for certain types 

of errors, the regulated entities will also experience savings related to improved data quality and 

less need to revise and reenter their submissions. However, savings to regulated entities 

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

The small entity analysis considers the extent to which the total costs associated with the final

rule represent a disproportionate burden on small entities. Section 5.2 outlines the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) requirement for undertaking this analysis. Section 5.3 discusses the 

definitions of small entities used in this analysis. Section 5.4 describes the general methodology 

used to determine if the final rule results in significant economic impacts to a substantial number 

of small entities. Sections 5.5 through 5.8 calculate these impacts for different categories of 

NPDES regulated entities. Section 5.9 summarizes the results of the small entity analysis. 

5.2 Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq.) requires Federal agencies 

to assess the effects of regulations on small entities (including businesses, nonprofit agencies, and 

governments), and, in some instances, to examine alternatives to the regulations that may reduce 

adverse economic effects on significantly impacted small entities. Section 604 of the RFA, as 

amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 

requires an agency to perform an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule unless 

the Agency certifies under section 605(b) that the regulatory action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA does not specifically define 

“a significant economic impact on a substantial number” of small entities.

5.3 Definitions of Small Entities

The RFA uses the definition of “small business” found in the Small Business Act, which 

authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by regulation.

 

53 While the final rule results in costs for regulated entities, states, and EPA, the small entity analysis 

addresses regulated entities only. By definition, states and EPA do not qualify as small entities. See section 

5.3 for the definition of small entities.
5-2 14 September 2015

SBA's definitions of “small business” vary by industry. This analysis uses the SBA’s definitions

of small businesses for each industry which will likely be affected by the final rule.

54

To establish what constitutes a small business, SBA considers a number of economic and market 

characteristics that may allow a business of concern to exercise dominance in an industry. Size 

standards are based on criteria such as annual receipts or number of employees that represent a 

measure of these characteristics. These standards represent the largest size that a for-profit 

enterprise (together with its affiliates) may be and still qualify as a small business. In this 

analysis, the enterprise, together with its affiliates corresponds to the highest level domestic 

company in an individual entity’s corporate hierarchy, otherwise known as parent company. 

The SBA small business size standards are expansive, classifying most businesses as “small.” For 

example, the default SBA size standard for manufacturing industries is 500 employees.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 252,737 of 256,363 

manufacturing firms have fewer than 500 employees (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). Therefore, at 

least 98.6% of manufacturing firms are classified as small businesses according to the SBA 

definition.

The RFA defines “small governmental jurisdictions” as governments of cities, counties, towns, 

school districts, or special districts with a population of fewer than 50,000 people. Many small 

governmental jurisdictions operate publicly-owned treatments works (POTWs), which would be 

impacted by the requirements of the final rule. The POTW’s “parent” is typically considered to be 

the municipality operating the POTW. In this analysis, both small businesses and small 

government jurisdictions are referred to as small entities and the highest level of ownership is 

referred to as the parent entity.

5.4 Methodology Overview

As mentioned above, the RFA considers whether a rule will have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities. This analysis uses annual cost impact percentages to 

measure potential impacts on small entities. The cost impact percentage is defined as annual 

compliance costs resulting from the rule as a percentage of annual revenues or sales. For the 

purposes of determining small entity impacts, comparing annual compliance costs to annual 

revenue provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden relative to a 

commonly available and objective measure of a parent entity’s income. Where regulatory costs 

are less than 1% of a typical parent entity’s revenue the impacts of the regulation are likely to be 

minimal.

The compliance costs associated with the final rule include the one-time costs of registering with 

the Central Data Exchange (CDX), submitting an electronic signature agreement (ESA), training 

of staff to electronically report DMRs, and obtaining a new, business email address.

55

Additionally, compliance costs include resetting passwords and reporting both electronically and 

on paper during the rule transition period. Table 5-1 summarizes these costs. The specific costs a 

facility incurs will vary depending on the applicable permit requirements and type of permit 

under which a facility is covered. 

 

54 SBA's size standards can be found at: 

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf

55 The registration cost would recur if EPA must take over initial recipient status in a given state under 40 

CFR 127.27(d). The small entity analysis includes a recurrence of the registration cost to account for this 

possibility. 
5-3 14 September 2015

Table 5-1: Compliance Costs Incurred under the Rule

Compliance Cost Type Cost

CDX Registration $43.17 

Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA) $13.88 

Web Training for Electronically Reporting DMRs $0 - $220.18 

New Email Address $0 - $37.06 

Password Reset (per year) $0 - $6.48 

Electronic reporting during transition (per year) $0 - $85.72

The final rule affects thousands of industry sectors (i.e., NAICS codes) including industrial, 

agricultural, commercial, and service sectors as well as local governments. The compliance 

activities and costs will vary among sectors depending on the permit requirements of individual 

facilities. It was not possible to conduct a detailed analysis for each sector individually. As a 

result, certain simplifying assumptions were made in the analysis of all sectors. For example,

because EPA does not have information on each regulated entity, it was conservatively assumed 

that all facilities would incur the highest possible estimated compliance cost. A distinction is 

made, however, between POTWs and non-POTWs because POTWs can bear higher reporting 

costs because they can be subject to multiple subprograms. While regulated entities are also 

expected to incur savings under the rule from no longer mailing paper DMRs and program 

reports, these savings vary by subprogram and permit type (as opposed to by sector) and are small 

compared to the costs. Therefore, no savings were accounted for in the small entity analysis, 

although some regulated entities will likely receive some savings.

The per-facility compliance costs were annualized over ten years at 3% and 7% discount rates. 

This analysis estimates cost impact ratios in 2014 dollars and assumes the relationship between 

compliance costs and annual revenue in 2014 will be the same in future years. The annualized 

per-facility costs for each discount rate are presented in Table 5-2. 

Table 5-2: Annualized Compliance Costs Incurred Under 

the Rule

Permit Type

Total Annualized Compliance Cost

3% Discount 

Rate 7% Discount Rate

POTWs $103.94 $120.01 

Non-POTWs $91.74 $105.66 

This small entity analysis considers facilities in all of the industry sectors included in the NPDES 

permit universe. Based on querying EPA’s Facility Registry System (FRS) for the 6-digit NAICS 

codes of NPDES facilities, a total of 1,109 sectors were identified (U.S. EPA, 2010a).

56 The 

Online Tracking and Information System (OTIS), which has subsequently been replaced by 

Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), was then queried to count the number of 

facilities in ICIS-NPDES and PCS in each of these NAICS codes. 

Employment and revenue data (necessary for the small entity analysis) available for each of these 

sectors varies; but fall into the general categories presented in Table 5-3 below. The categories 

were developed based on the small business definition and data sources used. Sector Category #1 

includes all NAICS codes for which employment and revenue data are readily available from the 

U.S. Census Statistics of U.S Businesses - the applicable small business threshold is based on 

either revenue or employment. Sector Category #2 includes municipalities - the small business 

 

56 FRS was also queried for SIC codes of NPDES facilities. SIC codes were converted to their 

corresponding NAICS codes based on the U.S. Census concordances file. Where a SIC code corresponded 

to more than one NAICS code, all applicable NAICS codes were included. 
5-4 14 September 2015

threshold is defined in terms of population. Data from the U.S. Census of Governments were used 

to identify revenue. Sector Category #3 includes utilities - the definition of what constitutes a 

small business is based on the amount of electricity generated. Data from the Energy Information 

Administration and annual electricity prices were used to estimate small entity impacts. 

Agricultural sectors, for which U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Census of Agriculture data are 

used, are grouped together in Sector Category #4. Finally, Sector Category #5 includes 

miscellaneous sectors for which it was not possible to identify a source of revenue and 

employment data. Note that facilities falling into Sector Category #5 were not considered in this 

analysis because employment and revenue data are not readily available. However, these sectors, 

which include financial institutions, public administration (excluding municipalities), and 

telecommunications, contain very few NPDES regulated entities.

57

Table 5-3: Categorizing Sectors Affected by the Rule

Sector

Category

#

Category Description

# NAICS 

Codes in 

Category

# Facilities 

in Category

1 Sectors covered by U.S. Census dataa1,012 116,959

2 Municipalities operating POTWs 1 17,412

3

Utility sectors with small business definitions based on electricity 

generation 6 1,038

4 Agricultural sectors not covered by U.S. Census data 42 12,061

5

Miscellaneous Sectors with no usable data in U.S. Census (e.g., nonutility non-agricultural sectors with no data available from U.S. Census) 48 3,311

n/a Facilities with no industry sector identified in OTIS/ECHObn/a 13,312

Total Number of NPDES Sectors 1,109 164,093

a See Table 5-4 for more information about the types of industries included in Sector Category 1.

b See further discussion in Section 5.5.1.

For each Sector Category listed in Table 5-3, different data sources were used to estimate relevant 

economic sizes, and then the impacts of the final rule on small entities. Although the data sources 

varied, the general methodology used to estimate the impacts on small entities across all sectors 

consisted of the following steps:

Step 1: Identify the universe of affected NPDES facilities.

Step 2: Characterize the relationships between facilities and their parents in the 

affected universe.

Step 3: Estimate annual revenue of parent entities in the affected universe.

Step 4: Identify small parent entities based on SBA definitions (see Section 5.2).

Step 5: Develop parent entity annualized cost estimates, based on the number of 

facilities per parent estimated in Step 2.

Step 6: Calculate the parent entity cost impact ratio, defined as the annualized cost as 

a percentage of annual revenue, as a measure of regulatory burden. 

 

57 Information in PCS and ICIS-NPDES indicates that facilities in these sectors make up less than 2% of the 

active NPDES facility universe. Note, however, that this percentage includes some municipalities operating 

POTWs classified in public administration sectors, which are considered in Section 5.6. The percentage of 

facilities not covered by this analysis falls below 1% if public administration sectors are excluded from the 

count.
5-5 14 September 2015

Step 7: Estimate the number and percentage of small parent entities with parent-level 

impact percentages in each of three categories: (1) less than 1% of annual 

revenue; (2) between 1% and 3% of annual revenue; and (3) greater than or 

equal to 3% annual revenue.

The specific assumptions and calculations used to estimate impacts for each category of facilities 

are described in more detail in the sections that follow. Section 5.5 considers the impacts on small 

entities in sectors for which information is available from the 2007 U.S. Census Statistics of U.S. 

Businesses (SUSB).58 Section 5.6 estimates the impacts on small municipalities operating 

POTWs. Section 5.7 estimates the impacts of the rule on small parent entities operating electricity 

generation utility facilities. Section 5.8 characterizes the impacts on small parent entities in 

agricultural sectors. 

It should be noted that fewer facilities are considered in the small entity analysis (164,093 unique 

facilities) than were estimated in Section 2 (393,359 unique facilities). Ideally, EPA would 

identify the parent company of each facility potentially affected by the final rule, determine the 

small entity status (small or not-small) of the parent entity, estimate compliance costs for each 

small parent entity, and then compare compliance costs to each small parent entity’s annual 

revenue. However, due to the magnitude and diversity of facilities and sectors affected, this 

approach was not feasible. Because small entity status is based on industrial sector, the small 

entity analysis required data sources where industry sector (NAICS codes) of each facility could 

be identified. Although not a complete inventory of all potentially affected facilities, the universe 

of facilities in ICIS-NPDES and PCS at the time of the original analysis was used.

59 The 

assumption is made that facilities affected by the rule but not currently in ICIS-NPDES and PCS 

will experience small entity impacts similar to the facilities currently in ICIS-NPDES and PCS.

5.5 Census Sectors

The majority of NPDES sectors (1,012 of 1,109, or 91%) have revenue and employment data 

available from the U.S. Census Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2010c). The sectors with data available from SUSB are summarized in Table 5-4 below.

 

58 It was not possible to use the 2012 U.S. Census Statistics of U.S. Businesses as not all of the necessary 

data (receipts) are were available at the time of this analysis.

59 Not all facilities covered by Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) or industrial and 

construction stormwater permits are currently in ICIS-NPDES. It was assumed that, on a per facility basis, 

the estimated impacts on those facilities with information in ICIS-NPDES would be representative of the 

impacts on all regulated entities subject to the same subprogram.
5-6 14 September 2015

Table 5-4: Sectors with Information in SUSB

2-Digit 

NAICS NAICS Description # 6-Digit NAICS Codes

11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 13

21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 29

22 Utilities 3

23 Construction 31

31-33 Manufacturing 463

42 Wholesale Trade 64

44-45 Retail Trade 67

48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 54

51 Information 23

52 Finance and Insurance 24

53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 22

54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 38

55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 2

56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 37

61 Educational Services 15

62 Health Care and Social Service 39

71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 25

72 Accommodation and Food Services 15

81 Other Services (Except Public Administration) 48

Total Number of NPDES Sectors with Information in SUSB 1,012

The SUSB provides annual data for U.S. business establishments by geography, industry, and 

enterprise size, covering all business establishments with paid employees. The data provided 

annually includes counts of establishments, firms, employees, and total receipts. The data

available from the SUSB can therefore be used to identify the number of small parent entities 

affected under the rule, construct annual revenue, and calculate cost impact ratios.

A sector’s small business definition is based on either its annual revenue or the number of its 

employees, depending on the sector. The SUSB provides information tabulated by employment 

size or revenue size. For those sectors with revenue-based small business definitions, employment 

and revenue profiles were developed for each revenue size category. For sectors with 

employment-based small business definitions, profiles were developed for employment size 

categories. All tables and references in the sections below referring to revenue or employment 

size classes are mutually exclusive. 

In a small entity analysis, compliance costs are estimated at the parent entity level, which requires 

aggregation of regulated entity costs to the parent entity level. However, it was not possible to 

identify the regulated entity to parent entity relationship for all affected sectors in this analysis 

due to the large number of potentially affected regulated entities overall. The SUSB data provide 

counts of both establishments and firms. Census defines an establishment as a single physical 

location where business is conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed; 

this definition corresponds to a facility or NPDES regulated entity. Census defines a firm as a 

business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments in the same state and 

industry that are under common ownership or control. For the purposes of this analysis, it was 

assumed that a firm is equivalent to a parent entity. 

Note that the estimates in this section were derived based on census data available at the NAICScode level. Information from EPA data systems on individual NPDES facilities was used to 

construct the initial counts of NPDES permits by NAICS and SIC code. Thereafter, SUSB data 

were used to construct a distribution of NPDES facilities within the sector, which was then used 
5-7 14 September 2015

to calculate cost-impact ratios. The sections that follow discuss the method used to calculate the 

impacts on small parent entities, following the general method described in Section 5.4.

5.5.1 Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities

Information in ICIS-NPDES and PCS was used to characterize the universe of affected NPDES 

facilities by 6-digit NAICS code. Counts of active NPDES regulated entities associated with each 

NAICS code and SIC code (where no NAICS was available60) were obtained from EPA’s 

Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system via OTIS/ECHO (U.S. EPA, 2010b). 

The following rules (in order of application) were used in assigning NAICS codes to facilities:

 Where a NPDES facility was associated with both a valid NAICS code and a valid SIC 

code, the NAICS code was chosen.

 Where a NPDES facility was associated with more than one valid NAICS or SIC code, 

the first NAICS or SIC code listed in the facility record was chosen.

 If a NPDES facility had a blank or invalid NAICS or SIC code associated with its 

NPDES permit, but had a NAICS or SIC code associated with another permit program in 

the facility record, it was assigned the NAICS or SIC code from the other permit 

program.

 If a NPDES facility had a blank or invalid NAICS or SIC code associated with its 

NPDES permit, and did not have a valid NAICS or SIC code associated with another 

permit program, it was excluded from the analysis (applies to 13,312 facilities, 7% of the 

total number of facilities).61

 Where only a valid SIC code was available, the SIC code was mapped to its 

corresponding NAICS code based on the concordance file from U.S. Census.62

 Where an SIC code mapped to more than one NAICS code, the NAICS code with the 

largest number of facilities in ICIS-NPDES and PCS was used. 

 Where a SIC code mapped to more than one NAICS code, and the corresponding NAICS 

codes had an equal number of facilities in ICIS-NPDES and PCS, or all corresponding 

NAICS codes had zero facilities in ICIS-NPDES and PCS, if the corresponding NAICS 

codes were the same at the 4- or 5-digit level, the 4- or 5-digit NAICS code was used. 

Otherwise, the first NAICS code listed was used. 

Based on this method, 166,058 NPDES facilities were matched to 808 sectors. Note that the 

number of sectors is fewer than the 1,109 originally identified in Section 5.4 because: 1) only one 

NAICS code was mapped to each SIC code rather than all corresponding NAICS codes; and 2) 

only NPDES facilities active at the time of the original analysis were included in the counts by 

NAICS or SIC code. Note that impacts on facilities in NAICS codes corresponding to POTWs, 

utilities, and agriculture are discussed in Sections 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8, respectively, and are not 

included in the estimates presented in this section. Additionally, facilities in 48 non-agricultural 

non-utility NAICS codes for which information is not available from the SUSB are not 

considered in this analysis (see further discussion in Section 5.4). Facilities in these groups were 

excluded from the count of NPDES facilities, bringing the total to 116,959.

 

60 The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) has replaced the U.S. Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) system. However, for many NPDES facilities, only a SIC code is available in the 

facility record. 

61 Note that many of the 13,312 facilities with no applicable NAICS or SIC code appear to be general 

permits. The assumption is made that facilities affected by the rule with no industry sector identified in 

ICIS-NPDES or PCS will experience small entity impacts similar to the facilities currently in ICIS-NPDES 

and PCS.

62 Available at http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/concordances/2002_NAICS_to_1987_SIC.xls
5-8 14 September 2015

The total number of NPDES facilities in each SUSB employment or revenue size class 

(depending on the sector) was determined by multiplying the total NPDES facility count by the 

number of establishments in the particular revenue or employment size class and dividing by the 

total number of establishments in that NAICS/revenue or employment size class. The results are 

shown in Table 5-5 and Table 5-6 below.

Table 5-5: NPDES Facility 

Distribution by 

Employment Size Class

Employment Size 

Class

# NPDES 

Facilities

0-4 employees 15,350

5-9 employees 6,509

10-19 employees 5,759

20-99 employees 9,072

100-499 employees 5,480

500+ employees 13,755

Total 55,988

Note: Numbers may not sum due 

to rounding.

Table 5-6: NPDES Facility 

Distribution by Revenue Size 

Class

Revenue Size Class # NPDES 

Facilities

<100,000 7,739

100,000-499,999 17,373

500,000-999,999 8,343

1,000,000-2,499,999 8,697

2,500,000-4,999,999 4,380

5,000,000-7,499,999 1,841

7,500,000-9,999,999 1,018

10,000,000-14,999,999 1,180

15,000,000-19,999,999 743

20,000,000-24,999,999 507

25,000,000-29,999,999 335

30,000,000-34,999,999 300

35,000,000-39,999,999 259

40,000,000-44,999,999 267

45,000,000-49,999,999 200

50,000,000-74,999,999 629

75,000,000-99,999,999 414

100,000,000+ 6,551

Total 60,971

Note: Numbers may not sum due to 

rounding.

5.5.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

Compliance costs and impacts are estimated at the parent entity level, where a parent entity may 

own one or more facilities. Therefore, it was necessary to estimate the number of NPDES 

facilities per parent, which was done by dividing the number of establishments by the number of 

firms in the SUSB data for each NAICS/employment or revenue size class combination. The 

distribution of permits derived in Section 5.5.1 was then divided by this number to obtain a count 

of NPDES parent entities for each NAICS/revenue or employment size class combination. The 
5-9 14 September 2015

counts of parent entities and average number of facilities per parent are shown in Table 5-7 and 

Table 5-8 below.

Table 5-7: NPDES Parent Entity 

Distribution by Employment Size 

Class

Employment Size 

Class

# NPDES 

Parent 

Entities

Average # 

Facilities 

per Parent

0-4 employees 15,334 1

5-9 employees 6,471 1.01

10-19 employees 5,607 1.03

20-99 employees 7,830 1.16

100-499 employees 2,988 1.83

500+ employees 2,598 5.29

Total 40,828 1.37

Table 5-8: NPDES Parent Entity 

Distribution by Revenue Size Class

Revenue Size Class

# NPDES 

Parent 

Entities

Average # 

Facilities per 

Parent

<100,000 7,735 1

100,000-499,999 17,353 1

500,000-999,999 8,316 1

1,000,000-2,499,999 8,563 1.02

2,500,000-4,999,999 4,204 1.04

5,000,000-7,499,999 1,696 1.09

7,500,000-9,999,999 883 1.15

10,000,000-14,999,999 969 1.22

15,000,000-19,999,999 566 1.31

20,000,000-24,999,999 358 1.42

25,000,000-29,999,999 244 1.37

30,000,000-34,999,999 154 1.95

35,000,000-39,999,999 139 1.86

40,000,000-44,999,999 113 2.36

45,000,000-49,999,999 96 2.08

50,000,000-74,999,999 271 2.32

75,000,000-99,999,999 147 2.82

100,000,000+ 685 9.56

Total 52,492 1.16

5.5.3 Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities

The SUSB data include the total annual receipts (defined as the revenue for goods produced, 

distributed, or services provided) for each NAICS/revenue or employment size class combination. 

The total annual revenue in SUSB was divided by the number of firms to determine average

parent entity revenue for each NAICS/revenue or employment size class combination. In some 

cases total revenue was not provided in the SUSB data because doing so would disclose the 

operations of an individual establishment or firm, so it was necessary to extrapolate average 

revenue based on the available data. For sectors with revenue-based small business definitions, 

the midpoint of the revenue size class was substituted as the average revenue for the 

NAICS/revenue size class combination with missing data. For sectors with employment-based 

small business definitions, the following method was used to estimate average revenue for those 

NAICS/employment size class combinations where revenue was not disclosed:
5-10 14 September 2015

1. Calculate the percent difference between average revenue in adjacent employment 

size classes based the on all NPDES NAICS codes populated with average revenue 

information in the relevant adjacent employment class sizes.

2. For the NAICS/employment size class combination with no average revenue data, 

multiply the average revenue of the adjacent employment size class in that NAICS 

code by the average percent difference between the two adjacent employment size 

classes across all NPDES NAICS codes to estimate the average revenue.

3. Where average revenue is available for both adjacent employment size classes, 

average the two estimated average revenue figures to obtain an average revenue for 

the missing NAICS/employment size class combination. Where average revenue is 

available for only one of the adjacent size classes, use the estimated average revenue 

based on the size class with data.

Because the SUSB data reflects 2007 annual revenue, it was necessary to inflate the revenue to 

current dollars using one of several indices. The Industrial Production Index (IPI) measures the 

amount of industrial output from certain industries and was used to inflate annual revenue in 

mining (NAICS 21), utility (NAICS 2263), and manufacturing (NAICS 31-33) sectors to 2014

dollars (U.S. Federal Reserve, 2015). The Producer Price Index (PPI) measures the average 

change over time in selling prices received by domestic producers of goods and services (BLS, 

2015a); the PPI for farm products was used to inflate agricultural sector (NAICS 1164) revenue to 

2014 dollars.65 All other sectors (NAICS 23: Construction and NAICS 42-81) were inflated based 

on the change in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 2007 to 2014, which is a measure of 

overall economic output (BEA, 2015). 

5.5.4 Estimate Number of Small Parent Entities

As discussed in Section 5.3, the small business definition is based on annual receipts or the 

number of employees. Because the SUSB provides data broken down by employment and 

revenue size class, it was possible to identify the number of small firms in each sector. Note that 

where a small business definition fell in the middle of a size or revenue class, it was assumed that 

all parent entities in that revenue or employment size class were not small. For example, the small 

business definition for NAICS 114112 (Shellfish Fishing) is $5.5 million in annual revenue; 

therefore it was assumed that all parent entities in the $5,000,000 to $7,499,999 revenue size class 

were not small. Using this method, 50,674 (97%) firms in sectors with revenue-based small 

business definitions and 39,012 (95%) firms in sectors with employment based small business 

definitions are small entities, for a total of 89,686 small entities.

5.5.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

It was assumed that all parent entities would incur an annualized per-facility compliance cost of 

$91.74 at a 3% discount rate or $105.66 at a 7% discount rate (see Section 5.4). The parent entity 

will incur this cost once for each NPDES facility it operates. Therefore, the annualized perfacility compliance cost was multiplied by the number of facilities per parent entity (derived in 

Section 5.5.2) to obtain the total annualized compliance cost to the parent entity. This calculation 

was made separately for each small NAICS/revenue or employment size class combination. 

 

63 Except for electricity-generating utilities, discussed in Section 5.7.

64 Except for NAICS 111 and 112, discussed in Section 5.8.

65 Except for logging (NAICS 113310), which used PPI industry information for logging (BLS, 2013b).
5-11 14 September 2015

5.5.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

The cost impact ratios for small parent entities operating NPDES facilities were estimated by 

dividing the total annualized compliance cost for that NAICS/revenue or employment size class 

(estimated in Section 5.5.5) by the parent entity average annual revenue for the NAICS/revenue 

or employment size class (estimated in Section 5.5.3). Based on this calculation, using the 3% 

discount rate, all of the small parent entities in sectors with Census information are expected to 

incur cost impacts of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 5-9). Similarly, using the 7% 

discount rate, all of the small parent entities in sectors with Census information are expected to 

incur cost impacts of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 5-10). Because the impacts are less 

than 1% they are considered to be minimal and no further action is required. 

Table 5-9: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small 

Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities in Sectors with 

Census Information, 3% Discount Rate

Cost-Impact Ratio 

Percentage

Small Parent Entity

Count

% of Small Parent 

Entities

>3% 0 0%

1-3% 0 0%

<1% 89,686 100%

Total 89,686 100%

Table 5-10: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small 

Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities in Sectors with 

Census Information, 7% Discount Rate

Cost-Impact Ratio 

Percentage

Small Parent Entity

Count

% of Small Parent 

Entities

>3% 0 0%

1-3% 0 0%

<1% 89,686 100%

Total 89,686 100%

5.6 Municipalities Operating Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)

Publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) are most often operated by the municipality in which 

the facility is located. Therefore, municipalities are considered to be the parent entity for POTWs. 

The U.S. Census of Governments was used to characterize municipal revenue (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2005a and 2005b). It characterizes the scope and nature of the nation's state and local 

governments; provides authoritative benchmark figures of public finance and public employment; 

classifies local government organizations, powers, and activities; and measures federal, state, and 

local fiscal relationships. Information is available by level of government and category of 

governmental activity. The Census of Governments provides the following definitions of these

government types (referred to collectively as “local governments” throughout this section):

 Municipal governments: Organized local governments authorized in state constitutions 

and statutes and established to provide government for a specific concentration of 

population in a defined area; includes those governments designated as cities, villages, 

boroughs (except in Alaska), and towns (except in the six New England states, 

Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin).

 Township governments: Organized local governments authorized in state constitutions 

and statutes and established to provide general government for areas defined without 

regard to population concentration; includes those governments designated as towns in 
5-12 14 September 2015

Connecticut, Maine (including organized plantations), Massachusetts, Minnesota, New 

Hampshire (including organized locations), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and 

Wisconsin, and townships in other states.

 County governments: Organized local governments authorized in state constitutions and 

statutes and established to provide general government; includes those governments 

designed as counties, parishes in Louisiana, and boroughs in Alaska.

For some POTWs, the most applicable parent entity was a township or county rather than a 

municipality (see further discussion in Section 5.6.1 below). The sections that follow discuss the 

method used to calculate the impacts on small local governments operating POTWs, following 

the general method described in Section 5.4.

5.6.1 Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities

Information in ICIS-NPDES and PCS available at the time of the original analysis was used to 

identify POTWs. The universe of affected POTWs was estimated by querying ICIS-NPDES for 

active facilities with a “POTW” permit component and PCS for active facilities classified in SIC 

code 4952 (Sewerage Systems).66 These queries generated a list of 17,412 POTWs affected under 

the rule. 

In order to use the data available from the Census of Governments to construct municipal revenue 

and identify small municipalities, it was necessary to match each affected POTW to a local 

government on the Census list. As was discussed above, the U.S. Census provides data for 

municipalities, townships, and counties. The following order of preference was used to match 

POTWs to their corresponding Census local government:

 Compare the ICIS-NPDES or PCS city name as extracted by OTIS/ECHO to the Census 

list of municipalities.

 Compare the city name from ICIS-NPDES or PCS to the Census list of townships.67

 Compare the facility name from the OTIS/ECHO facility report to the Census list of 

municipalities.

 Compare the facility name from ICIS-NPDES or PCS to the Census list of townships.68

 Conduct internet searches on the facility name, city name, and/or ZIP code to match the 

facility to a Census municipality or township.69

 Where no municipality or township match is possible, identify the corresponding Census 

County, based on the facility’s ZIP code.70

Using this method, 17,329 of the 17,412 (99.5%) POTWs were matched to a census municipality, 

township, or county (see Table 5-11 below). Of the remaining 83 facilities with no Census match, 

74 are located in U.S. territories, and it is assumed that the distribution of impacts on these 

facilities is comparable to the overall distribution. The remaining 9 facilities could not be 

matched because the information in their OTIS/ECHO facility reports was insufficient and were 

 

66 The POTW permit component flag is only available in ICIS-NPDES, so SIC 4952 was used to search for 

POTWs in PCS.

67 Except for townships in the North Central Region (see explanation in Section 5.6.3).

68 Ibid

69 Ibid

70 In some cases, the city identified in the OTIS/ECHO facility report corresponded to an unincorporated 

area not administered by a municipality or township, such that the county was the only local government 

applicable. In other cases, a POTW was operated by the county rather than a single municipality or 

township, so the corresponding county was the most appropriate match.
5-13 14 September 2015

excluded from this analysis due to lack of data. The POTWs excluded from this analysis account 

for less than 1% of the total POTW universe, and are assumed not to affect the conclusions of the 

overall analysis.

Table 5-11: POTWs Matched to Census Municipalities, Townships, and 

Counties

Facility Count % of Universe

POTWs matched to a Census Municipality 14,978 86%

POTWs matched to a Census Township 864 5%

POTWs matched to a Census County 1,487 9%

POTWs not matched to a Census Municipality, Township, or 

County (Not Considered in Analysis) 9 0.1%

POTWs located in a U.S. Territory (Not Considered in Analysis) 74 0.4%

Total Number of POTWs Identified in ICIS-NPDES and PCS 17,412 100%

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

5.6.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

Compliance costs are estimated at the parent entity level, where a parent entity may own one or 

more facilities. Therefore, it was necessary to consider municipalities, townships, or counties 

operating multiple POTW facilities. Because the universe derived in Section 5.6.1 is based on a 

unique list of facilities matched to individual local governments, it was possible to determine the 

number of POTW facilities operated by each municipality, township, and county. The 17,329 

matched POTWs corresponded to a total of 11,972 unique local governments, with the majority 

(9,616, or 80%) operating only one POTW. For the remaining 2,356 local governments, the 

actual number of facilities per parent based on the data pulled from OTIS/ECHO was used.

5.6.3 Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities

Because the Census of Governments does not provide revenue data for individual municipalities, 

townships, or counties, it was necessary to develop a method to estimate these revenue based on 

available information. The Government Finance series in the 2002 Census of Governments 

provides information at the state level regarding the per capita revenue of municipalities, 

townships, and counties by population-size range (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005a; U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2005b). Note that for townships, U.S. Census only provides per capita revenue by 

population-size group for states in the Northeast Region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont). For 

townships in the North Central Region (Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, and Minnesota, 

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin), per capita revenue were 

not available from Census. Therefore, the corresponding county was identified and used as the 

applicable local government for each affected POTW in these areas. There are no township local 

governments in states in regions other than the Northeast and North Central.

To estimate the annual revenue for each affected municipality, township, and county, the per 

capita revenue was multiplied by the population. The most current population data at the time of 

the original analysis was obtained from the U.S. Census 2009 Population Estimates (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2010b).

It was necessary to inflate the 2002 revenue to 2014 dollars. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 

inflation index, which is a measure of overall economic output, was used to inflate 2002 revenue 

to 2014 dollars. Note that this method may overstate current revenue because the GDP is a 

measure of overall economic output and does not correlate directly to government revenue; 

however it was considered the best available index to use in this situation.
5-14 14 September 2015

5.6.4 Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities

As discussed in Section 5.3, "small governmental jurisdictions" are defined as the government of 

a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of fewer than 50,000 

people. Therefore, any local government operating a POTW serving a population of 50,000 or 

fewer was considered “small” for the purposes of this analysis. In Section 5.6.2, the 2009 

population of each affected municipality, township, and county was identified from U.S. Census. 

Based on this information, 11,106 of the 11,972 (93%) local governments operating POTWs are 

small.

5.6.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

It was assumed that all POTWs would incur an annualized per-facility compliance cost of 

$103.94 at a 3% discount rate or $120.01 at a 7% discount rate (see Section 5.4). The affected 

municipality, township, or county will incur this cost once for each POTW it operates. Therefore, 

the annualized per-facility compliance cost was multiplied by the number of POTWs per local 

government (derived in Section 5.6.2) to calculate the total annualized compliance cost for each 

local government affected under the final rule. 

5.6.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

The cost impact ratios for small municipalities, townships, and counties operating POTWs were 

estimated by dividing the total annualized compliance cost for that entity (estimated in Section 

5.6.5) by the annual revenue of the local government (estimated in Section 5.6.3). Based on this 

calculation, at a 3% discount rate, all but one of the 11,106 small local governments affected by 

the rule are expected to incur a cost impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 5-12). 

Similarly, at a 7% discount rate, all but one of the 11,106 small local governments affected by the 

rule are expected to incur a cost impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 5-13). In both 

cases, the cost impact is close to 1% and ranges from 1.07% to 1.24%.

Table 5-12: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small 

Local Governments Operating POTWs, 3% Discount 

Rate

Cost-Impact Ratio 

Percentage

Small Local 

Government Count

% of Small Local 

Governments

>3% 0 0%

1-3% 1 0.01%

<1% 11,105 99.99%

Total 11,106 100%

Table 5-13: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small 

Local Governments Operating POTWs, 7% Discount 

Rate

Cost-Impact Ratio 

Percentage

Small Local 

Government Count

% of Small Local 

Governments

>3% 0 0%

1-3% 1 0.01%

<1% 11,105 99.99%

Total 11,106 100%
5-15 14 September 2015

5.7 Utilities

For six utility sectors, the small business definition is based on electricity generation rather than 

employment or annual revenue. Therefore, for these sectors, it was necessary to use an alternate 

method to determine the impacts of the final rule on small entities. The six sectors with small 

business definitions based on electricity generation are:

 221111 Hydroelectric Power Generation

 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation

 221113 Nuclear Power Generation

 221119 Other Electric Power Generation

 221121 Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control

 221122 Electric Power Distribution

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) maintains monthly and annual data on electricity 

generation and fuel consumption for U.S. power plants in its EIA-923 database. This information 

was used to identify small entities and to construct annual revenue of small utility companies 

owning operations with NPDES permits. Subsequent sections outline the method used to 

calculate the impacts on small electric utilities, following the general method described in Section 

5.4.

5.7.1 Characterize the Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities

The universe of NPDES utility facilities was developed by identifying those power plants listed in 

the EIA-923 database with NPDES permits at the time of the original analysis. Identification was 

made by querying the Facility Registry System (FRS) for all EPA-regulated entities with 

information in EIA databases (based on the Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated 

Database (eGRID) and the Clean Air Markets Division Business System (CAMDBS) facility 

linkages) (U.S. EPA, 2010a). This list was then limited to NPDES facilities by using the FRS IDs 

of the EIA-linked facilities to identify those with a NPDES permit. This method yielded a total of 

1,609 EIA power generating locations with NPDES permit IDs.

However, not all power plants in EIA databases are classified as a utility according to their 

primary NAICS code. For example, a manufacturing facility may generate electricity on site, but 

would be identified by a manufacturing NAICS code as its primary industrial classification. The 

impacts of the final rule on electricity generation facilities with primary industrial classifications 

other than those listed above, were therefore already analyzed in Section 5.5. To eliminate these 

facilities from the list of NPDES utility facilities, only those facilities with a utility NAICS or SIC 

code in their NPDES permit record were included in the universe, unless another program system 

(e.g., the Air Facility System (AFS)) classified the facility in a utility NAICS. Based on these 

assumptions, a total of 1,174 utilities with NPDES permits were considered in this part of the 

analysis.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) defines a major utility in 18 CFR §101 as 

having, in each of the last three consecutive years, sales or transmission service exceeding one 

million megawatt-hours of total sales, 100 megawatt-hours of sales for resale, 500 megawatthours of power exchanges delivered, or 500 megawatt-hours of wheeling for others (deliveries 

plus losses). FERC defines a nonmajor utility as those utilities not classified as major with total 

sales in each of the last three consecutive years of 10,000 megawatt-hours or more. Therefore, 

any utility NPDES facility not meeting the FERC definition of a major or nonmajor utility was 

assumed to have its primary industrial classification in a different NAICS code and was not 
5-16 14 September 2015

included in the universe. Based on the FERC definitions of major and nonmajor utilities, the 

universe was narrowed to 1,016 facilities, as is shown in Table 5-14 below.

Table 5-14: NPDES Utility Facility 

Universe

Utility Universe # 

Facilities

EIA Power Plants with NPDES IDs 1,609

With Utility NAICS Code in EPA Records 1,174

Meets FERC Definition of a Utility 1,016

5.7.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

The EIA-923 database also provides information about the operator of every utility in the 

database. It was assumed that the “operator” was the parent entity for the utility universe. Based 

on this information, it was possible to characterize the facility-parent relationship for every utility 

facility. The 1,016 utility facilities corresponded to 541 parents, of which 395 parents (73%) 

operate only one facility. For the remaining 146 parents, the actual number of facilities per parent 

based on the EIA data was used.

5.7.3 Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities

As stated above, the EIA-923 database provides information about the annual electricity 

generation of each power plant in the U.S (EIA, 2009). The EIA also provides information about 

the average retail price of electricity to ultimate customers by end-use sector, by state, on a 

monthly basis (EIA, 2015). Annual electricity generation and price were combined to generate an 

estimate of annual revenue. Specifically, a national average of 10.30 cents per kilowatt-hour, or 

$103.00 per megawatt-hour (2014) was multiplied by the total electricity generation per parent to 

construct annual revenue for each parent entity.

For 69 utilities, information was not available from the EIA-923 database regarding annual 

electricity generation. However, the Form EIA-860 Annual Electric Generator Report provides 

information on the operational status of generators at electric plants owned and operated by 

electric utilities and non-utilities. At the time of the original analysis, of the 69 utility facilities 

with no electricity generation data, 64 were either retired, out of service, under construction, or 

planned. Because these facilities were not currently operational, they were not included in the 

universe of affected regulated entities and were not included in the small entity analysis. Of the 

remaining five utilities with no data, information about electricity generation was available for 

one facility from the 2007 EIA-923 database at the time of the original analysis. No information 

was available for the remaining four facilities with no electricity generation data. However, the 

utilities with missing data account for 0.4% of the NPDES utility facility universe, and are 

assumed not to affect the conclusions of the overall analysis. Therefore, annual revenue was 

estimated for 947 facilities corresponding to 472 parent entities. The number of facilities per 

parent ranged from 1 to 19.

5.7.4 Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities

Small utilities are defined as those businesses primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, 

and/or distribution of electric energy for sale with the total electric output for the fiscal year not 

exceeding 4 million megawatt-hours. Based on this definition, and aggregating the individual 

facility net generation to the parent level, 341 of the 472 (72%) utility parent entities meet the 

definition of being a small parent entity.
5-17 14 September 2015

5.7.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

It was assumed that all utilities would incur an annualized per-facility compliance cost of $91.74

at a 3% discount rate or $105.66 at a 7% discount rate (see Section 5.4).The affected parent entity 

will incur this cost once for each NPDES utility facility it operates. Therefore, the annualized perfacility compliance cost was multiplied by the number of utility operations per parent (derived in 

Section 5.7.2) to calculate the total annualized compliance cost for each utility parent entity 

affected under the final rule. 

5.7.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

The cost impact ratios for small parent entities operating NPDES utility facilities were estimated 

by dividing the total annualized compliance cost for each entity (estimated in Section 5.7.5) by 

their annual revenue (estimated in Section 5.7.3). Based on this calculation, at a 3% discount rate, 

all of the 341 small utility parent entities affected under the rule are expected to incur a cost 

impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 5-15). Similarly, at a 7% discount rate all of the 

341 small utility parent entities affected under the rule are expected to incur a cost impact of less 

than 1% of annual revenue (Table 5-16). Cost impacts of less than 1% are considered minimal, 

and no further action is required.

Table 5-15: Estimated Impacts of the Rule 

on Small Utility Parent Entities, 3% 

Discount Rate

Cost-Impact Ratio 

Percentage

Small Parent 

Count

% of Small 

Parent Entities

>3% 0 0%

1-3% 0 0%

<1% 341 100%

Total 341 100%

Table 5-16: Estimated Impacts of the Rule 

on Small Utility Parent Entities, 7% 

Discount Rate

Cost-Impact Ratio 

Percentage

Small Parent 

Count

% of Small 

Parent Entities

>3% 0 0%

1-3% 0 0%

<1% 341 100%

Total 341 100%

5.8 Agriculture

Forty-two agricultural sectors were identified as potentially affected under the final rule. The term 

“farming” includes all agricultural activities in the affected sectors, ranging from egg production 

to aquaculture. Data for these sectors are available from the USDA’s Census of Agriculture 

(USDA, 2007). The Census of Agriculture is conducted by the National Agricultural Statistical 

Service (NASS) every five years, and provides a complete count of U.S. farms including data on 

income and expenditures, land use and ownership, and production practices. 
5-18 14 September 2015

The readily available data from the Agricultural Census at the time of the original analysis on 

revenue and economic class71 distributions summarizes most of the affected 42 sub-sectors at a 4-

digit NAICS level, with the Cattle Ranching and Farming industry disaggregated to 6-digit 

NAICS levels. Revenue and economic class data at the 6-digit level were requested from USDA’s 

Statistics Division at the time of the original analysis for the Poultry and Egg Production sector 

(NAICS 1123) to meet the analytical needs of this small entity analysis.

For the agricultural sector, SBA sets size standards for small businesses by annual revenue 

assigned at the 6-digit NAICS sub-sector level. SBA’s size standards differ from the revenue 

cutoff generally recognized by USDA, which defines $350,000 in gross sales as its cutoff 

between small and midsize family farms (USDA, 2013).

With two exceptions (Cattle Feedlots and Chicken Egg Production sub-sectors), current SBA 

standards define a “small business” within the agricultural sector as an operation generating 

average revenue of less than $0.75 million per year. The Cattle Feedlots sub-sector (NAICS 

112112) has a small business definition of $7.5 million per year. Within the Poultry and Egg 

Production sector, the Chicken Egg Production sub-sector (NAICS 112310) has a small business 

definition of $15 million per year.

5.8.1 Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities

Information in ICIS-NPDES and PCS available at the time of the original analysis was used to 

characterize the universe of affected NPDES facilities by NAICS code. Following the rules 

identified in Section 5.5.1, 12,061 facilities were matched to 42 6-digit NAICS codes. Table 5-17

summarizes the distribution of NPDES facilities across NAICS codes.

 

71 Economic class data are the classification of farms by the sum of market value of agricultural products 

sold and government payments (revenue). For example, one economic class classification is the number of 

farms with average annual revenue between $25,000 and $49,999. According to the Agricultural Census, 

government payments consist of payments received from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), 

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP), or Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program (CREP) plus government payments received from Federal, State, and local 

programs other than the CRP, WRP, FWP, and CREP, and Commodity Credit Corporation loans.
5-19 14 September 2015

Table 5-17: NPDES Facility Distribution by NAICS Code

NAICS NAICS Description # NPDES 

Facilities

1111 Oilseed and Grain Farming 173

1112 Vegetable and Melon Farming 9

1113 Fruit and Tree Nut Farming 10

1114 Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production 35

1119a Sugarcane, Hay, and all Other Crop Farming 27

1121 Cattle Ranching and Farming

112111 Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming 59

112112 Cattle Feedlots 3,339

112120 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production 3,208

1122 Hog and Pig Farming 1,826

1123 Poultry and Egg Production

112310 Chicken Egg Production 399

112320 Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production 1,512

112330 Turkey Production 29

112340 Poultry Hatcheries 24

112390 Other Poultry Production 574

1124 Sheep and Goat Farming 26

1125b Animal Aquaculture and other Animal Production 811

Total Number of NPDES Agricultural Facilities 12,061

a

Includes data on the following NAICS: 11193, 11194, and 11199.

b Data are combined with NAICS 1129: Other Animal Production.

5.8.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

In a small entity analysis, compliance costs are estimated at the parent entity level, where a parent 

entity may own one or more facilities. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that a 

farm is the rough equivalent of a facility. According to the 2008 USDA report titled MillionDollar Farms in the New Century (USDA, 2008), in 2006 only 1.4% of U.S. farms identified 

themselves as part of a larger firm or corporation, thus, for the purpose of this analysis, it was 

assumed that all facilities in the agricultural sector are parent entities with single locations.

5.8.3 Construct Annual Revenue of Parent Entities

Agricultural Census data includes revenue (presented as the sum of total market value of 

agricultural products sold and government payments) tabulated by economic class and NAICS 

level. The total revenue of each economic class was divided by the number of farms in the 

economic class to estimate average revenue per economic class for each NAICS level.

Because the Census data reflects 2007 annual revenue, it was necessary to inflate the revenue to 

current dollars. The Producer Price Index (PPI) measures the average change over time in selling 

prices received by domestic producers of goods and services (BLS, 2015a). The agricultural 

sector revenue was inflated to 2014 dollars based on the PPI commodity information for farm 

products. 

5.8.4 Identify Small Parent Entities

As mentioned above, in this analysis it was assumed that all facilities in the agricultural sectors 

are their own parent (i.e., single location). The distribution of small parent entities was estimated 

using the Agricultural Census data on the number of farms within each economic class. Farms 

with income of less than $10,000 were not considered in this analysis as it is likely that these 

farms have alternate sources of income and therefore cannot be considered in this small entity 
5-20 14 September 2015

analysis with operations for which farming is the primary income source. In fact, USDA’s 

Economic Research Service identifies these farms as small noncommercial entities that “exist 

independently of the farm economy because their operators rely heavily on off-farm income” 

(USDA, 2010). 

The percentage of farms with revenue below the small business threshold was then applied to the 

universe of NPDES facilities to estimate the number of affected NPDES facilities that are small 

parent entities as shown in Table 5-18.

Table 5-18: NPDES Facility Distribution by NAICS Code

NAICS USDA NAICS Description NPDES Facilities 

(#)

Small NPDES 

Facilities 

(#)

Small NPDES 

Facilities 

(%)

1111 Oilseed and Grain Farming 173 147 85%

1112 Vegetable and Melon Farming 9 7 82%

1113 Fruit and Tree Nut Farming 10 9 90%

1114 Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture 35 29 84%

1119a Sugarcane, Hay, and all Other Crop Farming 27 26 95%

112111 Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming 59 57 97%

112112 Cattle Feedlots 3,339 3,105 93%

112120 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production 3,208 2,502 78%

1122 Hog and Pig Farming 1,826 895 49%

112310 Chicken Egg Production 399 399 100%

112320 Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken 1,512 287 19%

112330 Turkey Production 29 5 17%

112340 Poultry Hatcheries 24 5 19%

112390 Other Poultry Production 574 511 89%

1124 Sheep and Goat Farming 26 25 97%

1125b Animal Aquaculture and other Animal Production 811 754 93%

Total Number of NPDES Agricultural Facilities 12,061 8,763 73% a

Includes data on the following NAICS: 11193, 11194, and 11199.

b Data are combined with NAICS 1129: Other Animal Production.

Note: Farms with revenue of less than $10,000 are not included in this analysis.

5.8.5 Calculate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

It was assumed that all parent entities would incur an annualized per-facility compliance cost of 

$91.74 at a 3% discount rate, or $105.66 at a 7% discount rate (see Section 5.2). The parent entity 

will incur this cost once for each NPDES facility it operates. For agricultural sectors, it was 

assumed that all agricultural entities are single locations; therefore the per-facility annualized 

compliance cost was apportioned once to each parent entity.

5.8.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

The cost impact ratios for small parent entities were estimated by dividing the annualized 

compliance cost, (derived in Section 4.4.1), by the average revenue in each economic class for

each NAICS code. The percent of small farms experiencing impacts of less than 1%, between 1% 

and 3%, and greater than 3% was then applied to the universe of small NPDES agricultural 

facilities to estimate the distribution of impacts within the affected agricultural sector. Based on 

this calculation, at a 3% discount rate, all of the 8,763 small parent entities in the affected 

agricultural sectors are expected to incur a cost impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (see 

Table 5-19). Similarly, at a 7% discount rate, all of the 8,763 small parent entities in the affected 

agricultural sectors are expected to incur a cost impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 

5-20). Cost impacts of less than 1% are considered minimal and no further action is required.
5-21 14 September 2015

Table 5-19: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Agricultural 

Facilities, 3% Discount Rate

NAICS USDA NAICS Description

Cost Impact of

<1%

Cost Impact 

Between 

1 and 3%

Cost Impact of 

>3%

# % # % # %

1111 Oilseed and Grain Farming 147 100 0 0 0 0

1112 Vegetable and Melon Farming 7 100 0 0 0 0

1113 Fruit and Tree Nut Farming 9 100 0 0 0 0

1114 Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production 29 100 0 0 0 0

1119a Sugarcane, Hay, and all Other Crop Farming 26 100 0 0 0 0

112111 Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming 57 100 0 0 0 0

112112 Cattle Feedlots 3,105 100 0 0 0 0

112120 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production 2,502 100 0 0 0 0

1122 Hog and Pig Farming 895 100 0 0 0 0

112310 Chicken Egg Production 399 100 0 0 0 0

112320 Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production 287 100 0 0 0 0

112330 Turkey Production 5 100 0 0 0 0

112340 Poultry Hatcheries 5 100 0 0 0 0

112390 Other Poultry Production 511 100 0 0 0 0

1124 Sheep and Goat Farming 25 100 0 0 0 0

1125b Animal Aquaculture and other Animal Production 754 100 0 0 0 0

Total Number of NPDES Agricultural Facilities 8,763 100 0 0 0 0

a

Includes data on the following NAICS: 11193, 11194, and 11199.

b Data is combined with NAICS 1129: Other Animal Production. 

Note: The estimated impacts on entities in the agricultural sector does not include a potential adjustment for 

residential/lifestyle and retirement farms.

Table 5-20: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Agricultural 

Facilities, 7% Discount Rate

NAICS USDA NAICS Description

Cost Impact of

<1%

Cost Impact 

Between 

1 and 3%

Cost Impact of 

>3%

# % # % # %

1111 Oilseed and Grain Farming 147 100 0 0 0 0

1112 Vegetable and Melon Farming 7 100 0 0 0 0

1113 Fruit and Tree Nut Farming 9 100 0 0 0 0

1114 Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production 29 100 0 0 0 0

1119a Sugarcane, Hay, and all Other Crop Farming 26 100 0 0 0 0

112111 Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming 57 100 0 0 0 0

112112 Cattle Feedlots 3,105 100 0 0 0 0

112120 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production 2,502 100 0 0 0 0

1122 Hog and Pig Farming 895 100 0 0 0 0

112310 Chicken Egg Production 399 100 0 0 0 0

112320 Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production 287 100 0 0 0 0

112330 Turkey Production 5 100 0 0 0 0

112340 Poultry Hatcheries 5 100 0 0 0 0

112390 Other Poultry Production 511 100 0 0 0 0

1124 Sheep and Goat Farming 25 100 0 0 0 0

1125b Animal Aquaculture and other Animal Production 754 100 0 0 0 0

Total Number of NPDES Agricultural Facilities 8,763 100 0 0 0 0

a

Includes data on the following NAICS: 11193, 11194, and 11199.

b Data is combined with NAICS 1129: Other Animal Production. 

Note: The estimated impacts on entities in the agricultural sector does not include a potential adjustment for 

residential/lifestyle and retirement farms.
5-22 14 September 2015

5.9 Summary

Small entity impacts were estimated for the following sectors:

 Industrial sectors;

 POTWs operated by municipalities;

 Electricity generating utilities; and,

 Agricultural sectors.

For all small entities affected by the final rule, using a 3% discount rate, impacts of less than 1% 

are incurred by 108,035 of 108,036 (99.99%) small entities; impacts between 1% and 3% are 

incurred by 1 of 108,036 (.01%) small entities; and impacts of greater than 3% are incurred by 0

small entities (see Table 5-21). Examining each sector individually, impacts of greater than 1% 

are only incurred by municipalities operating POTWs. The same (one) POTW is estimated to 

experience impacts between 1% and 3% when a 7% discount rate is used (see Table 5-22). 

Impacts to all other sectors remain less than 1% of annual revenue.

While impacts of greater than 1% are estimated to be incurred due to the rule, impacts of greater 

than 1% 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 (USEPA, 2006).

Table 5-21: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES 

Facilities, 3% Discount Rate

Category of Sector Description

Cost Impact of

<1%

Cost Impact 

Between 

1 and 3%

Cost Impact of >3%

# % # % # %

Sectors covered by U.S. Census data 87,826 100 0 0 0 0

Municipalities operating POTWs 11,105 99.99 1 0.01 0 0

Utility sectors 341 100 0 0 0 0

Agricultural sectors 8,763 100 0 0 0 0

Total 108,035 99.99 1 0.01 0 0

Note: The estimated impacts on entities in the agricultural sector does not include a potential adjustment for 

residential/lifestyle and retirement farms.

Table 5-22: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES 

Facilities, 7% Discount Rate

Category of Sector Description

Cost Impact of

<1%

Cost Impact 

Between 

1 and 3%

Cost Impact of >3%

# % # % # %

Sectors covered by U.S. Census data 87,826 100 0 0 0 0

Municipalities operating POTWs 11,105 99.97 1 0.01 0 0

Utility sectors 341 100 0 0 0 0

Agricultural sectors 8,763 100 0 0 0 0

Total 108,035 99.99 1 0.01 0 0

Note: The estimated impacts on entities in the agricultural sector does not include a potential adjustment for 

residential/lifestyle and retirement farms.
5-23 14 September 2015

References

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce.2015. National 

Income and Products Accounts Table, Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic 

Product. <http://www.bea.gov/index.htm>

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2015a. Producer Price Index-Commodities: Farm 

Products. Series ID WPU01. <http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm>

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2015b. Producer Price Index Industry Data: Logging. 

Series ID PCU113310113310. <http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm>

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005a. 2002 Census of Governments: Government Finance: Finances of 

County Governments: 2002. Vol 4, No. 3, Issued February 2005.

<http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/gc02x43.pdf>

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005b. 2002 Census of Governments: Government Finance: Finances of 

Municipal and Township Governments: 2002. Vol 4, No. 4, Issued April 2005.

<http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/gc02x43.pdf>

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. Federal, State, & Local Governments: Definitions. 

<http://www.census.gov/govs/definitions/index.html>

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. Population Estimates: Incorporated Places and Minor Civil 

Divisions: All Places: 2000 to 2009. <http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2009-

4.html>

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010c. Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB). 

<http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/>

USDA, 2007. Census of Agriculture 2007.

<http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp>

USDA, 2008. Hoppe, Robert A., P. Korb, and D. Banker. Million-Dollar Farms in the New 

Century, Economic Information Bulletin No. 42, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, December 2008.

USDA, 2010. Hoppe, Robert A., James M. MacDonald, and Penni Korb. Small Farms in the 

United States: Persistence Under Pressure, EIB-63, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, February 2010.

USDA, 2013. Hoppe, Robert A. and James M. MacDonald, Updating the ERS Farm Typology

Economic Research Service, <http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2013-may/the-revised-ersfarm-typology-classifying-us-farms-to-reflect-todays-agriculture.aspx#.VTlFGLEpCos> April 

2013.
5-24 14 September 2015

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy. 2008. Form EIA-860 

Database Annual Electric Generator Report. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html>

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy. 2009. Form EIA-923 

Database. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920.html>

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy. 2015. Table 5.6.A.:

Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Consumers by End-Use Sector, by State, 2014

<http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm>

U.S. EPA. 2006. EPA’s Action Development Process: Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act. <http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/Guidance-RegFlexAct.pdf> November, 2006.

U.S. EPA. 2010a. Facility Registry System (FRS). 

<http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/fii/fii_query_java.html>

U.S. EPA. 2010b. Online Tracking and Information System, Replaced by the Enforcement and 

Compliance History Online (ECHO). < http://echo.epa.gov//>

U.S. Federal Reserve. 2015. Table 4: Industrial Production Indexes: Market and Industry Group 

Summary Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization. <

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/table4.htm >

U.S. SBA. 2014. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 

Classification System Codes. 

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Downloaded on April 10, 

2015.
6-1 14 September 2015

Section 6. – Benefits 

6.1 Introduction

The final rule will result in more timely, consistent, accurate, and easily accessed data. These data 

will improve the ability of existing state and federal programs to target the most serious water 

quality and compliance problems, thus supporting EPA’s goal of protecting the nation’s waters.

Furthermore, EPA expects that because obtaining facility-specific information electronically is 

more efficient than current reporting, data entry, and other work processes, significant savings 

will be realized by regulated entities, authorized NPDES programs, and EPA. Specifically, 

updating the submittal process by implementing electronic reporting is expected to reduce data 

entry costs for authorized NPDES programs and reduce paper and mailing costs for regulated 

entities and EPA Regions. It will also help reduce data entry errors, which will reduce the need 

for processing corrections and reentering data. Additionally, improved NPDES information will 

be available throughout the U.S. because authorized NPDES programs will be required to enter 

the required data into ICIS-NPDES for both major and nonmajor NPDES regulated entities. The 

electronic information flow will allow EPA and authorized NPDES programs to manage the 

NPDES program more efficiently. The public will benefit through increased access to more 

complete and timely NPDES information. This section discusses the benefits associated with 

operational efficiency gains that EPA, authorized NPDES programs, regulated entities, and the 

public will experience as a result of the rule, as well as improved NPDES information and better 

implementation of EPA programs.

6.2 Savings due to Electronic Reporting

As discussed in Section 4, the rule is expected to result in overall savings. Post implementation, 

regulated entities will avoid paper and mailing costs as a result of switching to electronic 

reporting, and will save time on data entry as a result of the built in error detection tools.

Authorized NPDES programs will experience reduced costs of data entry and processing of paper 

forms due to the updating of the reporting process. Note that the savings presented in this section

are the total gross savings that regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs are projected to 

experience due to the rule. Net savings - savings remaining after all costs are accounted for - are 

presented in Section 4. Also note that the analysis makes no assumptions about how states might 

redistribute the resources represented by these savings; it merely quantifies them as an economic 

benefit.

6.2.1 Processing Savings

Electronic reporting will eliminate paper and mailing costs associated with DMRs, NOIs, and 

program reports for regulated entities. This change is expected to produce annual savings of $1.5

million dollars to regulated entities following rule implementation. Additionally, use of electronic 

versions of pre-populated DMR forms and eliminating processing of paper DMRs and permits 

will save state authorized NPDES programs and EPA Regions $21.2 million and $1.9 million

annually, respectively.

6.2.2 Data Entry (NOIs, DMRs, and Program Reports) Savings

With existing paper submissions, authorized NPDES programs must manually enter information 

submitted by regulated entities either into their own data system, which is then transferred to 

ICIS-NPDES, or directly into ICIS-NPDES. Under the final rule, information submitted 

electronically by regulated entities will flow directly into the data system of the appropriate 
6-2 14 September 2015

authorized NPDES program, or into ICIS-NPDES. Additionally, some data elements will be prepopulated in ICIS-NPDES (e.g., permit status, limit type). These submission updates will 

substantially reduce the data entry costs associated with information from NOIs, DMRs, and 

program reports. However, authorized NPDES programs will still be responsible for entering the 

data elements they generate (e.g., permit data elements, compliance monitoring data elements).

Estimated data entry savings to authorized NPDES programs and EPA Regions following rule 

implementation are $23.5 million and $446,000 annually, respectively, due to electronic 

reporting.

6.2.3 Eliminating ANCR, QNCR, and SASS

The final rule will also eliminate regulatory requirements for authorized NPDES programs to 

submit the Annual Non-Compliance Report (ANCR) the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report 

(QNCR), and the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report (SASS), as these activities will be

completed based on the information already in the system. States and EPA Regions are expected 

to save $872,000 and $97,000, respectively, due to elimination of the ANCR, QNCR, and SASS.

6.2.4 Total Savings

In total, regulated entities, states, and EPA Regions are expected to experience $49.5 million in 

annual savings due to the final rule, as summarized in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1: Total Annual Savings under Final Rule

Type of Savings EPA States Regulated Entities Total

Data Entry Savings $446,000 $23,515,000 $0 $23,961,000

Processing Savings $1,920,000 $21,243,000 $1,454,000 $24,617,000

Eliminating the ANCR, 

QNCR, and SASS $97,000 $872,000 $0 $969,000

Total $2,463,000 $45,630,000 $1,454,000 $49,547,000

6.3 Improved NPDES Information

EPA has concluded that the final rule will deliver more timely, consistent, and accurate

information to EPA’s data system. These changes will result in access to better NPDES 

information for all stakeholders, which in turn will improve understanding and awareness of the 

provision and distribution of information about NPDES covered discharges. The newly available 

information will improve the ability of EPA, authorized NPDES programs, and the public to 

make well-informed decisions relating to the NPDES program. For example, as a result of the 

rule, complete information describing effluent discharges and the applicable limits and limit sets 

will be available in ICIS-NPDES for major and nonmajor permits. Prior to the rule, complete

information was only required to for major permits. 

Currently, the public has limited information regarding a substantial portion of the NPDES 

regulated universe (e.g., discharge monitoring data and permit limits and limit sets are not 

required to be entered into EPA data systems for nonmajor regulated entities). Access to more 

complete and more accurate NPDES data will provide the public with a greater understanding of 

the sources of water pollution in their communities. The public will also benefit from greater 

transparency regarding the compliance status of the dischargers and the enforcement responses 

taken by the states and EPA. Electronic reporting by NPDES regulated entities will also increase 

the timeliness of the information available to the public.
6-3 14 September 2015

Improved NPDES data can significantly improve EPA’s knowledge of the regulated community; 

such knowledge is essential in problem identification and in the development of sound 

regulations, guidance, and policy. In addition, the information will reflect the performance of 

state NPDES programs in achieving the goals and objectives of the CWA. A critical aspect of 

EPA’s ability to oversee NPDES programs is adequate data with which to manage authorized 

NPDES programs. Previously, EPA could not ensure this oversight due to insufficient 

information. By requiring electronic reporting by NPDES regulated entities and the additional 

compliance information generated by the authorized NPDES program, EPA will receive timely 

and reliable data for overall management and oversight. 

Regulated entities will benefit by knowing that the information in EPA’s data systems 

characterizing their permitted entities is timely and accurate. Through electronic reporting, 

regulated entities can be more confident that their reports are received and acknowledged in a 

timely manner, and the reduced need for manual data entry by the authorized NPDES program

will ensure that reported information and compliance status are being characterized correctly.

Because the electronic reporting tools will include the ability to check for certain types of errors, 

the regulated entities will also see savings related to improved data quality and less need to revise 

and reenter their submissions.

6.4 Improved Efficiency of EPA Programs

EPA has concluded that the most efficient way to obtain NPDES data is to obtain it directly from 

the sources that generate the data, such as the regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs. 

Electronic reporting also improves data quality and allows for data sharing across federal and 

authorized NPDES program regulators using the Exchange Network. With electronic reporting, 

EPA and authorized NPDES programs will be able to use self-reported regulated entity data in 

real time. Additionally, EPA and states will be able to use computer aided tools to compare selfmonitoring data with permit limits to assess compliance.

The additional information that will be available about NPDES regulated entities under the rule 

will allow EPA and authorized NPDES programs to more efficiently manage their programs. For 

example, EPA will be better able to identify the causes of water impairment based on the readily 

available discharge monitoring data and discharge limits. The additional information about both 

major and nonmajor regulated entities will also allow authorized NPDES programs and EPA to 

better monitor and report on the status of the NPDES programs they administer. 

The expanded information available in ICIS-NPDES could also provide baseline information for 

possible pollution trading schemes. Because DMRs for both majors and nonmajors will now be 

required to be entered into ICIS-NPDES, more information characterizing the baseline loadings 

in U.S. waterways will be available. Potential pollution trading programs might be able to use this 

information to develop novel ways of improving overall water quality.

The list of required data elements (found in Appendix A) includes several data elements specific 

to certain subprograms covered by the NPDES program. Regulated entities already submit these 

subprogram-specific data; however, authorized NPDES programs will now be required to share 

the data with EPA. This information will improve the efficiency of the various NPDES 

subprograms. For example, biosolids regulated entities submit biosolids disposal data (land 

application, incineration, etc.). With this more complete information, EPA will be able to identify 

which methods of biosolids disposal are being used and could integrate this information into 

nutrient management plans for land disposal. Similarly, effluent discharges from significant 

industrial users (SIUs) will be electronically entered into ICIS-NPDES (currently, this 
6-4 14 September 2015

information is submitted via paper directly to POTWs and is not entered into ICIS-NPDES), 

allowing POTWs to more efficiently manage their pre-treatment programs based on reported SIU 

discharges to the treatment works. 

6.5 Monetized Benefits Associated with Improved Data Quality

As mentioned above, EPA believes that electronic reporting can lead to reductions in errors in the 

reported data, benefitting both regulated entities and permitting authorities. Using information on 

the number of errors typically associated with DMR submissions, EPA developed a rough

estimate of the potential time and cost savings that permitted authorities might experience from 

no longer having to correct errors in DMR data. Assuming that errors in DMR data from one 

permitting authority can be extrapolated to all permitting authorities, rough time and cost savings 

are estimated as follows:72

1) Assume that permitting authorities typically only spend time correcting significant errors

(error correction of ~7% used in this analysis).

2) Assume that the relationship between DMR errors avoided due to eReporting in Ohio 

(45,000/month) and estimated number of DMRs in Ohio (5,142 forms/month) is 

representative for all permitting authorities.

73

3) Apply ratio of avoided DMR errors and error correction percent to DMRs in all 

permitting authorities to estimate the annual number of errors no longer corrected.

4) Assuming that permitting authorities spend approximately 15 minutes per error 

correction, multiply time avoided per error times the number of errors no longer corrected 

to estimate the total hours saved per permitting authority.

5) Multiply total hours saved by the loaded wage rate for a government clerk to estimate the 

total cost saving for each permitted authority.

6) Aggregate time and cost savings across permitting authorities as a rough estimate of 

potential time and cost savings associated with improved data quality through data error 

reduction.

Applying this methodology to individual permitted facilities only, EPA estimates total time and 

cost saving of approximately 80 FTEs and $5.4 million in wages. Extending the extrapolation to 

include general permit facilities increases the total to approximately 130 FTEs and $9.3 million in 

wages. Because they are an extrapolation only, these additional potential savings from reduced 

error checking are not included in the estimated the total savings presented elsewhere in the 

analysis.

6.6 Potential Benefits from Electronic Individual Permit Applications

The final rule does not change the mode of submission for permit applications from individual 

NPDES permittees. Under the final rule, permittees would not be required to submit these 

applications electronically, and could continue to submit them on paper. However, with the move 

to electronic reporting, EPA and/or individual states could provide individual permittees with the 

option to submit their applications electronically (e.g., on CD-ROM or via Internet). This option 

would relieve EPA regions and/or states of the need to electronically enter certain facility data 

 

72 Extrapolation is applied only to DMR submissions; additional benefits would be expected from other 

electronic reporting (e.g., eProgram Reports).

73 In the Ohio Case Study mentioned in Section ES.2, Ohio reported that errors have dropped by 90 percent 

(from approximately 50,000 per month to 5,000 per month). Docket #EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0108.
6-5 14 September 2015

elements associated with the permit, since these data could be imported directly from the 

electronic permit application, resulting in additional data entry cost savings.

To estimate the potential additional savings associated with optional electronic submission of 

individual permit applications, EPA used the permit universe and permitting frequencies 

identified in Section 2, along with the estimated data entry costs discussed in Section 4.4.2. Based 

on these data, if even 10% of individual permittees took advantage of the option to electronically 

submit permit applications, EPA regions and authorized NPDES programs could save 

approximately an additional $64,000 per year in data entry costs. The majority of these savings 

(97%) would accrue to states. If more permittees took advantage of electronic permit submission, 

the savings would increase proportionally. Because they reflect a potential optional program and 

do not result directly from the requirements of the rule, these additional potential savings from 

electronic individual permit submission are not included in the estimated the total savings 

presented elsewhere in the analysis.

6.7 Conclusion

This analysis estimates that regulated entities, authorized NPDES programs, and EPA Regions 

will experience a total savings of $50.6 million annually following rule implementation. Aside 

from the monetized benefits presented in Section 6.5, no attempt was made here to monetize the 

benefits of improved NPDES information or improved efficiency for EPA programs due to the 

wide range of beneficiaries and the nature of the associated benefits. However, EPA has 

concluded that electronic reporting supports EPA’s goal of protecting human health and the 

environment. EPA has also concluded that converting to electronic reporting will improve facility 

compliance by increasing the availability of compliance information to all audiences, thereby 

incentivizing regulated entities, authorized NPDES programs, and EPA to deliver on the goal of 

full compliance. In addition, it will allow EPA and authorized NPDES programs to reduce the 

time and resources spent on technology issues, and focus on environmental policy and goals. 
7-1 14 September 2015

Section 7. - Additional Analyses

7.1 Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 

4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” under §3(f) of the Executive Order 

because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

7.2 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection requirements in this final rule have been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned 

EPA ICR number 2468.02 and OMB control number 2020-0035. 

This regulation will result in better utilization of current technology to ensure that facility-specific 

information under the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) program is submitted to EPA on a nationally timely, consistent, accurate, and 

complete basis for national program management, oversight, and transparency. This regulation 

will require that most of this NPDES information be submitted electronically by the regulated 

entities; this information will be supplemented by required information regarding NPDES 

implementation activities by EPA, states, territories, and tribes authorized to implement the 

NPDES program. 

Table 7-1 summarizes the average annual projected burden and cost of the regulation. Consistent 

with the Information Collection Request (ICR), these estimates reflect the net burden and cost to 

regulated entities and States over the first three years following promulgation of the rule. The 

three year total net burden reduction is estimated to be 0.6 million hours. The costs and burden 

are related to implementation and include training, one-time provision of facility information to 

EPA, and data entry for States. The cumulative implementation costs change into savings and 

burden reductions in the fourth year of electronic reporting. 

Once the rule is fully implemented (five years after the effective date of the rule), net annual 

savings are expected to be $22.6 million for states and $0.5 million for regulated entities (based 

on 3% discount rate). Similarly, once the rule is fully implemented, net annual burden reduction 

for states is expected to be approximately 1.0 million hours. Although there are net cost savings 

for regulated entities at full implementation, the password reset burden for certain facilities results 

in an aggregate net burden increase of approximately 13,000 hours per year.
7-2 14 September 2015

Table 7-1: Projected Burden and Cost over the First Three Years of the Rule

Unit of Analysis Affected Entity

Regulated Entities States

Average Annual Number of Respondentsa213,349 47

Average Annual Number of Responses 78,477 1,135,376

Average Annual Incremental Burden (hours) 118,577 -315,814

Average Annual Incremental Cost $6,867,716 -$1,072,586

Average Annual Incremental Burden per Respondent (hours) 0.56 -6,719

Average Annual Incremental Burden per Response (hours) 1.51 -0.28

Average Annual Incremental Cost per Respondent $32.19 -$22,821

Average Annual Incremental Cost per Response $87.51 -$0.94

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.

7.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: 

(1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is the government of a city, county, 

town, school districts, or special districts with a population of less than 50,000 people; or (3) a 

small organization that is any "not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its field." Note that under the RFA definition, States and tribal 

governments are not considered small governmental jurisdictions. For the detailed analysis of 

small entity impacts see Section 5.

After considering the economic impacts of today’s rule on small entities, EPA certifies that this 

action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 

small entities directly regulated by this rule are small businesses (e.g., industrial sectors, 

electricity generating facilities, and agricultural sectors) and small governmental jurisdictions 

(e.g., POTWs operated by municipalities). EPA has determined that 108,035 of the 108,036 small 

entities considered in this analysis will experience an impact of less than 1% of revenues. As 

described in Section 5, while impacts of greater than 1% are estimated to be incurred by one 

POTW due to the rule, impacts of greater than 1% 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, the rule is not expected to significantly impact a substantial number of 

small entities.

Note that fewer facilities are considered in the small entity analysis than were estimated as the 

affected universe for the final rule (see Section 2). Due to the magnitude and diversity of facilities 

and sectors affected by this rulemaking, it was not possible to conduct a detailed analysis of 

parent entity-specific impacts. Because small entity status is based on industrial sector, the small 

entity analysis required data sources where industry sector (NAICS codes) of each facility could 

be identified. Although not a complete inventory of all potentially affected facilities, the universe 

of facilities in ICIS-NPDES and PCS at the time of the original analysis was used. The 

assumption is made that facilities affected by the final rule but not in ICIS-NPDES and PCS will 

experience small entity impacts similar to the facilities in ICIS-NPDES and PCS.
7-3 14 September 2015

Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, EPA has nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. In fact, this 

rule creates annual savings for small entity analyses through elimination of mailing and postage 

costs. 

7.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one 

year. In order to determine the burden on States, the workgroup conducted an economic analysis 

of potential costs. The analysis examined implementation using various options including the 

potential burden to state governments and indicates that the rule will not only cost states and local 

governments well below the threshold of $100 million, it will actually result in savings. Thus, this 

rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

Additionally, this rule is not subject to the requirements Section 203 of UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Although this rule will impose electronic reporting requirements on small 

governments such as municipalities and tribes, EPA does not expect these impacts to be 

substantial or unique sufficient to meet the UMRA standards. According to EPA’s Interim Small 

Government Agency Plan, actions have a significant impact if the cost is above $100 million. As 

stated above, EPA does not expect this rule to exceed that threshold. Additionally, the guidance 

states that an action uniquely affects small governments if it disproportionately affects small 

governments, requires the hiring of experts, require sophisticated or expensive equipment, or 

require training. EPA does not expect this rule will have these requirements. Moreover, this rule 

will not require purchase of sophisticated or expensive equipment, nor will it require significant 

training (any required training will be offered by the agency). Thus this rule is not subject to 

Section 203.

7.5 Executive Order 13132 – Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local 

officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies 

that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 

have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government 

and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 

government.”

According to this Executive Order, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism implications 

(e.g., imposes substantial direct compliance costs that are not required by statute) unless the 

Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by 

state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of 

developing the action. 

This action has federalism implications, because it imposes substantial direct compliance costs on 

state or local governments, and the federal government will not provide the funds necessary to 

pay those costs. Specifically, EPA estimates costs to state governments of greater than $25 

million during the first year of rule implementation.
7-4 14 September 2015

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA consulted with State and local officials early in the process of 

developing this action to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. 

In developing the regulatory options described in this final action, EPA held a series of 49 

outreach activities with state and local governments, on various aspects of the rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited 

comment on the proposed action from State and local officials. EPA received comments from 

over one hundred (100) entities representing State and local governments. Of these comments, 

many were supportive of the rule and its goals. Commentators expressed support for the rule for a 

number of reasons, including its ability to modernize and streamline the reporting process, its 

efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and its ability to offer quicker access to standardized data. 

Several commentators expressed hope that electronic reporting could reduce errors in ICIS, make 

errors more quick and easy to correct, and expedite permit applications. 

While most commenters were supportive of the proposed rule, there were several concerns that 

were raised by the responding state and local governments. One of the most frequently 

commented subjects was the Electronic Reporting Rule implementation schedule. Many 

commenters noted that the proposed two phase (one year per phase) implementation schedule was 

“too aggressive.” EPA addressed this comment by modifying the compliance schedule in the final 

rule to allow five years for the second phase of implementation.

A complete list of the comments from State and local governments has been provided to the 

Office of Management and Budget and has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. In 

addition, the detailed response to comments from these entities is contained in EPA’s response to 

comments document on this rulemaking. 

7.6 Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA may not impose 

requirements not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary 

to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal 

officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary 

impact statement.

EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications. However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Although no 

tribes have currently received approval for an authorized NPDES program, this rule will impose 

electronic reporting requirements on tribal facilities and on facilities operating on tribal lands. 

EO 13175 may apply to this action, and therefore, consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and the tribes, EPA consulted with tribal representatives in 

developing this rule via conference calls and webinars with the National Tribal Caucus and 

National Tribal Water Counsel in November 2010. For additional information, see Section VI.B. 

of this preamble. No concerns were raised during those consultations.

In addition, EPA mailed information to 563 tribes regarding an opportunity to participate in two 

additional tribal outreach efforts in December 2010. Again, during these conference calls, no 

concerns were raised by participants during those consultations.
7-5 14 September 2015

7.7 Executive Order 13045 – Children’s Health

Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires that federal agencies examine the impacts of each 

regulatory action on children for any economically significant regulation (as defined by Executive 

Order 12866) that the agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children. The 

final rule is not subject to EO 13045, because it does not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety risks, nor does it otherwise have a disproportionate effect on 

children. Furthermore, the rule is not economically significant.

7.8 Executive Order 13211 – Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, entitled 

Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy.

7.9 National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), 

Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards.

This rule involves environmental monitoring or measurement. Consistent with the Agency’s 

Performance Based Measurement System (“PBMS”), EPA proposes not to require the use of 

specific, prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use of any method 

that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS approach is intended to be more 

flexible and cost-effective for the regulated community; it is also intended to encourage 

innovation in analytical technology and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding the use of 

any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the 

performance criteria specified.

Enforcement and Compliance Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000026.2, July 30, 2008.

This data standard should be used in this regulation because it identifies and defines the major 

areas of enforcement and compliance information that could be used for the exchange of data 

among environmental agencies and other entities. The purpose of the standard is to provide a 

common lexicon, so that information about functionality similar activities and/or instruments can 

be stored and to provide and receive data in a clearly defined and uniform way.

EPA proposes to use the following data standards which were developed by the Exchange 

Network Leadership Council (ENLC). The ENLC identifies, prioritizes, and pursues the creation 

of data standards for those areas where information exchange standards will provide the most 

value in achieving environmental results. The EDSC involves Tribes and Tribal Nations, state 

and federal agencies in the development of the standards. More information about ENLC is 

available at www.exchangenetwork.net. 
7-6 14 September 2015

Permitting Information Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000021.2, January 6, 2006.

This data standard should be used in this regulation because it specifies the key data groupings 

necessary for the consistent identification of information pertaining to permits of interest to 

environmental information exchange partners. This data standard provides a minimum set of data, 

which needs to be reported for permitting information such as permit name, number, type, 

organization or facility name and affiliation type. 

Facility Site Identification Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000020.2, January 6, 2006.

The purpose of this data standard is to identify a facility of environmental interest. This data 

standard should be used in this regulation because it provides for the unique identification of 

facilities regulated or monitored by US EPA, Tribes and States. Each facility is assigned a unique 

factory identification number, which identifies information for the facility specified. This 

standard provides and describes data groupings that are used to exchange facility site 

identification data and information. This standard helps US EPA, Tribes, and States integrate and 

share facility information across multiple information systems, programs, and governments.

Contact Information Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000019.2, January 6, 2006. 

This data standard should be used in this regulation because it provides information regarding the 

source of contact. This standard offers data groupings that are used to describe a point of contact, 

address, and communication information. For example, the data grouping “Point of Contact” 

subdivides to lower levels such as individual, Affiliation, and Organization. These intermediate 

data groupings are further defined at the elemental levels with Name, Title, Code, and Prefix.

Representation of Date and Time Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000013.1, January 6, 2006. 

This data standard should be used in this regulation because it provides and describes data 

groupings that are used for exchange of Date and Time data and information. The standard 

provides information on the high level, intermediate and elemental representation of date and 

time data groupings. 

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

This data standard should be used in this regulation because it establishes the requirements for 

documenting latitude and longitude coordinates and related method, accuracy, and description 

data for all places used in the data exchange transaction. Places include facilities, sites, 

monitoring stations, observations points, and other regulated or tracked features. This standard 

describes data elements and data grouping that are used to exchange latitude/longitude data and 

information. The purpose of the standard is to provide a common set of data elements to use for 

recording horizontal and vertical coordinates and associated metadata that define a point on the 

earth.

SIC/NAICS Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000022.2, January 6, 2006. 

This data standard should be used in this regulation because it provides a common set of data 

groupings to specify a way to classify business activities, including industry classifications, 

product classifications, and product codes. This data standard provides information on business 

activity according to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS).

7.10 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice

Executive Order (EO) 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)), establishes 

federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 
7-7 14 September 2015

the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations 

and low-income populations in the U.S.

EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not adversely 

affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

The rule will not create any new reporting requirements; it will simply require reports be 

submitted electronically, which will in turn support and enhance compliance assurance to the 

benefit of minority and low-income populations. Enhanced monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements can help maximize the use of existing statutory and regulatory authority to 

assess and ensure compliance to protect adversely affected populations. Moreover, electronic 

reporting promotes transparency, giving the public more and improved information about sources 

of water pollution in their communities thereby increasing minority and low-income populations’ 

opportunities for meaningful involvement.
A-1 14 September 2015

1

Appendix A – List of Data Elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127

The final rule will increase the number of data elements that authorized NPDES programs are 

required to enter into ICIS-NPDES from those in the Water Enforcement National Data Base 

(WENDB) to those in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 (see Section 1), listed below.

Appendix A to 40 CFR 127

Data Name Data Family for Purposes of 

Economic Analysis

Basic Facility Information

Facility Type of Ownership Facility

Facility Site Name Facility

Facility Site Address Facility

Facility Site City Facility

Facility Site State Facility

Facility Site Zip Code Facility

Facility Site Tribal Land Indicator Facility

Facility Site Longitude Facility

Facility Site Latitude Facility

Facility Contract Affiliation Type Facility

Facility Contact First Name Facility

Facility Contact Last Name Facility

Facility Contact Title Facility

Facility Individual E-Mail Address Facility

Facility Organization Formal Name Facility

Basic Permit Information

NPDES ID Permit

Master General Permit Number Permit

Permit Type Permit

Permit Component Permit

Permit Issue Date Permit

Permit Effective Date Permit

Permit Modification/Amendment Date Permit

Permit Expiration Date Permit

Permit Termination Date Permit

Permit Major/Minor Status Indicator Permit

Permit Major/Minor Status Start Date Permit

Permit Application Total Design Flow Permit

Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow Permit

Complete Permit Application/NOI Received Date Permit

Permit Application/NOI Received Date Permit

Permit Status Permit

Master General Permit Industrial Category Permit

Permit Issuing Organization Type Permit

DMR Non-Receipt Permit

DMR Non-Receipt Start Date Permit

Reportable Noncompliance Tracking Permit

Reportable Noncompliance Tracking Start Date Permit

Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines Permit

Permit Compliance Tracking Status Permit

Permit Compliance Tracking Status Start Date Permit

RNC Status (Manual) Permit

RNC Status (Manual) Year Permit

RNC Status (Manual) Quarter Permit

Associated NPDES ID Number Permit

Associated NPDES ID Number Reason Permit

Receiving POTW ID Permit

SIC Code Permit

SIC Code Primary Indicator Permit

NAICS Codes Permit

NAICS Code Primary Indicator Permit
A-2 10 September 2015

Appendix A to 40 CFR 127

Data Name Data Family for Purposes of 

Economic Analysis

Permittee Mailing Address Permit

Permittee Organization Formal Name Permit

Permittee City Permit

Permittee State Permit

Permittee Zip Code Permit

Residual Designation Determination Date Permit

Electronic Reporting Waiver Type Permit

Electronic Reporting Waiver Expiration Date Permit

Electronic Submission Type (General Permit Reports) Permit

NPDES Data Group Number Permit

Narrative Conditions and Permit Schedules Information

Permit Narrative Condition Code Permit

Permit Narrative Condition Number Permit

Permit Schedule Date Permit

Permit Schedule Actual Date Permit

Required Report Received Date Permit

Permit Schedule Event Code Permit

Permitted Feature Information

Permitted Feature Application Actual Average Flow (MGD) Permit

Permitted Feature Identifier Permit

Permitted Feature Type Permit

Receiving Waterbody Name for Permitted Feature Permit

Permitted Feature Longitude Permit

Permitted Feature Latitude Permit

Limit Set Information

Limit Set Designator Limit Set

Limit Set Type Limit Set

Modification Effective Date (Limit Set) Limit Set

Modification Type (Limit Set) Limit Set

Initial Monitoring Date Limit Set

Initial DMR Due Date Limit Set

Number of Report Units Limit Set

Number of Submission Units Limit Set

Limit Set Status Limit Set

Limit Set Status Start Date Limit Set

Limit Information

Monitoring Location Code Limit

Limit Season Number Limit

Limit Start Date Limit

Limit End Date Limit

Change of Limit Status Indicator Limit

Limit Stay Type Limit

Limit Stay Start Date Limit

Limit Stay End Date Limit

Reason for Limit Stay Limit

Stay Limit Value Limit

Limit Type Limit

Enforcement Action ID Limit

Final Order ID Limit

Modification Effective Date Limit

Modification Type Limit

Limit Parameter Code Limit

Limit Months Limit

Limit Value Type Limit

Limit Quantity or Concentration Units Limit

Statistical Base Code Limit

Optional Monitoring Code Limit

Limit Value Qualifier Limit

Limit Value Limit

Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent

Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Management Facility Type Permit

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Treatment Processes (Permit) Permit

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Form (Permit) Permit
A-3 10 September 2015

Appendix A to 40 CFR 127

Data Name Data Family for Purposes of 

Economic Analysis

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Management Practice (Permit) Permit

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Pathogen Class (Permit) Permit

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Vector Attraction Reduction Options (Permit) Permit

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Pathogen Reduction Options (Permit) Permit

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Amount (Permit) Permit

Animal Feeding Operation Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent

Facility CAAP Designation Permit

Facility CAFO Type Permit

CAFO Designation Date Permit

CAFO Designation Reason Permit

CAFO Animal Types Permit

CAFO Animal Maximum Numbers Permit

CAFO Animal Maximum Numbers in Open Confinement Permit

CAFO MLPW Permit

CAFO MLPW Amounts Permit

CAFO MLPW Amounts Units Permit

CAFO MLPW Transferred Permit

Total Number of Acres Available for Land Application Permit

CAFO MLPW Containment and Storage Type Permit

CAFO MLPW Containment and Storage Maximum Capacity Amounts Permit

CAFO MLPW Containment and Storage Maximum Capacity Amounts Unit Permit

Construction and Industrial Stormwater Information

No Exposure Certification Approval Date Permit

Low Erosivity Waiver Approval Date Permit

Construction Stormwater Information on NPDES Permit Application, Notice of Intent, or Waiver Request

Total Area of the Site Permit

Total Activity Area (Construction) Permit

Post-Construction Total Impervious Area Permit

Proposed Stormwater Best Management Practices for Construction Activities Permit

Post-Construction Stormwater Best Management Practices for Construction 

Activities Permit

Soil and Fill Material Description Permit

Runoff Coefficient of the Site (Post Construction) Permit

Estimated Construction Project Start Date Permit

Estimated Construction Project End Date Permit

Industrial Stormwater Information on NPDES Permit Application, Notice of Intent, or Permitting Exclusion 

Request

Total Activity Area (Industrial) Permit

Total Impervious Surface Area (Industrial) Permit

Proposed Stormwater Best Management Practices (Industrial) Permit

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent

MS4 Permit Class Permit

Unique Identifier for Each Municipality Covered Under MS4 Permit Permit

MS4 Public Education Program Permit

MS4 Measurable Goals Associated With Public Education Program Permit

MS4 Public Involvement and Participation Program Permit

MS4 Measurable Goals for the Public Involvement and Participation Program Permit

MS4 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Permit

MS4 Measurable Goals Associated With Illicit Discharge Detection and 

Elimination Program Permit

MS4 Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Permit

MS4 Measurable Goals Associated with the Construction Site Stormwater Runoff 

Control Program Permit

MS4 Post- Construction Stormwater Management In New Development And 

Redevelopment Permit

MS4 Measurable Goals Associated with the Post- Construction: Stormwater 

Management Program Permit

MS4 Pollution Prevention/ Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations 

Program Permit

MS4 Additional Measures Permit

POTW Collection System Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent

Name of Collection System Permit

Owner Type of Collection System Permit
A-4 10 September 2015

Appendix A to 40 CFR 127

Data Name Data Family for Purposes of 

Economic Analysis

Collection System Identifier Permit

Population of Collection System Permit

Percentage of Collection System That Is a Combined Sewer System Permit

POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Level Description Permit

POTW Wastewater Disinfection Technology Permit

POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Unit Operations Permit

Combined Sewer System Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent

Long-Term CSO Control Plan Permit Requirements and Compliance Permit

Nine Minimum CSO Controls Developed Permit

Nine Minimum CSO Controls Implemented Permit

LTCP Submission and Approval Type Permit

LTCP Approval Date Permit

Enforceable Mechanism and Schedule to Complete LTCP and CSO Controls Permit

Actual Date Completed LTCP and CSO Controls Permit

Approved Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Permit

Other CSO Control Measures with Compliance Schedule Permit

Pretreatment Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent

Pretreatment Program Required Indicator Permit

Pretreatment Program Approval or Modification Date Permit

Pretreatment Program Modification Type Permit

Industrial User Type Permit

Significant Industrial User Subject to Local Limits Permit

Significant Industrial User Subject to Local Limits More Stringent Than 

Categorical Standards Permit

Applicable Categorical Standards Permit

Significant Industrial User Wastewater Flow Rate Permit

Industrial User Causing Problems at POTW Permit

Receiving RCRA Waste Permit

Receiving Remediation Waste Permit

Control Authority Identifier Permit

Cooling Water Intake Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent

Cooling Water Intake Applicable Subpart Permit

Design Intake Flow for Cooling Water Intake Structure(s) Permit

Actual Intake Flow for Cooling Water Intake Structure(s) Permit

Location Type for Cooling Water Intake Structure Permit

Actual Through-Screen Velocity Permit

Source Water for Cooling Purposes Permit

Cooling Water Intake Structure Chosen Compliance Method Permit

Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data: Threatened or 

Endangered Status Permit

CWA Section 316(a) Thermal Variance Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent

Thermal Variance Request Type Permit

Public Notice of Section 316(a) Requests Permit

Thermal Variance Granted Date Permit

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (General)

Compliance Monitoring Identifier Compliance Monitoring

Permitted Feature Identifier (Compliance Monitoring Activity) Compliance Monitoring

Electronic Submission Type Compliance Monitoring

Compliance Monitoring Activity Actual End Date Compliance Monitoring

Compliance Monitoring Activity Planned End Date Compliance Monitoring

Compliance Monitoring State Compliance Monitoring

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring

Compliance Monitoring Type Compliance Monitoring

Biomonitoring Test Type Compliance Monitoring

Compliance Monitoring Action Reason Compliance Monitoring

Was this a State, Federal or Joint (State/Federal) Inspection? Compliance Monitoring

Programs Evaluated Compliance Monitoring

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (Program Specific Data)

Deficiencies Identified Through the Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Compliance 

Monitoring Compliance Monitoring

Deficiencies Identified Through the MS4 Compliance Monitoring Compliance Monitoring

Deficiencies Identified Through the Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring Compliance Monitoring

Deficiencies Identified Through the Sewer Overflow Compliance Monitoring Compliance Monitoring
A-5 10 September 2015

Appendix A to 40 CFR 127

Data Name Data Family for Purposes of 

Economic Analysis

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (AFO/CAFO Inspections)

Animal Types (Inspection) Compliance Monitoring

Animal Numbers (Inspection) Compliance Monitoring

Animal Numbers in Open Confinement (Inspection) Compliance Monitoring

MLPW Containment and Storage Type (Inspection) Compliance Monitoring

MLPW Containment and Storage Type Within Design Capacity (Inspection) Compliance Monitoring

AFO/CAFO Unauthorized Discharges (Inspection) Compliance Monitoring

Permit Requirements Implementation (Inspection) Compliance Monitoring

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (Discharge Monitoring Report, and Pretreatment Periodic 

Compliance Reports for Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) when EPA or 

the State is the Control Authority)

Limit Set Designator (Compliance Monitoring Activity) DMR

Parameter Code (Compliance Monitoring Activity) DMR

Monitoring Location Code (Compliance Monitoring Activity) DMR

Limit Season Number (Compliance Monitoring Activity) DMR

Monitoring Period End Date (Compliance Monitoring Activity) DMR

No Data Indicator (NODI) (Compliance Monitoring Activity) DMR

Value (Compliance Monitoring Activity) DMR

Quantity or Concentration Units (Compliance Monitoring Activity) DMR

Value Received Date (Compliance Monitoring Activity) DMR

Value Type (Compliance Monitoring Activity) DMR

Value Qualifier (Compliance Monitoring Activity) DMR

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (Periodic Program Reports)

Program Report Received Date Program Report

Program Report Event ID Program Report

Start Date of Reporting Period Program Report

End Date of Reporting Period Program Report

NPDES Data Group Number (Program Report) Program Report

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (Data Elements Specific to Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual 

Program Reports)

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Treatment Processes Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Analytical Methods Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Form Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Management Practice Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Pathogen Class Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Volume Amount Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Pathogen Reduction Options Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Vector Attraction Reduction Options Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Monitored Parameter Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Monitored Parameter Value Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge s Monitored Parameter Units Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Monitored Parameter End Date Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge - Surface Disposal Maximum Allowable Pollutant 

Concentration Program Report

Biosolids or Sewage Sludge – Land Application or Surface Disposal Deficiencies Program Report

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (Data Elements Specific to CAFO Annual Program Reports)

CAFO Animal Types (Program Report) Program Report

CAFO Animal Maximum Number (Program Report) Program Report

CAFO Animal Maximum Number in Open Confinement (Program Report) Program Report

CAFO MLPW (Program Report) Program Report

CAFO MLPW Amounts (Program Report) Program Report

CAFO MLPW Amounts Units (Program Report) Program Report

CAFO MLPW Transferred (Program Report) Program Report

Total Number of Acres for Land Application Covered by the Nutrient 

Management Plan (Program Report) Program Report

Total Number of Acres Used for Land Application (Program Report) Program Report

Discharge Type (Program Report) Program Report

Discovery Dates of Discharges from Production Area (Program Report) Program Report

Duration of Discharges from Production Area (Program Report) Program Report

Approximate Volume of Discharge from Production Area (Program Report) Program Report

Whether NMP Approved or Developed by Certified Planner (Program Report) Program Report

CAFO MLPW Nitrogen Content (Program Report) Program Report

CAFO MLPW Phosphorus Content (Program Report) Program Report
A-6 10 September 2015

Appendix A to 40 CFR 127

Data Name Data Family for Purposes of 

Economic Analysis

CAFO MLPW Nitrogen or Phosphorus Units (Program Report) Program Report

CAFO MLPW Nitrogen or Phosphorus Form (Program Report) Program Report

Field Identification Number (Program Report) Program Report

Actual Crop(s) Planted for Each Field (Program Report) Program Report

Actual Crop Yield(s) for Each Field (Program Report) Program Report

Actual Crop Yield(s) for Each Field Units (Program Report) Program Report

Method for Calculating Maximum Amounts of Manure, Litter, and Process 

Wastewater (Program Report) Program Report

CAFO MLPW Land Application For Each Field (Program Report) Program Report

CAFO MLPW Land Application Maximum Amount For Each Field (Program 

Report) Program Report

CAFO MLPW Land Application Actual Amount For Each Field (Program Report) Program Report

CAFO MLPW Land Application For Each Field Unit (Program Report) Program Report

Nitrogen Soil Test Measurement (Narrative Rate Approach) (Program Report) Program Report

Phosphorus Soil Test Measurement (Narrative Rate Approach) (Program 

Report) Program Report

Soil Test Measurement Form (Narrative Rate Approach) (Program Report) Program Report

Soil Test Measurement Unit(s) (Narrative Rate Approach) (Program Report) Program Report

Nitrogen Amount of Any Supplemental Fertilizer Applied (Program Report) Program Report

Phosphorus Amount of Any Supplemental Fertilizer Applied (Program Report) Program Report

Supplemental Fertilizer Applied Units (Program Report) Program Report

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (Data Elements Specific to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System 

Program Reports)

MS4 Reliance on Other Government Entities Status Program Report

MS4 Reliance on Other Government Entities: Permit Component Status Program Report

MS4 Permit Components Descriptions and Measurable Goals Program Report

Changes to MS4 Permit Components and Measurable Goals Program Report

Status of Compliance with each Minimum Control Measure Program Report

Progress and Summary of Results with Each Minimum Control Measure Program Report

MS4 Enforcement Action Type Program Report

MS4 Enforcement Action Number Program Report

MS4 Municipality Enforcement Agency Program Report

MS4 Industrial Stormwater Control Program Report

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (Data Elements Specific to Pretreatment Program Reports, SIU 

Periodic Compliance Reports in Municipalities without an Approved Pretreatment Program)

SNC Published Program Report

SNC with Pretreatment Enforceable Compliance Schedule Status Program Report

Local Limits Adoption Date Program Report

Local Limits Evaluation Date Program Report

Local Limits Pollutants Program Report

POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator (Program Report) Program Report

POTW Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Contamination Indicator (Program Report) Program Report

Industrial User Control Mechanism Status Program Report

Industrial User Control Mechanism Effective Date Program Report

Industrial User Control Mechanism Expiration Date Program Report

SNC with Pretreatment Standards or Limits (Program Report) Program Report

SNC with Pretreatment Standards or Limits Pollutants (Program Report) Program Report

SNC with Reporting Requirements (Program Report) Program Report

SNC with Other Control Mechanism Requirements (Program Report) Program Report

Listing of Months in SNC Program Report

Number of Industrial User Inspections by Control Authority Program Report

Number of Industrial User Sampling Events by Control Authority Program Report

Number of Required Industrial User Self-Monitoring Events Program Report

Actual Number of Industrial User Self-Monitoring Events Program Report

Types of Industrial User Enforcement Action Program Report

Number of Industrial User Enforcement Actions Program Report

Industrial User Cash Civil Penalty Amount Assessed Program Report

Industrial User Cash Civil Penalty Amount Collected Program Report

Industrial User POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator (Program Report) Program Report

Industrial User Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Contamination Indicator (Program 

Report) Program Report

Industrial User Wastewater Flow Rate (Program Report) Program Report

Middle-Tier Significant Industrial User Reduced Reporting Status Program Report
A-7 10 September 2015

Appendix A to 40 CFR 127

Data Name Data Family for Purposes of 

Economic Analysis

Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) Certification Submitted to 

Control Authority Program Report

Notification of Changed Discharge Submission Program Report

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (Data Elements Specific to Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports)

Sewer Overflow/Bypass Discharge Identifier Program Report

Sewer Overflow/Bypass Longitude for Unpermitted Feature (Sewer 

Overflow/Bypass Event Report) Program Report

Sewer Overflow/Bypass Latitude for Unpermitted Feature (Sewer 

Overflow/Bypass Event Report) Program Report

Type of Sewer Overflow/Bypass (Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report) Program Report

Type of Sewer Overflow/Bypass Structure Program Report

Sewer Overflow/Bypass Cause Program Report

Duration of Sewer Overflow/Bypass event (hours) (Sewer Overflow/Bypass 

Event Report) Program Report

Sewer Overflow/Bypass Discharge Volume (gallons) (Sewer Overflow/Bypass 

Event Report) Program Report

Receiving Waterbody Name for Unpermitted Feature (Sewer Overflow/Bypass 

Event Report) Program Report

Wet Weather Occurrence for Sewer Overflow/Bypass Status Program Report

Corrective Actions Taken or Planned for Sewer Overflow/Bypasss (Sewer 

Overflow/Bypass Event Report) Program Report

Type of Potential Impact of Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event (Sewer 

Overflow/Bypass Event Report) Program Report

Compliance Monitoring Activity Information (Data Elements Specific to CWA Section 316(b) Annual Reports)

CWA Section 316(b) Biological Monitoring - Species Name (Program Report) Program Report

CWA Section 316(b) Biological Monitoring - Species Number (Program Report) Program Report

CWA Section 316(b) Biological Monitoring - Threatened or Endangered Status 

(Program Report) Program Report

CWA Section 316(b) Biological Monitoring - Species Impinged and Entrained 

(Program Report) Program Report

CWA Section 316(b) Biological Monitoring – Applicable Measures to Protect 

Designated Critical Habitat (Program Report) Program Report

Information Common to Violations, Enforcement Actions, and Final Orders

Violation Code Violation/ Enforcement Action

Violation Date Violation/ Enforcement Action

Violation Information

Agency Identifying the Single Event Violation (SEV) Violation

Single Event Violation Start Date Violation

Single Event Violation End Date Violation

RNC Detection Code Violation

RNC Detection Date Violation

RNC Resolution Code Violation

RNC Resolution Date Violation

Enforcement Action Information

Enforcement Action Identifier Enforcement Action

Enforcement Action Forum Enforcement Action

Enforcement Action Type Enforcement Action

Programs Violated (Enforcement Action) Enforcement Action

Enforcement Action Sub-activity Type Enforcement Action

Enforcement Action Sub-activity Completion Date Enforcement Action

Final Order Information

Final Order Identifier Enforcement Action

Final Order Type Enforcement Action

Final Order Issued/ Entered Date Enforcement Action

NPDES Closed Date Enforcement Action

Penalty Information

Penalty Amount Assessed Enforcement Action

Penalty Amount Collected Enforcement Action

Supplemental Environmental Project Identifier Enforcement Action

Supplemental Environmental Project Amount Enforcement Action

Supplemental Environmental Project Description. Enforcement Action

Compliance Schedule Information

Compliance Schedule Number Enforcement Action
A-8 10 September 2015

Appendix A to 40 CFR 127

Data Name Data Family for Purposes of 

Economic Analysis

Compliance Schedule Type Enforcement Action

Compliance Schedule Description Enforcement Action

Compliance Schedule Event Code Enforcement Action

Compliance Schedule Due Date Enforcement Action

Compliance Schedule Actual Date Enforcement Action

Compliance Schedule Report Received Date Enforcement Action
B-1 14 September 2015

Appendix B – List of States by Data Entry Type

There are three different methods state authorized NPDES programs utilize to submit data into 

ICIS-NPDES or PCS: Direct Entry, Batch Upload and a Hybrid of the two approaches (see 

Section 3).

 Direct Entry authorities enter data into EPA’s ICIS-NPDES or PCS system directly.

 Batch systems use their own state system to track regulated entities and their own 

activities under the NPDES program. This NPDES information is periodically uploaded 

to EPA’s ICIS-NPDES or PCS systems.

 Hybrid systems enter most data over the web, with the DMR component of the NPDES 

permit batch uploaded to EPA’s ICIS-NPDES or PCS systems periodically. 

Table B-1 lists each state, tribe, and territory with its associated data entry type.

Table B-1: States by 

Data Entry Type

State Data Entry Type

AL Batch

AK Direct

ASa Direct

AZ Batch

AR Hybrid

ATa Direct

CA Direct

CO Direct

CMa Direct

CT Direct

CZa Direct

DE Batch

DC Direct

FL Batch

GA Direct

GEa Direct

GUa Direct

GMa Direct

HI Direct

ID Direct

IL Hybrid

IN Direct

IA Batch

KS Batch

KY Batch

LA Direct

ME Batch

MD Direct

MA Direct

MI Hybrid

MN Hybrid

MS Direct

MO Batch

MT Direct

NE Direct

NV Batch

NH Direct

NJ Direct

NM Direct

NNb Direct
B-2 14 September 2015

Table B-1: States by 

Data Entry Type

State Data Entry Type

NY Direct

NC Batch

ND Batch

OH Batch

OK Direct

OR Batch

PA Batch

PRa Direct

RI Direct

SC Direct

SD Direct

SRb Direct

TN Batch

TTa Direct

TX Hybrid

UT Direct

VT Batch

VIa Direct

VA Batch

WA Batch

WV Batch

WI Direct

WY Batch

a

This area is a territory.

b

This area is a tribe.

Source: Kadish, Rochele. 

2013. Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance, U.S. EPA. 
C-1 14 September 2015

Appendix C – NPDES Program Management Information (PMI) 

Survey

This survey was originally developed to support an earlier version of this rule (known as the 

Program Management Information Proposed Rule) that did not include electronic reporting.

Certain elements of the earlier proposed rule, however, are relevant to the current NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule. Specifically, the time required of state personnel to enter NPDES data 

elements, as collected in the attached survey, is relevant to calculating the data entry burden to 

states under the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.

NPDES Program Management Information (PMI) Survey

This survey contains the following three sections:

 A description of the new data elements covered by the proposed PMI rule and questions 

relating to data entry activities that states undertake to provide NPDES data.

 Additional questions related to other activities such as QA/QC, training, and program 

management that states undertake to provide NPDES data.

 Definitions of terms used in this survey.

C.1 SECTION 1: Description of New Data Elements and Data Entry

Questions

In order to better protect human health and the environment, the EPA has expanded the 

information collected for NPDES. Under the proposed NPDES PMI Rule, new data elements 

(listed below in Table C-2, Table C-4, Table C-6, Table C-8, Table C-10, and Table C-12, and

Table C-14) will be added to the following data families: facility, permit, compliance monitoring 

activity, discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), violation, program reports, and enforcement 

action. In addition, certain information will now be reported for new subprograms including 

Biosolids, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO), 

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), Storm Water Management (SWM), and Pretreatment. 

As a starting point for this analysis, we would like you to consider the amount of time it takes 

your state to enter the Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) data elements. For the 

purposes of this analysis, we are assuming that your state enters all of the currently required 

WENDB data elements. Please respond accordingly by providing time estimates by data family in 

Table C-1, Table C-3, Table C-5, Table C-7, Table C-9, Table C-11, and Table C-13. Considering 

the new data elements listed below, please provide estimates of the additional time your state will 

spend per data family to enter the new data required by the proposed NPDES PMI Rule in Table 

C-2, Table C-4, Table C-6, Table C-8, Table C-10, and Table C-12, and Table C-14. For majors 

and nonmajors, please include the amount of time to conduct research on the required data and 

the amount of time to locate the data in your files as costs associated with data entry. Note: Under 

the proposed NPDES PMI rule, all data elements for nonmajor permits will be required for data 

entry.

The following sections are organized by data element families. Please answer the questions below 

to the best of your ability.
C-2 14 September 2015

Facility Data Element Family

The Facility Data Element Family generally includes data elements such as name and address of 

the facility, and contact name. Several pieces of facility information will be required to improve 

the EPA’s management of facilities. Tribal Land is required so that the EPA can identify effluent 

discharges in Tribal nations. Affiliation information is required to ensure reported data comes 

from the appropriate employee or representative.

Table C-1: WENDB Facility Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently

Required WENDB Data Elements

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB facility data elements for a 

typical permit (Assuming your state is 

entering all of the required WENDB 

data elements)?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___60 – 90 minutes

___90 – 120 minutes

___ >120 minutes

___Not Applicable

Table C-2: New Facility Data Elements 

Data Family Sub-Area Data Element Name

Basic Info Tribal Land 

Non Government Contacts Affiliation type

Non Government Contacts Individual Title

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering these new facility 

data elements for a typical permit?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___> 60 minutes

___Not Applicable

Permit Data Element Family

The Permit Data Element Family generally includes basic permit information, tracking of a 

permit’s issuance, narrative permit conditions such as permit schedules, permitted features

(outfalls), permit limit sets, and permit limits. Data elements like DMR non-receipt tracking flags, 

RNC tracking flags, and applicable effluent guidelines have been added to help EPA characterize 

and monitor a facility’s compliance with their permit requirements. Data elements have also been 

added to address changes in industrial codes. Under the WENDB requirements, Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) codes were used to designate a facility’s industrial sector. Since 

then, the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) has been adopted to more 

accurately represent commercial activities. These changes will allow the EPA to more effectively 

manage basic permit information for compliance and enforcement purposes.

Other permit data elements have been added to represent the expanded NPDES program. The 

required permit data elements are designed to effectively measure the environmental impact of 
C-3 14 September 2015

new facility types covered under the CWA. Both the size of the permitted site and the cause of 

the discharge, such as the number of animals in a feeding operation, will be reported. Wet 

weather components are included to manage stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces. CSO 

data elements are included to track possible discharges of untreated human and industrial waste.

Other elements, such as Control Authority ID Number tie treatment facility permits to the 

approved local pretreatment programs. 

Additional data elements have been added to characterize permitted features, their limit sets, and 

limits. Actual flow and design flow contain information on the volume of effluent a permitted 

feature can be expected to accommodate. Months of duration for a limit set, stay end date, reason 

for stay, enforcement action ID, eligibility for a burden reduction, months, and qualifier all 

capture information that can be used to characterize and justify effluent limit or stays of such 

limits. These new permit data elements allow EPA to better monitor compliance and enforcement 

of the NPDES program.

Table C-3: WENDB Permit Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently

Required WENDB Data Elements

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB permit data elements for a 

typical permit (Assuming your state is 

entering all of the required WENDB 

data elements)?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___60 – 90 minutes

___90 – 120 minutes

___ >120 minutes

___Not Applicable
C-4 14 September 2015

Table C-4: New Permit Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name

Basic Info DMR Non-Receipt

Basic Info RNC

Basic Info Application Effluent Limit Guideline

Basic Info NAICS Codes

Biosolids Amount EQ Product Distribute and Market

Biosolids Amount Land Applied

Biosolids Amount Incinerated

Biosolids Amount Codisposed in a MSW Landfill

Biosolids Amount Surface Disposal

Biosolids Amount Managed Other Methods

CAFO Designation Reason

CAFO Designation Date

CAFO Solid Manure or Litter Generated

CAFO Solid Manure or Litter Transferred

CAFO Liquid Manure or Wastewater Generated

CAFO Liquid Manure or Wastewater Transferred

CAFO NMP Developed Date

CAFO CAFO Classification

CAFO Animal : Type

CAFO Animal : Other

CAFO Total Number

CAFO Containment : Type

CAFO Containment : Total Capacity

CAFO Storage : Type

CAFO Storage : Other

CAFO Days of Storage

CAFO Storage Total Capacity Measure

Storm Water State Water Body Name

Storm Water Construction NOT Termination Date

Storm Water Construction Entire Project Size

Storm Water Industrial NOT Termination Date

Storm Water Industrial No Exposure Date

Storm Water MS4 MS4 Permit Class

Storm Water MS5 Receiving MS4 Name

CSO CSS population Served

CSO Percent of Collection System Combined

CSO Name of CSS Satellite Collection System

CSO Permit ID of CSS Satellite Collection System

Pretreatment Pretreatment Program Approved Date

Pretreatment Control Authority NPDES ID

Pretreatment SSCS Population Served

Pretreatment Length of SSCS

Narrative Condition/Permit Schedules Description

Basic Info Application Design Flow

Basic Info Application Actual Average Flow

Basic Info Default Months Limit Set Applies

Basic Info Stay End Date

Basic Info Reason for Stay

Basic Info Enforcement Action ID

Basic Info Eligible for Burden Reduction

Basic Info Months

Basic Info Qualifier
C-5 14 September 2015

Table C-4: New Permit Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering the data for this 

data family?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___> 60 minutes

___Not Applicable

Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Element Family

The Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Element Family is designed to document compliance 

monitoring activities at facilities with CAFO, CSO, SSO, and pretreatment permit components.

This family of data generally includes information associated with inspections such as inspection 

type, information characterizing the NPDES facility, and dates associated with the inspection.

New compliance monitoring activity data elements have been added to allow EPA to track 

compliance monitoring activities and monitor activities associated with non-point sources of 

pollution. Some examples of these data elements are planned end dates, inspection methods, and 

improved locational information such as latitude and longitude. These new compliance 

monitoring activity data elements improve the Agency’s understanding of where environmental 

impacts take place.

Table C-5: WENDB Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently Required 

WENDB Data Elements

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB compliance monitoring 

activity data elements for a typical 

permit (Assuming your state is 

entering all of the required WENDB 

data elements)?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___60 – 90 minutes

___90 – 120 minutes

___ >120 minutes

___Not Applicable
C-6 14 September 2015

Table C-6: New Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name

Basic Info Compliance Monitoring Activity Planned End Date

Basic Info Bio-Monitoring Inspection Method

Basic Info Compliance Monitoring Action Reason

CAFO Designation Reason

CAFO Animal Type

CAFO Animal Type: Other

CAFO Animal Total Number

CAFO Containment Type

CAFO Containment Total Capacity

CAFO Containment Other

CAFO CAFO Classification

CAFO CAFO Designation Date

CAFO Solid Manure or Litter Generated

CAFO Solid Manure or Litter Transferred

CAFO Liquid Manure or Wastewater Generated

CAFO Liquid Manure or Wastewater Transferred

CAFO NMP Developed Date

CAFO NMP Last Updated Date

CAFO Is the Animal Facility Type a CAFO

CAFO Storage: Type

CAFO Storage: Other

CAFO Days of Storage

CAFO Storage Total Capacity Measure

CSO Permitted Feature ID

CSO Location Street Address

CSO Longitude

CSO Latitude

CSO CSO Overflow Event Date

Pretreatment Pass-through/Interference Indicator

SSO Location Street Address

SSO Longitude

SSO Latitude

SSO SSO Event Date

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering these new 

compliance monitoring activity data elements 

for a typical permit?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___> 60 minutes

___Not Applicable

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) Data Element Family

The DMR Data Element Family generally includes self-monitoring effluent data provided by 

NPDES facilities. This new information is required to assist EPA with the review of effluent 

discharges. A new data element has been added for concentration and quantity units which can be 

used by EPA to interpret reported effluent values. Several other data elements have been added to 

characterize a facility’s treatment and disposal of biosolids.
C-7 14 September 2015

Table C-7: WENDB DMR Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently Required WENDB Data Elements

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB DMR data elements for a 

typical permit (Assuming your state is 

entering all of the required WENDB 

data elements)?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___60 – 90 minutes

___90 – 120 minutes

___ >120 minutes

___Not Applicable

Table C-8: New DMR Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name

Basic Info Concentration Units/Quantity Units

Biosolids – Incinerator Compliance With National Emission Standard for Beryllium

Biosolids – Incinerator Compliance With National Emission Standard for Mercury

Biosolids - Land Application Site Pollutant Table Met

Biosolids - Land Application Site Does Facility Certify Pathogen Reduction for Land Application

Biosolids - Land Application Site Does the Facility Certify Vector Attraction Reduction for Land 

Application

Biosolids - Surface Disposal Does Facility Certify Pathogen Reduction for Surface Disposal

Biosolids - Surface Disposal Does Facility Certify Attraction Reduction for Surface Disposal

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering these new DMR 

data elements for a typical permit?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___> 60 minutes

___Not Applicable

Violation Data Element Family

The Violation Data Element Family includes data associated with violations such as single event, 

effluent, and compliance schedule violations. Two new data fields have been added concerning 

single event violations that allow EPA to track the timing and duration of these violations. The 

Agency may use this information to estimate the scale of possible environmental impacts and the 

efficiency of efforts to return a facility to compliance.
C-8 14 September 2015

Table C-9: WENDB Violation Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently Required WENDB Data Elements

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB violation data elements for a 

typical permit (Assuming your state is 

entering all of the required WENDB 

data elements)?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___60 – 90 minutes

___90 – 120 minutes

___ >120 minutes

___Not Applicable

Table C-10: New Violation Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name

Basic Info Single Event Start Date

Basic Info Single Event End Date

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering these new 

violation data elements for a typical permit?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___> 60 minutes

___Not Applicable

Program Reports Data Element Family

The Program Reports Data Element Family generally includes program reports submitted for 

NPDES subprograms such as CAFOS, CSOs, and approved local pretreatment facilities. These 

data elements include locational information such as latitude and longitude for CSOs that 

improve the Agency’s understanding of where environmental impacts take place.

Table C-11: WENDB Program Reports Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently Required WENDB Data Elements

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB program report data 

elements for a typical permit 

(Assuming your state is entering all 

of the required WENDB data 

elements)?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___60 – 90 minutes

___90 – 120 minutes

___ >120 minutes

___Not Applicable
C-9 14 September 2015

Table C-12: New Program Reports Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name

Biosolids Report Coverage End Date

Biosolids Number of Report Units

CAFO Animal Type

CAFO Animal Other

CAFO Total Number

CAFO Discharges During Year from Production Area

CAFO Solid Manure or Litter Generated

CAFO Liquid Manure or Wastewater Generated

CAFO Solid Manure or Litter Transferred

CAFO Liquid Manure or Wastewater Transferred

CAFO Does the Facility have an NMP developed or approved by a certified 

planner

CAFO Total number of Acres identified by NMP

CAFO Total number of acres used for land application in past 12 months

CSO Permitted Feature ID

CSO Location Street Address

CSO Longitude

CSO Latitude

Pretreatment Pass-through/Interference Indicator

Pretreatment Local Limits Pollutants

Pretreatment Removal Credits Application Status

Pretreatment Date of Most Recent Removals Credits Application

Pretreatment Removal Credits

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering these new 

program reports data elements for a typical 

permit?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___> 60 minutes

___Not Applicable

Enforcement Action Data Element Family

The Enforcement Action Data Element Family generally includes data regarding the enforcement 

action itself as well as associated compliance schedules and penalties. A new enforcement action 

data element has been added to document reasons for deleting enforcement actions. This data 

element enables EPA to improve its data management practices for enforcement action records. 
C-10 14 September 2015

Table C-13: WENDB Enforcement Action Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently Required WENDB Data Elements

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB enforcement action data 

elements for a typical permit 

(Assuming your state is entering all 

of the required WENDB data 

elements)?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___60 – 90 minutes

___90 – 120 minutes

___ >120 minutes

___Not Applicable

Table C-14: New Enforcement Action Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name

Basic Info Reason for deleting Enforcement Action

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering these new 

enforcement action data elements for a 

typical permit?

___ < 1 minute

___ 1 - 5 minutes

___ 5 - 10 minutes

___ 10 – 15 minutes

___ 15 – 20 minutes

___ 20 – 30 minutes

___ 30 - 40 minutes

___40 – 60 minutes

___> 60 minutes

___Not Applicable

C.2 SECTION 2: Questions Related to Other State Activities

In this section, EPA requests information on other activities that states undertake to provide 

NPDES data.

Note: Please use the following information to convert reporting time into Full Time Equivalents 

(FTEs).

1 hour every week equals 0.025 FTEs (assuming a 40 hour work week)

1 day every week equals 0.20 FTEs (assuming an 8 hour work day)

1 week every month equals 0.25 FTEs (assuming a 40 hour work week with 30 days in 

each month)

1 month every year equals 0.08 FTEs (assuming 30 days in each month and 365 days 

in a year) 

1) Roughly how much will your state spend to Quality Assure/Quality Control the new data 

elements in your NPDES Information System? Keep in mind that reporting on nonmajors is 

required under the NPDES PMI rule. Please quantify in terms of quarterly FTEs and/or contract 

dollars.

________________________________________________________________________
C-11 14 September 2015

2) Roughly how much training will it take to familiarize data entry staff with the new data 

elements? Please quantify in terms of quarterly FTEs and/or contract dollars.

________________________________________________________________________

3) On an average quarterly basis, what level of effort (FTEs and/or contract dollars) will be 

expended on program management for the following subprograms:

CAFOs: ______________

SSOs: ______________

CSOs: ______________

SWMs: ______________

Pretreatment: ______________

Biosolids: ______________

4) On an average quarterly basis, how much time does your state spend entering DMR data into 

your NPDES Information System for a typical permit?

______________________________________________________________________________

5) What is your estimate of the number of nonmajors in your state?

______________________________________________________________________________

6) On an average quarterly basis, how much time (FTEs and/or contract dollars) does your state 

expend on the management of DMR data for your NPDES Information System?

______________________________________________________________________________

7) Will there be an increased cost to maintain your state system with the additional data elements 

and the requirement that nonmajors enter their data into your NPDES Information System? If yes, 

please quantify these costs in terms of average quarterly FTEs and/or contract dollars. (Note: This 

does not apply to Direct Entry states)

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

8) Will your state’s NPDES Information System need upgrades to submit data to the EPA? If so, 

how much will these upgrades cost in terms of quarterly FTEs and/or contract dollars? (Note: 

This does not apply to Direct Entry states)

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

9) When your state has aggregated all of their data into a cohesive NPDES Information System, 

will your state realize any savings and/or efficiencies? If yes, please explain and quantify the 

savings in terms of quarterly FTEs and/or contract dollars.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
C-12 14 September 2015

10) The proposed NPDES PMI Rule may possibly remove regulatory requirements for submitting 

the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR), the Annual Non-Compliance Report (ANCR) 

and the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary. Please provide an estimate of how much your state 

spends preparing each of these reports in terms of quarterly FTEs and/or contract dollars.

QNCR: ________

ANCR: ________

Semi-Annual Statistical Summary: ________

C.3 SECTION 3: Definitions of Terms

Authorized State or Tribe

For the purposes of this presentation, an authorized State or Tribe is a State or Tribal government 

which has received authorization to implement the NPDES program from EPA.

Batch data entry

Batch data entry in ICIS-NPDES is the transmission of eXtensible Markup Language (XML) data 

files through the Central Data Exchange into ICIS-NPDES. States with their own systems would 

transfer their data to ICIS-NPDES through this electronic data transfer process.

Direct data entry

This refers to manual data entry by key punching, often in the case where the State, Tribe or EPA 

Region is using PCS or ICIS-NPDES as their primary NPDES data management system.

Direct User State or Tribe

In a NPDES program implemented by an authorized State or Tribe which will use ICIS-NPDES 

to manage the NPDES program, direct users manually enter data into ICIS-NPDES through the 

keyboard into web screens.

Hybrid State or Tribe

In a NPDES program implemented by an authorized State or Tribe which will use ICIS-NPDES 

to manage the NPDES program, hybrid users manually enter some of the data (usually non-DMR 

data) into ICIS-NPDES through the keyboard into web screens. They also electronically transfer 

the rest of the data (usually DMR data) into ICIS-NPDES; this electronic method of data entry 

will likely increase, especially with the availability of eDMR (electronic DMR) tools, such as 

NetDMR.

ICIS

The acronym ICIS stands for the Integrated Compliance Information System, developed by EPA 

to serve as a national multi-media data system.

Major

A major facility is defined as follows: a major municipal facility has a flow of 1 million gallons 

per day or greater, a service population of 10,000 or greater or a significant impact on water 

quality; industrial facilities are considered major facilities based on a rating system that allocates 

points in various categories, including flow, pollutant loadings and water quality factors. EPA 

Regions, States and Tribes also have the discretion to identify other facilities as major facilities 

due to environmental concerns.
C-13 14 September 2015

Nonmajor

The universe of facilities regulated under the NPDES program that are not “major” facilities.

Nonmajor facilities can also be referred to as “minor” facilities, although this does not denote a 

less important status.

PCS

The acronym PCS stands for the Permit Compliance System, which served as the national 

database of record for the NPDES program since 1985.

Program components

Program components refer to NPDES permit requirements associated with particular program 

areas. In ICIS-NPDES, a group of data elements are available to users to track program-specific 

data on Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), 

Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), Pretreatment, Biosolids, Stormwater, and Concentrated 

Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).

Single event violation

A Single Event Violation is a violation of a NPDES permit or regulatory requirement that is 

observed or determined by the authorized NPDES program (EPA Region or authorized State/ 

local/ tribal government), and is distinct from violations that are system-generated (e.g., effluent 

limit violations arising from DMR submission, DMR non-receipt or compliance schedule 

violations). An unauthorized bypass or discharge, a violation detected during an inspection, a 

narrative violation description reported on a DMR, and a pretreatment violation are examples of 

Single Event Violations.

WENDB

The acronym WENDB stands for the Water Enforcement National Data Base data elements, 

identified as the required data elements in the Permit Compliance System (PCS), which served as 

the national database of record for the NPDES program since 1985.

Wet weather sources

These are non-traditional NPDES sources which include storm water runoff from industrial and 

municipal sectors, discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and 

overflows from combined and sanitary sewer systems (CSOs, SSOs, bypass events). Such sources 

have been a program priority for EPA’s enforcement and compliance program since 1998.
D-1 14 September 2015

Appendix D – Detailed Schedules of Savings and Costs

Tables D-1 and D-2 break down the costs and cost savings shown in Section 4.5, presenting how 

they accrue to approved NPDES programs, regulated entities, and EPA. Note that numbers 

presented here have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand. As a result, totals may not sum to 

those shown in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found., 

although they will be within the nearest $20,000. 
D-2 14 September 2015

Table D-1: Schedule of Savings and Costs (3% Discount Rate)

Year1 Annual Costs Annual Savings Annual Net Savings Cumulative Total Costs 

Cumulative Total 

Savings 

Cumulative Net 

Savings 

Approved NPDES Programs 

0 $ 43,100,000 $ - $ (43,100,000) $ 43,100,000 $ - $ (43,100,000)

1 $ 18,060,000 $ 40,530,000 $ 22,470,000 $ 61,160,000 $ 40,530,000 $ (20,630,000)

2 $ 17,530,000 $ 39,350,000 $ 21,820,000 $ 78,690,000 $ 79,870,000 $ 1,180,000 

3 $ 17,020,000 $ 38,200,000 $ 21,180,000 $ 95,710,000 $ 118,070,000 $ 22,360,000 

4 $ 16,520,000 $ 37,090,000 $ 20,570,000 $ 112,230,000 $ 155,160,000 $ 42,930,000 

5 $ 16,000,000 $ 38,610,000 $ 22,610,000 $ 128,230,000 $ 193,770,000 $ 65,540,000 

6 $ 15,440,000 $ 38,210,000 $ 22,770,000 $ 143,670,000 $ 231,990,000 $ 88,320,000 

7 $ 14,990,000 $ 37,100,000 $ 22,110,000 $ 158,660,000 $ 269,090,000 $ 110,430,000 

8 $ 14,550,000 $ 36,020,000 $ 21,470,000 $ 173,210,000 $ 305,110,000 $ 131,900,000 

9 $ 14,130,000 $ 34,970,000 $ 20,840,000 $ 187,340,000 $ 340,080,000 $ 152,740,000 

10 $ 13,800,000 $ 33,950,000 $ 20,150,000 $ 201,140,000 $ 374,030,000 $ 172,900,000 

Regulated Entities 

0 $ 21,160,000 $ - $ (21,160,000) $ 21,160,000 $ - $ (21,160,000)

1 $ 1,010,000 $ 1,210,000 $ 200,000 $ 22,170,000 $ 1,210,000 $ (20,960,000)

2 $ 930,000 $ 1,210,000 $ 280,000 $ 23,100,000 $ 2,420,000 $ (20,680,000)

3 $ 1,240,000 $ 1,210,000 $ (30,000) $ 24,340,000 $ 3,630,000 $ (20,710,000)

4 $ 800,000 $ 1,210,000 $ 410,000 $ 25,140,000 $ 4,840,000 $ (20,300,000)

5 $ 740,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 510,000 $ 25,880,000 $ 6,090,000 $ (19,780,000)

6 $ 710,000 $ 1,220,000 $ 510,000 $ 26,590,000 $ 7,310,000 $ (19,280,000)

7 $ 690,000 $ 1,180,000 $ 490,000 $ 27,280,000 $ 8,490,000 $ (18,790,000)

8 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 150,000 $ 28,280,000 $ 9,640,000 $ (18,640,000)

9 $ 650,000 $ 1,110,000 $ 460,000 $ 28,930,000 $ 10,760,000 $ (18,170,000)

10 $ 630,000 $ 1,080,000 $ 450,000 $ 29,570,000 $ 11,840,000 $ (17,730,000)

EPA

0 $ 10,120,000 $ - $ (10,120,000) $ 10,120,000 $ - $ (10,120,000)

1 $ 1,060,000 $ 2,280,000 $ 1,220,000 $ 11,190,000 $ 2,280,000 $ (8,910,000)

2 $ 1,260,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 950,000 $ 12,450,000 $ 4,500,000 $ (7,950,000)

3 $ 970,000 $ 2,150,000 $ 1,180,000 $ 13,420,000 $ 6,650,000 $ (6,770,000)

4 $ 880,000 $ 2,090,000 $ 1,210,000 $ 14,290,000 $ 8,730,000 $ (5,560,000)

5 $ 860,000 $ 2,040,000 $ 1,180,000 $ 15,150,000 $ 10,770,000 $ (4,370,000)

6 $ 1,350,000 $ 2,060,000 $ 710,000 $ 16,500,000 $ 12,840,000 $ (3,670,000)

7 $ 910,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,090,000 $ 17,410,000 $ 14,840,000 $ (2,570,000)

8 $ 780,000 $ 1,940,000 $ 1,160,000 $ 18,200,000 $ 16,780,000 $ (1,410,000)

9 $ 760,000 $ 1,890,000 $ 1,130,000 $ 18,960,000 $ 18,670,000 $ (290,000)

10 $ 740,000 $ 1,830,000 $ 1,090,000 $ 19,700,000 $ 20,500,000 $ 810,000 

Note that numbers in table have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

1. Years after the effective date of the rule.
D-3 14 September 2015

Table D-2: Schedule of Savings and Costs (7% Discount Rate)

Year1 Annual Costs Annual Savings Annual Net Savings Cumulative Total Costs 

Cumulative Total 

Savings 

Cumulative Net 

Savings 

Approved NPDES Programs 

0 $ 43,100,000 $ - $ (43,100,000) $ 43,100,000 $ - $ (43,100,000)

1 $ 17,380,000 $ 39,010,000 $ 21,630,000 $ 60,490,000 $ 39,010,000 $ (21,470,000)

2 $ 16,240,000 $ 36,460,000 $ 20,220,000 $ 76,730,000 $ 75,470,000 $ (1,260,000)

3 $ 15,180,000 $ 34,070,000 $ 18,890,000 $ 91,910,000 $ 109,550,000 $ 17,640,000 

4 $ 14,190,000 $ 31,850,000 $ 17,660,000 $ 106,100,000 $ 141,390,000 $ 35,290,000 

5 $ 13,220,000 $ 31,910,000 $ 18,690,000 $ 119,320,000 $ 173,300,000 $ 53,980,000 

6 $ 12,280,000 $ 30,410,000 $ 18,130,000 $ 131,600,000 $ 203,710,000 $ 72,100,000 

7 $ 11,480,000 $ 28,420,000 $ 16,940,000 $ 143,080,000 $ 232,130,000 $ 89,040,000 

8 $ 10,730,000 $ 26,560,000 $ 15,830,000 $ 153,810,000 $ 258,680,000 $ 104,870,000 

9 $ 10,030,000 $ 24,820,000 $ 14,790,000 $ 163,840,000 $ 283,500,000 $ 119,660,000 

10 $ 9,430,000 $ 23,200,000 $ 13,770,000 $ 173,270,000 $ 306,700,000 $ 133,430,000 

Regulated Entities 

0 $ 21,160,000 $ - $ (21,160,000) $ 21,160,000 $ - $ (21,160,000)

1 $ 970,000 $ 1,170,000 $ 200,000 $ 22,130,000 $ 1,170,000 $ (20,970,000)

2 $ 870,000 $ 1,120,000 $ 250,000 $ 23,000,000 $ 2,290,000 $ (20,710,000)

3 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,080,000 $ (20,000) $ 24,100,000 $ 3,370,000 $ (20,740,000)

4 $ 690,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 350,000 $ 24,790,000 $ 4,400,000 $ (20,380,000)

5 $ 610,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 430,000 $ 25,400,000 $ 5,440,000 $ (19,950,000)

6 $ 570,000 $ 970,000 $ 400,000 $ 25,960,000 $ 6,410,000 $ (19,550,000)

7 $ 530,000 $ 910,000 $ 380,000 $ 26,490,000 $ 7,320,000 $ (19,180,000)

8 $ 730,000 $ 850,000 $ 120,000 $ 27,230,000 $ 8,160,000 $ (19,070,000)

9 $ 460,000 $ 790,000 $ 330,000 $ 27,690,000 $ 8,950,000 $ (18,740,000)

10 $ 430,000 $ 740,000 $ 310,000 $ 28,120,000 $ 9,690,000 $ (18,430,000)

EPA

0 $ 10,120,000 $ - $ (10,120,000) $ 10,120,000 $ - $ (10,120,000)

1 $ 1,020,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 1,180,000 $ 11,150,000 $ 2,200,000 $ (8,950,000)

2 $ 1,170,000 $ 2,050,000 $ 880,000 $ 12,320,000 $ 4,250,000 $ (8,070,000)

3 $ 860,000 $ 1,920,000 $ 1,060,000 $ 13,180,000 $ 6,170,000 $ (7,010,000)

4 $ 750,000 $ 1,790,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 13,930,000 $ 7,960,000 $ (5,970,000)

5 $ 710,000 $ 1,690,000 $ 980,000 $ 14,640,000 $ 9,650,000 $ (4,990,000)

6 $ 1,080,000 $ 1,640,000 $ 560,000 $ 15,720,000 $ 11,290,000 $ (4,430,000)

7 $ 700,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 830,000 $ 16,420,000 $ 12,820,000 $ (3,590,000)

8 $ 580,000 $ 1,430,000 $ 850,000 $ 16,990,000 $ 14,250,000 $ (2,740,000)

9 $ 540,000 $ 1,340,000 $ 800,000 $ 17,530,000 $ 15,590,000 $ (1,940,000)

10 $ 510,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 740,000 $ 18,040,000 $ 16,850,000 $ (1,190,000)

Note that numbers in table have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

1. Years after the effective date of the rule.
E-1 14 September 2015

Appendix E – Summary of Changes to NPDES Regulations

This appendix provides a complete listing of the changes to EPA’s NPDES regulations resulting from the final electronic reporting rule. It also 

provides an indication of the change in labor burden (i.e., an increase or decrease) resulting from each regulatory change and cross-references the 

sections of this economic analysis that discuss how the analysis accounts for the changes in labor burden. 

EPA Regulatory

Citation

40 CFR

Summary of Changes in Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Changes in Burden

For More Information

(Economic Analysis 

Section)

Changes to Existing NPDES Regulations

9.1 This citation inserts a citation to the ICR accompanying the final rule.  None. This text is a compilation of 

EPA’s ICRs in one table. N/A

122.22(e)

This regulatory text requires signers of electronic NPDES notices, certifications, 

reports, and waiver requests to be compliant with CROMERR (Part 3) and the NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 127).

 None. This text is a reference to 

EPA’s existing regulation 

(CROMERR) and this final rule. 

The changes in burden due to this 

rule are captured elsewhere in this 

table.

N/A

122.26(b)(15)(i)(C)

This regulatory text requires the electronic submission of Low Erosivity Waivers 

(LEWs) to be in compliance with CROMERR (Part 3), NPDES signatory requirements 

(Part 122.22), and the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 127). Part 127 sets the 

start date for these electronic submissions. Part 127 does not change the timing of 

these waiver requests. This is NPDES Data Group Number 2.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to enter associated 

data.

 Section 2.6 (number 

of entities and 

reporting frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)

122.26(g)(1)(iii)

This regulatory text requires the electronic submission of No Exposure Certifications 

(NECs) to be in compliance with CROMERR (Part 3), NPDES signatory requirements 

(Part 122.22), and the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 127). Part 127 sets the 

start date for these electronic submissions. Part 127 does not change the timing of 

these certifications. This is NPDES Data Group Number 2.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to enter associated 

data.

 Section 2.5 (number 

of entities and 

reporting frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)

122.28(b)(2)

This regulatory text requires the electronic submission of Notices of Intent to discharge 

(NOIs) to be in compliance with CROMERR (Part 3), NPDES signatory requirements 

(Part 122.22), and the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 127). Part 127 sets the 

start date for these electronic submissions. Part 127 does not change the timing of 

these notices. This is NPDES Data Group Number 2.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to enter associated 

data.

 Section 2 (number of 

entities and reporting 

frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)
E-2 14 September 2015

EPA Regulatory

Citation

40 CFR

Summary of Changes in Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Changes in Burden

For More Information

(Economic Analysis 

Section)

122.34(g)(3)

This regulatory text requires the electronic submission of Phase II MS4s program 

reports to be in compliance with CROMERR (Part 3), NPDES signatory requirements 

(Part 122.22), and the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 127). Part 127 sets the 

start date for these electronic submissions; however, Part 127 does not change the 

frequency of these submissions or the amount of information in these submissions. 

This is NPDES Data Group Number 6.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Net decrease for authorized 

NPDES programs to process 

forms and enter data.

 Section 2.7 (number 

of entities and 

reporting frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.7

(processing savings)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)

122.41(l)(4)(i)

This regulatory text requires the electronic submission of Discharge Monitoring Reports 

or Forms Provided or Specified by the Director (DMRs) to be in compliance with 

CROMERR (Part 3), NPDES signatory requirements (Part 122.22), and the NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 127). Part 127 sets the start date for these electronic 

submissions. Part 127 does not change the timing of these reports. This is NPDES 

Data Group Number 3.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Decrease for authorized NPDES 

programs to process forms and 

enter data.

 Section 2 (number of 

entities and reporting 

frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.7

(processing savings)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)

122.41(l)(6)(i)

This regulatory text requires the electronic submission of Sewer Overflow and Bypass 

Event Reports for reporting sewer overflows that result in noncompliance that may 

“endanger health or the environment.” These electronic submissions must be compliant 

with CROMERR (Part 3), NPDES signatory requirements (Part 122.22), and the 

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 127). Part 127 sets the start date for these 

electronic submissions; however, Part 127 does not change the timing of these reports 

after a sewer overflow (submission of this report must “be provided within 5 days of the 

time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances”) or the amount of information 

in these submissions. This is NPDES Data Group Number 9.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Net decrease for authorized 

NPDES programs to process 

forms and enter data.

 Sections 2.8 and 2.9

(number of entities 

and reporting 

frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.7

(processing savings)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs) 122.41(l)(7)

This regulatory text requires the electronic submission of Sewer Overflow and Bypass 

Event Reports for reporting all other sewer overflows that result in noncompliance. 

These electronic submissions must be compliant with CROMERR (Part 3), NPDES 

signatory requirements (Part 122.22), and the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 

127). Part 127 sets the start date for these electronic submissions; however, Part 127 

does not change the timing of these reports after a sewer overflow (submission of this 

report must be provided “at the time monitoring reports are submitted”) or the amount 

of information in these submissions. This is NPDES Data Group Number 9.

122.41(l)(9)

This regulatory text requires NPDES permittees to submit their electronic NPDES 

notices, certifications, reports, and waiver requests to the EPA designated initial 

recipient for each NPDES data group. This requirement requires NPDES permittees to 

identify the initial recipient at the time of each electronic submission. 

 Increase for regulated entity 

registration and training on the 

initial recipient’s electronic 

reporting systems.

 Section 4.4.1

(regulated entity 

registration and 

training)
E-3 14 September 2015

EPA Regulatory

Citation

40 CFR

Summary of Changes in Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Changes in Burden

For More Information

(Economic Analysis 

Section)

122.41(m)(3)

This regulatory text requires the electronic submission of Sewer Overflow Event 

Reports for reporting bypass events at POTWs. This would include anticipated bypass 

events (submission required ten days prior to bypass) and unanticipated bypass events 

(submission required five days after bypass event). These electronic submissions must 

be compliant with CROMERR (Part 3), NPDES signatory requirements (Part 122.22), 

and the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 127). Part 127 sets the start date for 

these electronic submissions; however, Part 127 does not change the timing of these 

submission after a bypass event or the amount of information in these submissions. 

This is NPDES Data Group Number 9.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Net decrease for authorized 

NPDES programs to process 

forms and enter data.

 Sections 2.8 and 2.9

(number of entities 

and reporting 

frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.7

(processing savings)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)

122.42(c)

This regulatory text requires the electronic submission of Phase I MS4s program 

reports to be in compliance with CROMERR (Part 3), NPDES signatory requirements 

(Part 122.22), and the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 127). Part 127 sets the 

start date for these electronic submissions; however, Part 127 does not change the 

frequency of these submissions or the amount of information in these submissions. 

This is NPDES Data Group Number 6.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Net decrease for authorized 

NPDES programs to process 

forms and enter data.

 Section 2.7 (number 

of entities and 

reporting frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.7

(processing savings)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)

122.42(e)(4)

This regulatory text requires the electronic submission of Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operation (CAFO) Annual Program Reports to be in compliance with CROMERR (Part 

3), NPDES signatory requirements (Part 122.22), and the NPDES Electronic Reporting 

Rule (Part 127). Part 127 sets the start date for these electronic submissions; however, 

Part 127 does not change the frequency of these submissions or the amount of 

information in these submissions. This is NPDES Data Group Number 5.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Net increase for authorized 

NPDES programs to process 

forms and enter data.

 Section 2.4 (number 

of entities and 

reporting frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.7

(processing savings)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)

122.43(a)

This section requires the NPDES permitting authority to “establish conditions, as 

required on a case-by-case basis, to provide for and assure compliance with all 

applicable requirements of CWA and regulations.” Part 127 adds to the list of examples 

the need for NPDES permitting authorities to provide for and assure compliance with 

CROMERR (Part 3) and the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 127).

 None. This text is a reference to 

EPA’s existing regulation 

(CROMERR) and this final rule. 

The changes in burden due to this 

rule are captured elsewhere in this 

table.

N/A
E-4 14 September 2015

EPA Regulatory

Citation

40 CFR

Summary of Changes in Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Changes in Burden

For More Information

(Economic Analysis 

Section)

122.44(i)(2)

This section requires permit authorities require permittees to report monitoring results 

on a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the discharge, but in no case 

less than once a year. For sewage sludge use or disposal practices, requirements to 

monitor and report results shall be established on a case-by-case basis with a 

frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the sewage sludge use or disposal 

practice; minimally this shall be as specified in 40 CFR part 503 (where applicable), but 

in no case less than once a year. This final rule requires these monitoring report 

submissions to be to be in compliance with CROMERR (Part 3), NPDES signatory 

requirements (Part 122.22), and the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 127).

 None. This text is a reference to 

EPA’s existing regulations 

(CROMERR and the NPDES 

signatory requirements) and this 

final rule. The changes in burden 

due to this rule are captured 

elsewhere in this table.

N/A

122.48(c)

This section re-states the requirements for recording and reporting of monitoring 

results. This final rule requires these monitoring report submissions to be to be in 

compliance with CROMERR (Part 3) and the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Part 

127).

 None. This text is a reference to 

EPA’s existing regulation 

(CROMERR) and this final rule. 

The changes in burden due to this 

rule are captured elsewhere in this 

table.

N/A

122.63(f) This new examples makes clear that the incorporation of electronic reporting 

requirements into NPDES permits is a minor modification. 

 None. Part 127 requires NPDES 

permitting authorities to 

incorporate electronic reporting 

requirements when they issue or 

re-issue NPDES permits. This 

regulatory text makes clear that 

authorized NPDES programs 

have the option to incorporate 

electronic reporting requirements 

into NPDES permits through use 

of a minor modification.

N/A

122.64(c)

This regulatory text requires the electronic submission of Notices of Termination 

(NOTs) from general permit covered facilities to be in compliance with CROMERR 

(Part 3), NPDES signatory requirements (Part 122.22), and the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule (Part 127). Part 127 sets the start date for these electronic 

submissions. Part 127 does not change the timing of these waiver requests. This is 

NPDES Data Group Number 2.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to enter associated 

data.

 Section 2 (number of 

entities and reporting 

frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)

123.22(g) This regulatory text requires a state, tribe, or territory that newly seeks to implement an 

NPDES program to identify the initial recipient for each NPDES data group.

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to make initial recipient 

decisions.

 Section 4.3.3
E-5 14 September 2015

EPA Regulatory

Citation

40 CFR

Summary of Changes in Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Changes in Burden

For More Information

(Economic Analysis 

Section)

123.24

Any State that seeks to administer the NPDES program must submit a Memorandum 

of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement shall be executed by the State Director

and the Regional Administrator and shall become effective when approved by the EPA 

Administrator. The MOA must include provisions specifying the frequency and content 

of reports, documents and other information which the State is required to submit to 

EPA. This final rule requires these provisions to implement the requirements of 40 CFR 

123.41(a), 123.43, and 40 CFR part 127 (including the required data elements in 

appendix A to Part 127). This section helps implement NPDES Data Group Number 1.

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to update Memoranda 

of Agreement.

 Section 4.3.3

123.25 This section lists all the provisions that authorized NPDES programs must have legal 

authority to implement. This final rule require lists electronic reporting (40 CFR 127). 

 None. This text is a reference to 

this final rule. The changes in 

burden due to this rule are 

captured elsewhere in this table.

N/A

123.26

This final rule makes clear that authorized NPDES programs are required to implement 

and maintain an automated, computerized system that is capable of identifying and 

tracking all facilities and activities subject to the State Director’s authority (e.g., creating 

a complete inventory of NPDES permitted facilities) and any instances of 

noncompliance with permit or other program requirements. This final rule makes clear 

that authorized states, tribes, and territories can elect to use EPA’s national NPDES 

data system. This final rule makes clear that data transfers from authorized NPDES 

programs to EPA must be timely and complete and that failure to do so will require 

EPA to be the initial recipient as defined in Part 127. This final rule also makes clear 

that the authorized NPDES program’s compliance monitoring program must be 

conducted in a manner designed to protect surface waters and public health. This 

section helps implement NPDES Data Group Number 1.

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to expand and update 

existing data systems and 

manage data transfers to EPA.

 Section 4.3.1

(electronic tool 

implementation 

costs)

 Section 4.3.2

(electronic reporting 

operation and 

maintenance costs)

123.41(a)

This section re-states that data transfers from authorized NPDES programs to EPA 

must be timely and complete and that failure to do so will require EPA to be the initial 

recipient as defined in Part 127. This section helps implement NPDES Data Group 

Number 1.

 Increase for regulated entity reregistration in a limited number of 

states where the analysis 

assumes EPA would take over 

initial recipient status.

 Section 4.4.1 (reregistration costs)

123.43(d)

This section re-states that data transfers from authorized NPDES programs to EPA 

must be timely and complete in compliance with Part 127. This section helps 

implement NPDES Data Group Number 1.

 None. The changes in burden due

to this rule are captured 

elsewhere in this table.

N/A

123.45

This section replaces the Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR), Semi-annual 

statistical summary report, and the Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR) with the 

NPDES Noncompliance Report (NNCR). This final rule places the burden on EPA to 

prepare and publish the NNCR. EPA will start publication of the NNCR six years after 

the effective date of the final rule. Until that date, states will continue to submit the 

QNCR, annual statistical summary report, and the ANCR.

 Decrease for authorized NPDES 

programs and EPA regions to no 

longer prepare these reports.

 Increase for EPA headquarters to 

prepare new national report.

 Sections 4.4.7 and 

6.2.3 (savings from 

eliminating reports)

 Section 4.4.4 (cost of 

new report)

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule - Part 127
E-6 14 September 2015

EPA Regulatory

Citation

40 CFR

Summary of Changes in Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Changes in Burden

For More Information

(Economic Analysis 

Section)

127.1 This section identifies the facilities and entities that are required to submit electronic 

NPDES notices, certifications, waiver requests, and reports.

 None. This section helps define 

the extent of the rulemaking. The 

changes in burden due to this rule 

are captured elsewhere in this 

table.

N/A

127.2 This section defines the terms used in this rule.

 None. This section helps define 

the terms used in this rulemaking. 

The changes in burden due to this 

rule are captured elsewhere in this 

table.

N/A

127.11 This section defines the data that NPDES regulated entities must report to their 

authorized NPDES program.

 None. This section helps define 

the types of documents covered 

by this rulemaking. The changes 

in burden due to this rule are 

captured elsewhere in this table.

N/A

127.12 This section restates that all electronic reporting must be in compliance with 

CROMERR and EPA’s NPDES signatory requirements [122.22 and 403.12(l)]

 None. The changes in burden due

to this rule are captured 

elsewhere in this table.

N/A

127.13

This section confirms that owners and operators of NPDES regulate entities are 

responsible for the quality of the information that they electronically submit to their 

authorized NPDES program. 

 None. The changes in burden due

to this rule are captured 

elsewhere in this table.

N/A

127.14

This confirms that NPDES regulated entities must submit timely, accurate, complete, 

and nationally consistent data with their electronic submissions. This section defines 

each of these terms.

 None. The changes in burden due

to this rule are captured 

elsewhere in this table.

N/A

127.15

This section provides NPDES regulated entities with the option to seek a temporary, 

permanent, or episodic waiver from their authorized NPDES program or the initial 

recipient (as defined by EPA). This section provides instructions on how NPDES 

regulated entities can apply for these waivers.

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to enter data for entities 

with waivers.

 Section 4.1 (impact 

of assumption about 

percent of entities 

receiving waivers)

127.16 This section provides the activities that NPDES regulated entities must perform in order 

to switch from paper to electronic reporting.

 None. This section helps define 

the extent of the rulemaking. The 

changes in burden due to this rule 

are captured elsewhere in this 

table.

N/A

127.21 This section defines the data that authorized NPDES programs must report to EPA.

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to enter and share data 

with EPA.

 Section 4.3.2

(managing data 

transfer)

 Section 2 (frequency 

of reporting)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)
E-7 14 September 2015

EPA Regulatory

Citation

40 CFR

Summary of Changes in Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Changes in Burden

For More Information

(Economic Analysis 

Section)

127.22 This section confirms that authorized NPDES programs are responsible for the quality 

of the information that they electronically submit to EPA.

 None. The changes in burden due

to this rule are captured 

elsewhere in this table.

N/A

127.23

This section confirms that authorized NPDES programs must submit timely, accurate, 

complete, and nationally consistent data to EPA. This section defines each of these 

terms.

 None. The changes in burden due

to this rule are captured 

elsewhere in this table.

N/A

127.24 This section defines the tasks that authorized NPDES programs must perform to 

oversee the issuance of waivers from electronic reporting.

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to develop and renew 

waiver criteria.

 Section 4.3.3

(developing waiver 

criteria)

 Section 4.1 (impact 

of assumption about 

percent of entities 

receiving waivers)

127.25

This section re-states the requirement that authorized states, tribes, and territories 

update their NPDES program to implement electronic reporting in compliance with 40 

CFR 123.62(e).

 None. This is an existing 

regulatory requirement that 

predated this final rule.

N/A

127.26

This section provides the activities that authorized NPDES programs must perform in 

order to switch from paper to electronic reporting. This includes: 

(a) identification of the initial recipient;

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to make initial recipient 

decisions.

 Section 4.3.3

(b) updating state NPDES data systems; 

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to expand and update 

existing data systems.

 Section 4.3.1

(c) initial data transfer to EPA to meeting Phase 1 and 2 deadlines;  Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to enter initial data.

 Section 4.4.2 (initial 

data entry)

(d) maintaining data transfers to EPA in compliance with this rule; 

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to manage data 

transfers to EPA.

 Section 4.3.2

(e) updating state regulations and policies in compliance with 40 CFR 123.62(e); 

 None. This is an existing 

regulatory requirement that 

predated this final rule.

N/A

(f) incorporating electronic reporting requirements in NPDES permits after the effective 

date of the final rule; 

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to modify permits.  Section 4.3.3

(g) optional method to collect construction stormwater general permit reports – “Hybrid 

Method;” 

 Decrease for regulated entities 

that use this method.  Section 4.4.1

(h) requirement to submit an implementation plan to EPA one year after the effective 

date of the final rule; 

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to prepare 

implementation plans.

 Section 4.3.3

(i) requirement for states to submit an update of their waiver approval process on a five 

year schedule; 

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to renew waiver criteria.  Section 4.3.3
E-8 14 September 2015

EPA Regulatory

Citation

40 CFR

Summary of Changes in Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Changes in Burden

For More Information

(Economic Analysis 

Section)

(j) requirement for states to work with EPA to assess the electronic reporting 

participation rate for each NPDES data group.

 Increase for EPA to assess 

participation rates and conduct 

oversight.

 Section 4.3.3

127.27 This section defines the process for identifying the initial recipient, which is a term used 

throughout the final rule.

 Increase for authorized NPDES 

programs to make initial recipient 

decisions.

 Section 4.3.3

Appendix A to Part 127

This appendix defines the data that must be electronically submitted, collected, 

managed, and shared between NPDES regulated entities, authorized NPDES 

programs, and EPA. Table 1 defines the NPDES Data Groups used in this final rule.

 The impact of Appendix A is 

captured throughout this table. N/A

Changes to Existing NPDES Regulations

403.10(f)(2)(viii)

This section requires the Approval Authority to regularly notify the Control Authority of 

their obligation to submit electronic reports in compliance with this final rule. This can 

be done through permit renewal process.

 None. The changes in burden due

to this rule are captured 

elsewhere in this table.

N/A

403.12(e)

This section requires categorical industrial users (CIUs) to submit their semi-annual 

compliance monitoring reports electronically in compliance with this final rule when 

their Control Authority is an authorized state, tribe, or territory or EPA. Part 127 sets 

the start date for these electronic submissions; however, Part 127 does not change the 

frequency of these submissions or the amount of information in these submissions. 

This is NPDES Data Group Number 8.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Net decrease for authorized 

NPDES programs to process 

forms, enter data, and notify 

regulated entities of the reporting 

requirements.

 Section 2.3 (number 

of entities and 

reporting frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.7

(processing savings)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)

 Section 4.4.3 (SIU 

notifications)

403.12(h)

This section requires significant industrial users (SIUs) not subject to categorical 

standards to submit their semi-annual compliance monitoring reports electronically in 

compliance with this final rule when their Control Authority is an authorized state, tribe, 

or territory or EPA. Part 127 sets the start date for these electronic submissions; 

however, Part 127 does not change the frequency of these submissions or the amount 

of information in these submissions. This is NPDES Data Group Number 8.

403.12(i)

This section requires Control Authorities to electronically submit their Pretreatment 

Program Report. Part 127 sets the start date for these electronic submissions; 

however, Part 127 does not change the frequency of these submissions or the amount 

of information submitted. This is NPDES Data Group Number 7.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Net decrease for authorized 

NPDES programs to process 

forms and enter data.

 Section 2.11 (number 

of entities and 

reporting frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.7

(processing savings)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)

501.21

This section eliminates the annual report that states, tribes, or territories, who are 

authorized by EPA to implement the Federal biosolids program (40 CFR 503), must 

annually submit to EPA.

 Decrease for authorized NPDES 

programs and EPA regions to no 

longer prepare these reports.

 Sections 4.4.7 and 

6.2.3 (savings from 

eliminating reports)
E-9 14 September 2015

EPA Regulatory

Citation

40 CFR

Summary of Changes in Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Changes in Burden

For More Information

(Economic Analysis 

Section)

503.18, 503.28, 503.48

This section requires Class I sludge management facilities, POTWs (as defined in 40 

CFR 501.2) with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one million gallons per day, 

and POTWs that serve 10,000 people or more to electronically submit their annual 

report. Part 127 sets the start date for these electronic submissions; however, Part 127 

does not change the frequency of these submissions or the amount of information in 

these submissions. This is NPDES Data Group Number 4.

 Increase during transition for a 

small percentage of regulated 

entities that must dual report.

 No net change for regulated 

entities at full implementation.

 Net decrease for authorized 

NPDES programs to process 

forms and enter data.

 Section 2.11 (number 

of entities and 

reporting frequency)

 Sections 3.3 and 

4.4.2 (reporting 

during transition)

 Section 4.4.7

(processing savings)

 Section 4.4.2 (data 

entry costs)
F-1 14 September 2015

Appendix F – Implementation Schedule

EPA developed the implementation schedule for this final rule after careful analysis and 

extensive consultation with authorized NPDES programs and many other stakeholders. This 

implementation schedule balances the goals and benefits of electronic reporting with the practical 

challenges facing authorized NPDES programs and regulated entities. For example, some 

authorized NPDES programs noted that they compete against other agencies for the time and 

resources of a central shared information technology staff. For these authorized NPDES programs 

the implementation plan (IP) may need to be tailored to account for their unique circumstances. 

The transition from paper to electronic reporting will require close coordination and cooperation 

between EPA and authorized NPDES programs. These IPs will provide an effective means for 

documenting all necessary tasks for a timely and orderly transition to electronic reporting.

As previously noted, the benefits of this final rule include accelerated resource savings that states, 

tribes, and territories will realize through reduced data entry burden and reduced effort in 

responding to public requests for data, consistent requirements for electronic reporting across all 

states, tribes, and territories, increased data quality, and more timely access to NPDES program 

data in an electronic format for EPA, states, tribes, and territories, regulated entities, and the 

public. These benefits and savings will be realized sooner the more quickly a state can implement 

the final rule. Under the final rule, a complete set of information for the regulated universe will be 

required no later than five years after the effective date of the final rule. In this final rule, EPA is 

adopting the timeline recommended by authorized NPDES programs and if participation goals are 

not met, EPA will issue individual notices to require NPDES-regulated entities to use the 

authorized NPDES program’s electronic reporting system. The combination of the deadlines in 

this final rule, current technology, and EPA’s plan to issue individual notices will help maintain a 

steady and measurable pace towards electronic reporting in a reasonable time period.

Given the different types of NPDES program data, EPA is phasing in the electronic collection, 

management, and transfer of NPDES program data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) on the 

following schedule.

Key Milestones Date

Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule – Effective Date

Sixty days after 

publication in the 

Federal Register

Authorized NPDES programs will start incorporating the new electronic reporting requirements 

into new or re-issued NPDES permits upon the effective date of this final rule. For example, 

changes to 40 CFR part 122.41 must be incorporated into any NPDES permit that is issued on or 

after the effective date of this final rule. This includes the requirement that NPDES permittees

identify the initial recipient at the time of each electronic submission [see 40 CFR 122.41(l)(9)]. 

Authorized NPDES programs can incorporate electronic reporting requirements into NPDES 

permits through use of a minor modification process [see 40 CFR 122.63(f)].

Effective Date of 

Final Rule

A state, tribe, or territory that seeks authorization to implement an NPDES program must describe 

if it is requesting to be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDESregulated facilities for specific NPDES data groups. See 40 CFR 123.22(g) and appendix A to 40 

CFR 127.

90 days after the 

Effective Date of 

Final Rule
F-2 14 September 2015

Key Milestones Date

Authorized NPDES programs will decide the NPDES data groups for which they wish to be the 

initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities. The final rule 

uses an ‘opt-out’ approach so these authorized programs will need to provide notice to EPA if 

they wish for EPA to be the initial recipient for one or more of their NPDES data groups. These

notices should be sent to EPA within 120 days of the effective date of the final rule.

120 days after 

the Effective 

Date of Final 

Rule

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

electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities by state, tribe, or territory and by 

NPDES data group. This listing will provide NPDES-regulated entities the initial recipient of 

their NPDES electronic data submissions and the due date for these NPDES electronic data 

submissions.

210 days after 

the promulgation 

date for the final 

rule

Authorized NPDES programs will electronically transmit to EPA basic facility and permit 

information (see list of data elements in DCN 0007) 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. Authorized NPDES programs often collect these data from paper individual NPDES 

permit applications and forms submitted by NPDES regulated entities; however, some states 

collect these data from NPDES regulated entities through electronic reporting systems.

Within nine 

months of the 

Effective Date of 

Final Rule

One year after the effective date of the final rule, authorized NPDES programs will start sharing 

with EPA their state performance data, which includes information generated from compliance 

monitoring (e.g., inspections), violation determinations, and enforcement actions.

Starting one year 

after the 

Effective Date of 

Final Rule

EPA and authorized NPDES programs will begin electronically receiving DMRs from all DMR 

filers [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)] and start sharing these data with the designated EPA and state 

NPDES data systems.

Starting one year 

after the 

Effective Date of 

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 Reports [40 CFR 503] to EPA.

Starting one year 

after the 

Effective Date of 

Final Rule

Authorized NPDES programs will submit an IP to EPA for EPA’s review to ensure that 

authorized NPDES programs will meet the Phase 2 electronic reporting deadline. The content of 

these plans must provide enough detail (e.g., tasks, milestones, roles and responsibilities, 

necessary resources) to ensure that EPA and authorized NPDES programs can work together to 

successfully implement electronic reporting. The IP will also document the process for evaluating 

and approving temporary and permanent electronic reporting waivers from NPDES regulated 

entities.

One year after 

the Effective 

Date of Final 

Rule

EPA will separately calculate the electronic reporting participation rate for each authorized 

NPDES program and for DMRs and the Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports. EPA 

will assess the electronic reporting participation rate for individually permitted facilities separate 

from the electronic reporting participation rate for general permit covered facilities for DMRs.

Eighteen months 

after the 

Effective Date of 

Final Rule and 

annually 

thereafter
F-3 14 September 2015

Key Milestones Date

Per existing NPDES regulations [see 40 CFR 123.62(e)], authorized states, tribes, and territories 

will finish any necessary regulatory or statutory changes to their NPDES programs.

Two years after 

the Effective 

Date of Final 

Rule

Authorized NPDES programs will electronically transmit to EPA the data necessary for 

implementation of Phase 2 data collection (three months prior to Phase 2 deadline).

Within four years 

and nine months 

of the Effective 

Date of Final 

Rule

NPDES regulated entities will start electronically submitting their Phase 2 data. This information 

includes: 

 General Permit Reports [Notices of Intent to discharge (NOIs); Notices of Termination 

(NOTs); No Exposure Certifications (NOEs); Low Erosivity Waivers or Other Waivers 

from Stormwater Controls (LEWs)] [40 CFR 122.26(b)(15), 122.28 and 124.5];

 Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports [40 CFR 503] – where the state is the 

authorized NPDES program;

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

122.42(e)(4)];

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

and 122.42(c)];

 Pretreatment Program Reports [40 CFR 403.12(i)];

 Significant Industrial User Compliance Reports in Municipalities Without Approved 

Pretreatment Programs [40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)];

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

 CWA Section 316(b) Annual Reports [40 CFR 125 Subpart J]

Starting five 

years after the 

Effective Date of 

Final Rule

Authorized NPDES programs will also need to re-submit their waiver process descriptions to 

EPA for review on a five year cycle. EPA will inform the state if its waiver process description is 

inadequate. This will allow EPA and authorized NPDES programs to assess the effectiveness of 

the waiver process against advances in information technology.

Starting five 

years after the 

Effective Date of 

Final Rule

EPA will separately calculate the electronic reporting participation rate for each authorized 

NPDES program and for each NPDES data group.

Five years and 

six months after 

the Effective 

Date of Final 

Rule and 

annually 

thereafter
F-4 14 September 2015

Key Milestones Date

The final rule will also lighten the reporting burden currently placed on the authorized NPDES 

programs. Upon successful implementation of Phase 1 and 2, authorized NPDES programs will 

stop generating the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR), the Annual Non-Compliance 

Report (ANCR), the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report, and the Part 501 annual biosolids 

report.

Starting six years 

after the 

Effective Date of 

Final Rule

EPA will starting publishing the NPDES Noncompliance Report (NNCR).

Starting six years 

after the 

Effective Date of 

Final Rule with 

annual and 

quarterly updates 

thereafter

The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule also requires each authorized NPDES program to ensure 

that their Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Regional Administrator contains, 

“Provisions specifying the frequency and content of reports, documents and other information 

which the State is required to submit to EPA. The State shall allow EPA to routinely review State 

records, reports, and files relevant to the administration and enforcement of the approved 

program. State reports may be combined with grant reports where appropriate. These procedures 

must also implement the requirements of 40 CFR 123.41(a), §123.43, and 40 CFR part 127 

(including the required data elements in appendix A to Part 127).” There is no deadline as EPA 

will work collaboratively with each authorized NPDES program on the appropriate timing for any 

revisions to the governing MOA.

The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule also makes clear that authorized NPDES programs are 

required to implement and maintain an automated, computerized system that is capable of 

identifying and tracking all facilities and activities subject to the State Director’s authority (e.g., 

creating a complete inventory of NPDES permitted facilities) and any instances of noncompliance 

with permit or other program requirements. The final rule makes clear that authorized states, 

tribes, and territories can elect to use EPA’s national NPDES data system (ICIS-NPDES). The

final rule makes clear that data transfers from authorized NPDES programs to EPA must be 

timely and complete and that failure to do so will require EPA to be the initial recipient as defined 

in Part 127. The final rule also makes clear that the authorized NPDES program’s compliance 

monitoring program must be conducted in a manner designed to protect surface waters and public 

health.