1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM: Carey A. Johnston, P.E.

USEPA/OECA/OC

ph: (202) 566 1014

johnston.carey@epa.gov

DATE: 24 April 2014

SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (17 April 2014) [DCN 0134]

Overview 

This was the seventh meeting for the EPA-state technical workgroup, which is discussing

key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). These discussions 

will help inform the upcoming planned supplemental Federal Register notice and will continue 

beyond the supplemental notice to help EPA address state comments. EPA participants will 

include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from EPA’s Office of Water and Office 

of Environmental Information. Technical workgroup members are listed below in Tables 1 and 

2. The agenda for this meeting is also provided below. EPA is summarizing the notes from these 

discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA’s outreach during the 

rulemaking process. The OECA eRule team will also be available for any other stakeholder group 

that would like to discuss the eRule.

Meeting Notes

EPA (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting with a roll call and then turned the 

meeting over to Ms. Lisa Lund, Office Director for EPA’s Office of Compliance. Ms. Lund started 

the meeting by noting that that the next set of teleconferences will focus on different aspects 

of the minimum set of data for electronic reporting (“Appendix A” to the proposed rule). In 

particular, she noted that EPA would like to use the next set of meetings to explain how EPA 

used its NPDES regulations to create Appendix A and how EPA economized the data elements. 

Ms. Lund said that EPA will use the next set of meetings to discuss the different sections of 

Appendix A and solicit feedback. Ms. Lund also explained that EPA has made a public 

commitment to publish a supplemental notice within 180 days (including OMB review time) 

from the end of the proposed rule comment period. She noted that EPA is using the 

supplemental notice to gain additional input on options for EPA to consider as it develops the 

final rule.
2

Ms. Lund mentioned that ECOS and ACWA have added new names to the Technical 

Workgroup. She reminded all workgroup participants that the goal of the EPA-state workgroup 

discussion is to clarify issues where there is confusion, explore the issues of most concern to 

the states, and solicit state input on the issues and potential solutions. She noted that EPA does 

not expect to find resolution of these issues prior to publication of the supplemental Federal 

Register notice but that EPA would like highlight the most important issues and identify 

potential regulatory options. Ms. Lund also noted that EPA would like to continue this dialogue 

after publication of the supplemental notice, as an on-going and meaningful exchange between 

EPA and the states is critical to the success of the eRule. Finally, Ms. Lund noted that while EPA 

is interested in hearing input and ideas from states, the technical workgroup is not a FACA and 

is not a decision-making body.

Mr. Johnston then gave an overview of Appendix A, which including information on how 

this appendix is organized and how EPA developed the data elements. Mr. Johnston then ask 

teleconference participants to focus on the ‘Basic Facility and Permit Data’ in Appendix A (see

30 July 2013; 78 FR 46084). Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading off the 

name of each data elements along with the corresponding data description and regulatory or 

policy citation. After reading about five to ten elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input 

from the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical 

workgroup. 

 A state commenter asked about mobile permitted entities that don’t have a fixed latitude 

and longitude. In particular, they asked about requirements on states for mobile permitted 

entities with respect to the Facility Site Longitude and Facility Site Latitude data elements. 

Mr. Johnston stated that he would look into how ICIS-NPDES manages these data elements. 

[Subsequent to this meeting Mr. Johnston confirmed with Mr. Steve Rubin (EPA) that these 

two data elements are not system required. This means that a facility record can be entered 

or shared with ICIS-NPDES without these two data elements.]

 Another state commenter about outfalls that are not fixed at a single location (e.g., 

hydrostatic testing operations). Mr. Johnston stated that he would look into how ICISNPDES manages these data elements: Permitted Feature Longitude and Permitted Feature 

Latitude. [Subsequent to this meeting Mr. Johnston confirmed with Mr. Steve Rubin (EPA) 

that these two data elements are not system required. This means that a permitted feature 

record (e.g., outfall) can be entered or shared with ICIS-NPDES without these two data 

elements.]

 Several states asked if EPA could identify the data elements that are system-generated (e.g., 

no key entry required as the state data system or ICIS-NPDES will generate these data) or 

system-required (e.g., a record cannot be successfully entered without these data). EPA 

noted that it will identify these system-generated or system-required data for states.
3

 A few states pointed out that the latitude and longitude metadata are required by EPA 

policy (EPA National Geospatial Data Policy – CIO Policy Transmittal 05-002) and not EPA 

regulations. These data elements include: 

o Facility Site Source Map Scale Number

o Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure

o Facility Site Horizontal Collection Method

o Facility Site Horizontal Reference Datum

o Facility Site Reference Point

o Permitted Feature Source Map Scale Number

o Permitted Feature Horizontal Accuracy Measure

o Permitted Feature Horizontal Collection Method

o Permitted Feature Horizontal Reference Datum

o Permitted Feature Reference Point

Mr. Johnston noted that these data elements are meant to improve the accuracy and utility 

of the latitude and longitude data. He also noted that electronic reporting tools can be setup in a way to allow NPDES regulated entities to identify their location via an online map 

with marker or mouse click and that these metadata can be created in the background by 

the electronic reporting tool. Mr. Andrew Hudock (EPA) noted that the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 

regulator activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. In particular, he noted that these data elements are part of the data standard 

for latitude and longitude data (see 78 FR 46071).

 A state commenter asked about whether the eRule would change EPA’s business rules for 

the Permit Major/Minor Status Indicator data element. Currently, this value defaults to 

minor (non-major) and updatable only by EPA OECA Headquarters. Mr. Johnston replied 

that the eRule is has not proposed changes but would like to states to provide comment on 

options for alternative business rules for this data element.

 A few state commenters asked about the two flow data elements in the “Basic Permit 

Information” section of Appendix A: Permit Application Total Design Flow and Permit 

Application Total Actual Average Flow. The state commenters questioned whether it 

should be part of NPDES Data Groups 1 and 2 instead of Groups 1 through 9. Other states 

noted that EPA regulations and forms may only require the reporting of these data 

elements for POTWs. Mr. Dombrowski (EPA) also noted that the eRule is looking to 

electronically capture data as currently required by EPA’s regulations. Mr. Johnston also 

noted that EPA is seeking comment in the forthcoming supplemental notice on different 

implementation approaches (e.g., state implementation plans). These alternative 

approaches might allow states to share with EPA within nine-months of the effective date of 

the final rule the Appendix A data that they currently have in an electronic format and 

provide more time for states to electronically share with EPA the remaining Appendix A 

data over a longer time period. 
4

 Mr. Andy Putnam (Colorado) asked if the Permit Application/NOI Received Date could be 

modified to account for the fact that this data element can be configured to be systemgenerated for NOI submissions.

 A few commenters had suggestions for the SIC Codes and NAICS Codes data elements. They 

asked if these data elements could be simplified to one data element or allow states and 

permittees to only provide one or the other industrial category code. 

 One state commenter asked why EPA is Application Design Flow (MGD) and Application 

Actual Average Flow (MGD) in the “Permitted Feature” section of Appendix A when it has 

the Permit Application Total Design Flow and Permit Application Total Actual Average 

Flow data elements. Mr. Johnston replied that the NPDES permit program regulates 

wastewater pollution at the point of discharge and that EPA’s ICIS-NPDES is set to track 

pollutant discharges at each outfall. Since facilities can have more than one outfall it is 

necessary to individually identify the flow rates for each outfall.

Subsequent to this call, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality submitted 

questions to EPA on the data elements reviewed on April 17th. These questions and EPA’s 

responses are presented in Attachment 1.

Next Steps

The next technical workgroup meeting is May 1st. 
5

State Technical Workgroup Meeting – NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

17 April 2014

1pm Introduction/Roll Call 

1:05 Introduction and Purpose of Reviewing Appendix A

1:10 Overview of Appendix A

1:20 Discussion of Basic Facility and Permit Data

2:00 End of Call

Quick Reminder

 The technical workgroup is not a formal decision-making body. The workgroup is expected 

to develop, research, and evaluate options for consideration by EPA and state senior 

management.

 There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will 

proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

 There will be no formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is 

expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not 

achieve consensus.

 Summaries of the workgroup’s discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the 

workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the 

rulemaking record. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the 

discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.
6

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members

Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

Sean Rolland ACWA srolland@acwa-us.org Yes

Christy Monk

AL

cvm@adem.state.al.us

Yes Glenda Dean gld@adem.state.al.us

Teresa Marks

AR

marks@adeq.state.ar.us

Yes

Pat Goff goff@adeq.state.ar.us

Mo Shafii shafii@adeq.state.ar.us

Karen Bassett bassett@adeq.state.ar.us

David Ramsey ramsey@adeq.state.ar.us

Ellen Carpenter carpenter@adeq.state.ar.us

Wendy LeStarge

AZ

lestarge.wendy@azdeq.gov

Robin Belley belley.robin@azdeq.gov Yes

David Lelsz lelsz.david@azdeq.gov;

Andy Putnam

CO

andrew.putnam@state.co.us

goff@adeq.state.ar.us Yes

Elisa Willard elisa.willard@state.co.us

Bob Zimmerman DE robert.zimmerman@state.de.us

stephanie.bower@state.de.us Yes

Beth Graves ECOS bgraves@ecos.org Yes

Chris Klena

FL

chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us

Yes

Jessica Kleinfelter jessica.kleinfelter@dep.state.fl.us

Edward Smith edward.c.smith@dep.state.fl.us

Frances Carpenter frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us

Tom Easterly

IN

teasterl@idem.in.gov

ckoontz@idem.in.gov Yes

Jeremy Chenevert jcheneve@idem.in.gov

Ed Dillingham

KS

edillingham@kdheks.gov

Yes Shelly Shores-Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov

Shawn Hokanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov Yes

Tamara Dahl MN tamara.dahl@state.mn.us Yes

Greg Jackson MS greg_jackson@deq.state.ms.us Yes

John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org Yes

Jason Lonardo

NJ

jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us

Yes Julio Collazo julio.collazo@dep.state.nj.us

Nancy Kempel

NJ

nancy.kempel@dep.state.nj.us

Jeffrey MacMullen jeffrey.macmullen@dep.state.nj.us

Robert Wither

NY

rewither@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Yes Joseph DiMura jxdimura@gw.dec.state.ny.us
7

Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

Shellie Chard-McClary

OK

shellie.chard-mcclary@deq.ok.gov

Roy Walker roy.walker@deq.ok.gov Yes

David Pruitt david.pruitt@deq.ok.gov

Jim Billings OR billings.jim@deq.state.or.us Yes

Sean Furjanic PA sefurjanic@pa.gov Yes

Kent Woodmansey

SD

kent.woodmansey@state.sd.us

Tim Flor tim.flor@state.sd.us Yes

Albert Spangler albert.spangler@state.sd.us

Kim Wilson

TX

kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov

Lynley Doyen lynley.doyen@tceq.texas.gov Yes

Kimberly Shepard kimberly.shepard@tceq.texas.gov

Jeff Studenka UT jstudenka@utah.gov Yes

Jerome Brooks

VA

jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov

Yes

Phani Eturu phani.eturu@deq.virginia.gov

Stephen Bernath

WA

sber461@ecy.wa.gov

Yes Nancy Kmet nkme461@ecy.wa.gov

Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

Name EPA Office Email Present? 

(Yes/No)

Lisa Lund OECA/OC/IO lund.lisa@epa.gov No

John Dombrowski OECA/OC/ETDD dombrowski.john@epa.gov Yes

Andy Hudock OECA/OC/ETDD hudock.andrew@epa.gov Yes

Rochele Kadish OECA/OC/ETDD kadish.rochele@epa.gov Yes

Carey Johnston OECA/OC/ETDD johnston.carey@epa.gov Yes

Jackie Clark OW/OWM/WPD clark.jackie@epa.gov Yes

Roy Chaudet OEI/OIC/IESD chaudet.roy@epa.gov No

Chuck Freeman OEI/OIC/IESD freeman.charles@epa.gov No

Aditi Prabhu OGC/WLO prabhu.aditi@epa.gov Yes

Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov Yes
8

Attachment 1:Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Comments on the 

ACWA/ECOS/EPA Technical WG Meeting on NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

Appendix A - Basic Facility and Permit Data 

Teleconference April 17, 2014

Questions:

1. Basic Facility/Permit Information (general): What is the source of the Basic Facility/Permit Information for Industrial Users, the 

POTW at application or the IUs (directly)? Is all of this information available for all IUs on the POTW application? 

EPA Response: The source of each data element is shown in the ‘NPDES Data Group Number’ column. For example, the ‘Complete 

Permit Application/NOI Received Date’ data element has “1” in this fourth column, which means it comes from the NPDES program. In 

general, data elements with “1” in the fourth column means that the NPDES program is the source of the data (e.g., identifying the 

date when the NPDES permit application is complete, inspection data). These data elements with “1” in the fourth column also include 

data that come from individual NPDES permit applications (that are most likely submitted on paper).

2. Basic Facility Information (metadata): “Facility Site Source Map Scale Number”, “Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure”, “Facility 

Site Horizontal Collection Method”, “Facility Site Horizontal Reference Datum”, and “Facility Site Reference Point” - Since the 

Latitude/Longitude metadata is required and will be collected via the application/NOI, what/who is the source of information for the 

allowable entries for different Codes/descriptions? For instance, if the owner of an individual facility (residence) is completing a NOI 

and is not sure what codes/descriptions to select for the coordinates from Google Earth; to what source would this person refer for the 

definitions of each code/description of the metadata? These questions also apply to the same metadata Data Names for “Permitted 

Feature”.

Table 2: Required NPDES Data

Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

Basic Facility Information
9

Table 2: Required NPDES Data

Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

Facility Site Source Map 

Scale Number

The number that represents the proportional distance on the ground for one unit of 

measure on the map or photo for the facility. These data are provided in accordance 

with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, 

Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial 

Data Policy – CIO Policy 

Transmittal 05-002

1 through 9

Facility Site Horizontal 

Accuracy Measure

The measure of the accuracy (in meters) of the facility’s latitude and longitude 

coordinates. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data 

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

January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial 

Data Policy – CIO Policy 

Transmittal 05-002/ 

CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 

304(m)

1 through 9

Facility Site Horizontal 

Collection Method

The text that describes the method used to determine the latitude and longitude 

coordinates for the facility. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental 

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

January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial 

Data Policy – CIO Policy 

Transmittal 05-002

1 through 9

Facility Site Horizontal 

Reference Datum

The code/description that represents the reference datum used in determining 

latitude and longitude coordinates for the facility. These data are provided in 

accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data 

Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

EPA National Geospatial 

Data Policy – CIO Policy 

Transmittal 05-002

1 through 9

Facility Site Reference 

Point

The code/description for the place for which geographic coordinates were established. 

These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, 

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

EPA National Geospatial 

Data Policy – CIO Policy 

Transmittal 05-002

1 through 9

EPA Response: These data elements are meant to improve the accuracy and utility of the latitude and longitude data. As noted in our 

teleconference, electronic reporting tools can be set-up in a way to allow NPDES regulated entities to identify their location via an 

online map with marker or mouse click such that these metadata can be created in the background by the electronic reporting tool. In 

other words, all the NPDES regulated entity has to do is pin point their location (facility and/or outfall) and the electronic reporting tool 

will autocomplete the five associated data elements (highlighted in red above).
10

3. Basic Permit Information: “Permit Issue Date, Permit Effective Date, Permit Expiration Date, Termination Date, and Permit Status” –

Not all states issue (or reissue) Industrial User permits. The individual IU coverage is through the self-implementing regulations in 40 

CFR 403. Since no specific Permit Issue Date, Permit Effective Date and Permit Expiration Date exist and no NOI or NOT is submitted 

for IUs, how do those states submit/enter these required dates into the NPDES data system (ICIS)? If there is an acceptable 

procedure, please include it in this rule.

EPA Response: The technical workgroup has not yet talked about the pretreatment data elements. In general, we are trying to mirror 

the existing NPDES regulations (including Part 403). EPA welcomes any language you would like to suggest for these data element 

descriptions so that there is the necessary flexibility for IU control mechanisms. EPA would also reflect these changes in the ICISNPDES.

Permittees (especially those with stormwater permits) will allow their permits to expire without renewing the permit (or permit 

coverage), and do not submit any notice of termination. What can be used for a “Termination Date” when there is no request for 

termination?

EPA Response: The submission of NOTs varies from permit to permit. EPA welcomes any suggestion you might have on the business 

rules for this data element. For example, EPA could auto-populate this data element if the permit is terminated and the facility has not 

re-applied for its permit. 

“Permit Status” is described as a code/description that indicates whether the permit is Effective, Expired, Administratively Continued, 

Pending, Not Needed, Retired, or Terminated. What status should be used for a permit that has expired without renewal (coverage is 

canceled by letter, but the Director has not formally Terminated the permit)? 

EPA Response: Below is the language on permit termination, administratively continued, and expiration from ICIS-NPDES User’s 

Manual (Page 7-63):

– Effective. A Permit that is in its lifetime (Effective Date <= current date < expiration date)

– Administratively Continued. A Permit that is at the Permit’s Expiration Date. All monitoring data are still collected and used 

against the Permit’s terms.

– Pending. A Permit with incomplete data or a Permit with an Effective Date that has not yet been reached.

– Expired. A Permit that 90 days after the expiration date has been reached on a Permit that has no new Application Received 

Date or complete Application Received date entered.
11

– Retired. A Permit that all monitoring data is stopped against a retired Permit; used in conjunction with Reissue. If a Permit is 

reissued before its expiration date, the Permit Status Code or the previous version of the Permit will be set to Retired. Also, the 

Compliance Tracking Status will be set to Inactive.

– Terminated. A Permit that if the user enters the Termination Date, upon that date being reached, the system will automatically 

change the Permit Status Code to Terminated. Also, the Compliance Tracking Status will be set to Inactive.

There are also facilities that are automatically covered under a regulation (e.g. 40 CFR 403, 503), but are not issued permits by a 

regulatory authority. If there is an acceptable procedure, please include it in this rule. Should there be other “Permit Status” codes 

(Expired w/o Renewal” & “Self-Implementing”) for these cases?

We haven’t yet talked about the pretreatment data elements but we will. In general, we are trying to mirror the existing NPDES EPA 

Response: The technical workgroup has not yet talked about the pretreatment data elements. In general, we are trying to mirror the 

existing NPDES regulations (including Part 403). EPA welcomes any language you would like to suggest for these data element 

descriptions so that there is the necessary flexibility for IU control mechanisms. EPA would also reflect these changes in the ICISNPDES.

Table 2: Required NPDES Data

Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

Basic Permit Information

Permit Issue Date

This is the date the permit was issued. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD 

is the day. 

122.46/CWA 301(d), 

304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9

Permit Effective Date

This is the date on which the permit is effective. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD 

is the day. 

122.46 1 

Permit Expiration Date

This is the date the permit will expire. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD 

is the day. 

122.46/ CWA 301(d), 

304(b), and 304(m) 1

Permit Termination Date

This is the date the permit was terminated. The date data must be provided in 

CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD 

is the day. 

122.64 1
12

Table 2: Required NPDES Data

Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

Permit Status This is a code/description that indicates whether the permit is Effective, Expired, 

Administratively Continued, Pending, Not Needed, Retired, or Terminated. 122.64, 122.46 1

4. Basic Permit Information & Permitted Feature, Data Names: “Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow & Application Actual 

Average Flow (MGD)” – What is the acceptable value for “Application Total Actual Average Flow” submitted for permit facilities with 

variable flow, or no flow for the last permit cycle, or a new non-municipal facility? This is common for small wet-weather related 

facilities. Please include instructions or examples with the Data Description.

EPA Response: In the April 17th technical workgroup meeting EPA noted that it would likely provide language in the data element 

description that exempts states and facilities from reporting these two data elements for stormwater dischargers as stormwater 

discharges are mostly weather dependent. EPA welcomes any language you would like to suggest for these data element descriptions. 

For process wastewater, EPA is looking for the most representative flow from the facility from the previous permit cycle. This flow is 

likely already reported on NPDES permit applications and NOIs as NPDES permit writers need these data to calculate WQBELs. If the 

flow is zero – then the value for this data element is zero.

Table 2: Required NPDES Data

Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

Basic Permit Information

Permit Application Total 

Actual Average Flow

This is the actual average flow that a permitted facility will likely accommodate, in 

MGD, as stated on its NPDES application. 122.21,122.41 1 through 9

Permitted Feature

Application Actual 

Average Flow (MGD) The flow that a permitted feature actually had at the time of application, in MGD. 122.21/ CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1
13

5. Basic Permit Information: “Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines” – I noticed that the examples used under the Description of 

“Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines” (e.g., BPT, BCT, BAT) are not available ELGs in ICIS-NPDES. In ICIS-NPDES ”Applicable 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines” are related to the Basic Permit Information included in Appendix A of the ‘Electronic Reporting 

Rule’. The codes are 3-digit numeric and correspond to 40 CFR Chapter I Subchapter N Parts 400 – 471 (e.g., ELG Code = 413, 

description = “Electroplating point source category”). See ”Effluent Limitations Guidelines.xls” attached.

EPA Response: EPA used the parenthetical to explain the term ‘effluent limitations guidelines’. To avoid confusion, EPA will strike that 

parenthetical from Appendix A. 

On the other hand, “Basis of Limits” (e.g., BPT, BCT, BAT) are related to specific Limit information in ICIS-NPDES and are not included 

in Appendix A of the ‘Electronic Reporting Rule’. They are single-character (0-B) codes that represent an environmental standard or 

regulation which was the basis for imposing a particular effluent limitation (e.g., Basis of Limits Code = 2, Description = BCT = “Best 

Control Technology”). See ”Basis of Limits Codes.xls” attached.

EPA Response: You are correct. EPA is not requiring the submission of the “Basis of Limits” at the limit level. States are welcome to 

continue to use this existing feature in ICIS-NPDES. EPA opted to use the “Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines” at the permit 

level to more easily track permits with ELG effluent limits. Please let us know if you have any thoughts on this approach.

Table 2: Required NPDES Data

Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

Basic Permit Information

Applicable Effluent 

Limitations Guidelines

The applicable effluent limitations guidelines (e.g., BPT, BCT, BAT) and new source 

performance standards (NSPS) for the NPDES permit. 

122.44/ CWA 301(d), 

304(b), and 304(m) 1

6. Basic Permit Information: “SIC Codes” & “NAICS Codes” – It should be stated that if the “NAICS Code” is supplied, then the “SIC 

Code” is optional. 
14

EPA Response: Please see the draft notes from the April 17th technical workgroup meeting.

Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

Basic Permit Information

SIC Codes The four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code/description that represents 

the economic activity of the permitted facility. 

122.21/ CWA 301(d), 

304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9

NAICS Codes The six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code/description 

that represents the economic activity of the permitted facility. 

Agency Data Standard 

to replace SIC Codes/ 

CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 

304(m)

1 through 9

7. Basic Permit Information: “Permittee Street Address” – The Data Description refers to the “physical location of the permit holder”. 

Is this the mailing address of the applicant (possibly not their physical location)?

Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

Basic Permit Information

Permittee Street Address The address that describes the physical location of the permit holder. 122.21 1 through 9

EPA Response: This is the mailing address of the permittee. EPA will make this clear in Appendix A.

8. Limits: “Stay Limit Value” – Is the “Stay Limit Value” only required when that limit value is numeric? In many cases (permit 

appeals) this value is “Report Only”. ICIS-NPDES does not allow “Report Only” Stay Limit Values.

EPA Response: The following comes from the ICIS-NPDES User’s Guide (page 7-264):

“A Limit on a parameter may be stayed by a court injunction or an appeal. During the life of the stay, the Limit parameter may not be 

required to be reported, considered monitor only, or subject to new Limit Values. In legacy PCS, stays were handled by flagging a 
15

Limit as a contested parameter that was either monitor-only or not required on the Permit. ICIS – NPDES will augment Limit stay 

handling.

Users will continue to be able to stay a parameter so that it does not appear on DMR preprints and does not generate DMR NonReceipt Violations. They will also continue to be able to change a Limit to monitor-only so that Effluent Violation generation is 

suppressed. In addition, they will be able to enter a Stay Value for compliance to be measured against during the period of a stay. 

Users will now also be able to indicate a reason for a Limit stay and the start and end date of the stay. 

Finally, users will be able to indicate when they lift a stay whether or not the system should evaluate the DMR data for the monitoring 

periods covered by the stay.”

Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

Limit

Stay Limit Value

The numeric limit value imposed during the period of the stay for the limit; if entered, 

during the stay period, the system will use this limit value for calculating compliance, 

rather than the actual limit value that was stayed. 

124.19 1

9. For those Data Elements that are conditionally required, please include under what conditions they are required.

EPA Response: EPA is using the data descriptions to identify any conditions or exemptions. EPA welcomes any language you would like 

to suggest for these data element descriptions so that there is the necessary flexibility.