### 1 15 July 2013 

### 1. Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Electronic Reporting of National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Data (Proposed Rule) (EPA No. 2468.01, OMB No. 2020-NEW)



## 1. IDENTIFICATION OF TH E INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title of the Information Collection

Title: Electronic Reporting of NPDES Program Data (Proposed Rule). EPA ICR No.: 2468.01 OMB Control No.: 2020-NEW



### 1(b) Short Characterization/ Abstract

EPA is proposing a regulation that would require electronic reporti ng for current paper-based NPDES reports. This action will save time and resources for pe rmittees, states, tribes, territories, and EPA while improving compliance and providing better protection of the Nation’s waters. The proposed Clean Water Act regulation would require permitte es and regulators to use existing, available information technology to electronically report information and data related to the NPDES permit program in lieu of filing written reports. The proposal will also allow better allocation and use of limited program resources and enhance transparency and public accountability by providing re gulatory agencies and the public with more timely, complete, accurate, and nationally- consistent sets of data about th e NPDES program and potential sources of water pollution. The benefits of this proposed rulemaking should allow NPDES-authorized programs in states, tribes, and territories to shift precious r esources from data management activities to those more targeted to solving water quality and noncompliance issues. This in turn may contribute to increased compliance, improved water quality, and a level playing field for the regulated community.

EPA estimates that, once the rule is fully implemente d in two years from its effective date, the 46 states and the Virgin Island Territory that are authorized to administer the NPDES program will collectively save approximately $29 million each year as a result of switching from paper to electronic reporting. Regulated facilities will be required to start submitting data electronically one year following the effective date of the final rule. Facilities with limited access to the Internet will have one additional year to come into compliance with the new rule. EPA will work cl osely with states to provide support to develop or enhance state electronic reporting capabilities.

Note that this ICR covers the first three years after the final rule is promulgated; however, according to EPA’s schedule, the proposed rule would not be fully implemented until four years after the effective date of the rule. As a result, some activities required by the proposed rule are not reflected in the costs of this ICR. In addition, the full extent of expected savings is not reflected as they do not fully materialize until the rule is fully implemented four years from the effective date.

EPA is proposing to phase in the electronic collecti on of NPDES program data on the following schedule:

 Pre-Phase 1 : Prior to the start of Phase 1, EPA will r eceive information from states, tribes, and territories regarding inspections, violation determ inations, and enforcement actions. This includesauthorized NPDES programs entering enter facility, limit, and limit set information into ICISNPDES, or transfer that data from their own information systems into ICIS-NPDES, so that electronic reports submitted by regulated entities can be electronically compared to their permit requirements. (EPA believes much of this data is already in ICIS-NPDES, particularly for major

### 2 15 July 2013 facilities.) EPA would also begin to electronically receive information from authorized NPDES programs regarding inspections, violation de terminations, and enforcement actions.

 Phase 1 : One year after the effective date of th e rule, EPA and authorized NPDES programs would electronically receive Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) from NPDES permittees. EPA would also receive information from facilitie s covered by Federal general permits [e.g., notices of intent to discharge (NOIs), notices of terminations (NOTs), no exposure certifications (NECs), and low erosivity waivers (LEWs)].

 Phase 2 : Two years after the effective date of the rule, EPA and authorized NPDES programs would electronically receive general permit reports [e.g., Notice of Intent (NOI)] from all general permit covered facilities and and program repor ts from all facilities. These program reports include: Pretreatment Program Annual Reports, Industrial Users in Cities Without Approved Pretreatment Programs Periodic Compliance M onitoring Reports, Biosolids Program Annual Reports, concentrated animal feeding operati ons (CAFO) Annual Reports , Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Annual Reports, a nd Sewer Overflow of Bypass Event Reports [Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO), and Bypass Event Reports].

State authorized NPDES programs are expected to have adequate 1 electronic reporting systems one year after the effective date of the rule. EPA anticipat es the potential need for CWA section 308 reporting for permittees up to three years after the effective date of the rule, to ensure that authorized NPDES programs have adequate electronic reporting systems in place that submit regulated entity and authorized NPDES program information to EPA. Two years after the effe ctive date of the rule, EPA will begin to replace the QNCR, ANCR, semi-annual statistical reports with the NNCR. EPA’s planned phase-in over the first three years of implementing the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule is described in detail in Section 5(d).

This rule-related Information Collection Request (IC R) addresses the incremental paperwork activities for authorized NPDES programs submitting NPDES progra mmatic data to EPA. This ICR also addresses the incremental paperwork activities associated with el ectronic submittal of DMRs, general permit reports, and program reports by regulated entities to authori zed NPDES programs or EPA. In particular, EPA is using its authority under CWA sections 101, 304(i), 308, 402(b), and 501 to require the electronic collection and transfer of NPDES program data to EPA as part of this rule, where authorized states, tribes, and territories are not ready to implement electronic reporting.

EPA estimates that approxi mately 233,213 respondents 2 would incur paperwor k-related burden and reporting burden reductions annually fo llowing promulgation of the rule. The respondents to this ICR are regulated entities, which include publicly-owned tr eatment works (POTWs), CAFOs, and stormwater dischargers; as well as states that are authorized to administer the NPDES program. EPA estimates a

1 State authorized NPDES programs with adequate electronic reporting systems meet the “State Readiness Criteria,” as defined in the preamble to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.
2 This number is a three-year average covering both regu lated entities and state authorized NPDES programs. In the first year all regulated entities must check the EPA webs ite, and some may incur savings associated with paper mailings (288,994). In the second year, some regulated en tities must dual report to EPA and some may incur savings associated with paper mailings (205,252). In the third year, fewer regulated entities must dual report to EPA and a greater number incur savings associated with paper ma ilings (205,252). Additionally, 47 authorized NPDES programs would incur burden and cost in all three years of this ICR.

### 3 15 July 2013 reporting and recordkeeping burden reduction for these respondents at approximately 190,292 hours annually for the first three years after the rule becomes effective. 3



## 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

2(a)(i) Need for the Collection
On October 15, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced an action plan to revitalize the Clean Water Act NPDES program, with an emphasis on compliance and enforcement (“U.S. EPA Administrator Jackson Takes New Steps to Improve Water Quality ,” DCN 0009). The CWA Action Plan recognizes that EPA lacks nationally consistent and complete informa tion on the facilities, permits, pollutant discharges, and compliance status of most NPDES-regulated entities. This information gap affects EPA’s and authorized NPDES programs’ ability to identify viol ations, target compliance and enforcement actions, connect violations to water quality impacts, and sh are information with the public. The proposed rule would make nationally cons istent, timely, accurate, and complete da ta available to EPA, the authorized NPDES programs, and the public.

The CWA Action Plan identifies electronic reporting as a key component of the new system because it would greatly reduce the reporting related burdens on authorized NPDES programs, EPA, and regulated entities. This information collection activity identif ies the NPDES facility-specific information EPA and authorized programs need to receive electronically from NPDES-permitted facilities, and the information EPA needs to receive from authorized NPDES program s to facilitate the conversion from paper reporting to electronic reporting. This information would be submitted to EPA in a natio nally-consistent manner. By applying existing technologies for electronic repor t the proposed rule would substantially reduce the costs of NPDES reporting.

Congress and the public expect environmental program managers at every level of government – local, state, tribal, territorial, and federal – to design and implement programs that de liver environmental results. To target the most important pollution problems and most serious noncompliance, better ensure environmental protection and public health, and enab le more integrated program assessment and planning at the national level, data used by EPA should have the following characteristics:

 The data should be current;

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

 The data should be complete; and

 The data should be made available so that the basis for EPA program evaluation and subsequent planning is transparent and reproducible.

These data requirements demonstrate the need for: a shared definition and central management of the information necessary to manage the NPDES program; and ready access to that information by authorized NPDES programs and EPA. The proposed rule would prov ide definitions for the sh ared data, ensure the accessibility of that information, and provide the basis for ensuring that the data are nationally consistent, complete, accurate, and timely.

3 The average annual burden for regulated entities for the first 3 years is 108,201 hours per year, and the average annual burden reduction for state authorized NPDES programs for the first 3 years is 298,493 hours per year.

### 4 15 July 2013 In a previous effort to address state concerns over escalating reporting requirements, EPA and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) launche d the Burden Reduction Initiative in October 2006. That initiative aimed to identify and reduce what so me states consider to be high-burden reporting requirements for various media (e.g., air, water, waste). Among the recomme ndations from states was reducing the compliance reporting requirements asso ciated with the NPDES program. This ICR would address state reporting burdens by eliminating re port processing and transcription activities through the electronic transfer of permit information, as opposed to paper transmission.

2(a)(ii) Authority for the Collection
The Clean Water Act (CWA) 4 establishes a comprehensive program for protecting and restoring our nation’s waters. The National Pollu tant Discharge Elimination Syst em (NPDES) permit program was initiated under the CWA to authorize and control the di scharges of pollutants to the navigable waters of the United States (CWA Section 402(a)). This information collection activity flows from the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (30 July 2013; 78 FR 46006), which is intended to reduce the burden associated with the existing paper-based reporting sy stem. Echoing the goals of CWA section 101(f), the proposed rule would increase the speed, quality and sc ope of information received by EPA, authorized NPDES programs, and the public.

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

 Section 101 encourages, to the extent possible, the minimization of pape rwork and interagency decision procedures and the best use of availabl e manpower and funds, so as to prevent needless duplication and unnecessary delays at all levels of government.

 Section 304(i) authorizes EPA to establish minimum procedural and other elements of State programs under section 402, including reporting requirements and procedures to make information available to the public.

 Section 308 authorizes EPA to require the submittal of information needed to carry out the objectives of the Act, including sections 301, 305, 306, 307, 311, 402, 404, 405, and 504.

 Sections 402(b) and (c) establish the NPDES permit program for the control of the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters, and require each au thorized state, tribe, or territory to ensure that permits meet certain substantive requireme nts, and to provide EPA information from point sources, industrial users, and the authorized progr am in order to ensure proper oversight by EPA.

 Section 501 authorizes EPA to prescribe such regul ations as are necessary to carry out provisions of the act.



### 2(b) Practical Utility /Users of the Data

This information collection activity would deliver mo re timely, consistent, and accurate information to authorized NPDES programs, EPA, and other stake holders, which in turn would improve understanding and awareness of NPDES covered discharges. Th e newly improved and shared information would increase transparency and accountability, and help EPA and authorized NPDES programs monitor compliance with NPDES permits.

EPA has primary responsibility for ensuring the CWA’s NPDES program is effectively and consistently implemented nationwide, thus ensuring that public h ealth and environmental protection goals of the CWA are met. Improved NPDES data can significantly impr ove EPA’s knowledge of the regulated community;

4 The 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) an d subsequent amendments are now commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA).

### 5 15 July 2013 such knowledge is essential in problem identificati on and in the development of sound regulations, guidance, and policy. In addition, the informa tion would 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 pr ograms is adequate data with which to manage authorized NPDES programs. Previously, data gaps and inconsistencies have limited EPA’s ability to conduct adequate oversight. By requiring electroni c reporting by NPDES regulated entities, and the additional compliance information generated by the authorized NPDES programs, EPA would receive the data needed for overall management and oversight.

In the development of the proposed NPDES Electr onic Reporting Rule, EPA identified several key EPA uses for the NPDES information. These include:

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

 Making national program d ecisions and rulemakings;

 Managing and overseeing national and state, trib al, or territorial program management and oversight;

 Leveling the playing field between discharger s and authorized NPDES programs regarding availability of compliance information;

 Establishing program performance indicators;

 Developing trend data on facility comp liance and government performance;

 Preparing responses to Congress, the Governme nt Accountability Office, EPA’s Inspector General, and OMB; and

 Preparing for and responding to emergencies.

EPA shares much of the existing NPDES informati on (except for confidential enforcement and business information) with the public, but recognizes th at increased transparency of NPDES program implementation and compliance is essential. This info rmation collection activity would allow for a better informed public regarding local and national problems and efforts to address those problems. Increased information may also assist the public in advo cating for improved performance from the regulated community, federal, state, tribal, and territorial governments, and for a cleaner, more resilient, and sustainable environment.

Additionally, with the implementation of this info rmation collection activity, regulated entities would be able to ensure that the informati on used by their authorized NPDES program and EPA is as accurate and timely as possible. Through electronic reporting, regu lated entities can be more confident that EPA and authorized NPDES programs receive their reports a nd acknowledge them in a timely manner, and that reported information and compliance status are char acterized correctly. Because the electronic reporting tools would include the ability to check for certain types of errors, regulated entities would also experience savings related to improve d data quality and less need to re vise and reenter their submissions. However, savings associated with improved data quality were not quantified in this analysis.


## 3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTA TIONS AND OTHE R COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Non-Duplication

All of the information requested from respondents under this ICR is already required to be collected by statute or regulation and covered by existing info rmation collection requests. However, this ICR

### 6 15 July 2013 documents a change in the mode by which this info rmation is reported to authorized NPDES programs, and requires authorized NPDES programs share with EPA the data they collect and generate.

The implementation plan of the proposed rule will likely require some regulated entities to report the same information to their authorized NPDES programs, as required by permit, and electronically to EPA. The affected facilities will be located in states that do not have sufficiently comprehensive electronic reporting when the rule is promulgated. NPDES progr am data that are not available electronically are generally not capable of being shared or made ava ilable to the public. Consequently, the information collection request by this ICR is only directed at colleting NPDES program data electronically when the authorized NPDES program is not capable to elect ronically collect NPDES program data in accordance with the proposed rule. The separate reporting to EPA will be discontinued on a state-by-state basis as each of the affected states achieves ad equate electronic reporting. EPA expects all states to have adequate electronic reporting three years after the effective date of the rule.

The separate electronic reporting will allow EPA, for the first time in the history of the program, to assemble comprehensive data on virtually all NPDES pe rmitted facilities. EPA will share that data with the states so EPA and the states can all begin using th e data to improve progra m management, which will lead to improved water quality.


### 3(b) Public Notice Required Pr ior to ICR Submission to OMB

This ICR will be made available to the public for co mment concurrent with the proposed rule published in the Federal Register . The public will have 90 days to provide comments. Any comments received will be given consideration when completing the supporting stat ement that is submitted to OMB along with the final rule.


### 3(c) Consultations

EPA has conducted a number of cons ultations with relevant stakeholders on the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. These consultations included:

On October 14, 2008, EPA hosted a listening session with states and interested stakeholders in Washington, D.C. This session was announced in the Federal Register by a notice on September 17, 2008. In this meeting, which was complemented by a concurrent conference call and web access to EPA’s presentation materials, EPA provided authorized NPD ES programs and other stake holders an opportunity to hear EPA’s rulemaking plans and comment on those plans. More than 30 people participated in the meeting, including representatives of several states.

On March 9, 2009, EPA conducted a meeting in Washi ngton, D.C. with representatives from four states. A similar meeting was conducted by EPA in San Fran cisco on March 13, 2009 with an additional four states. The goal of these meetings was to seek individual state comment on a variety of options under consideration in the rulemaking to effectively re duce potential data entry burden. EPA then conducted two conference calls (on March 18, 2009 and April 8, 2009) with seven additional states to seek comment on those same options under consideration. This seri es of outreach events provided valuable input from a total of fifteen states from nine EPA Regions rega rding the feasibility of the implementation options under consideration for this proposed rule.

Beginning in the summer of 2010, EPA conducted several outreach efforts focused primarily on electronic reporting. First, on July 13, 2010, EPA conducted a meeting in Washington, D.C. with over 100 attendees to announce the electronic reporting appr oach of this proposed rule. Representatives from state, local and tribal governments, and industry an d environmental associations participated in person

### 7 15 July 2013 and by web access. EPA provided attendees the opport unity to learn about EPA’s rulemaking plans for the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule and to comment on those plans.

Subsequently, EPA hosted a series of 11 web sessions from July 2010 through September 2010. The goal of these meetings was to provide further opportunity for comment on the merits of the proposed rule. Altogether, this effort included over 500 participants with represen tation from 38 states, 10 EPA Regions, and over 150 industry and trade association attendees.

During this rule development, EPA also conducted meetings and consultations to comply with various statutes and executive orders directing federal agencies , including EPA, to coordinate with organizations representing elected officials of states, counties, and municipalities, and consult, as required, with tribes and small businesses and small gove rnmental jurisdictions.

The first of these meetings was held on Septembe r 15, 2010, and was attended by 11 state and local government organizations. The focus of this mee ting was to comply with Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”) which requires Federal agencies to consult with elected state and local government officials, or their representative national organizations, when developing regulations or policies that might impose substantial compliance or implementation costs on state and local governments. Through these meetings EPA received substantive feedback on th e feasibility of the implementation options under consideration for this rulemaking.

Additionally, EPA met with tribal entities to describe the rulemaking effort and to provide an opportunity for discussion in two separate meetings on November 9, 2010 with the National Tribal Caucus, and on November 10, 2010, with the National Tribal Wate r Council. The National Tribal Caucus meeting was attended by 19 tribal representatives, elected on a re gional basis, who correspond with tribes in each of EPA’s 10 regions. The Tribal Water Council consists of 19 tribal wa ter professionals who represent a national tribal perspective. In addition, after ma iling information to 563 nationally-recognized tribal entities, EPA conducted follow-up conference calls on December 14 and December 16, 2010.

The focus of these meetings was to provide an add itional opportunity for cons ultation and thus comply with Executive Order 13175, which states that EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct complian ce costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal offici als early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact st atement. These calls did not raise any key issues from the participants, and, in particular, the likely availa bility of electronic reporting was not an issue for the participants.

On September 20 and 22, 2011, EPA gave the st ates a presentation on the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. The presentation on September 20 was an in-per son meeting with 9 states in attendance. The webinar presentation on September 22 had a total of 99 registrants, consisting of 3 contractors, 9 federal, 2 tribal, and 85 state/state association attendees.

In March of 2012 EPA conducted sev eral consultations with various state entities. ACWA organized a small state subset presentation with 6 states in attendance on March 8, 2 012, and an Appendix A presentation on March 12, 2012. On March 13, 2012, EPA met in person with the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA). On March 14, 20 12, EPA conducted an eDMR Mentoring Call with 70 attendants across the states and regions. On March 15, 2012, EPA conducted a LGEAN MS4 webinar. On March 19, 2012, EPA held an Appendix A webinar with ECOS. On March 27, 2012, EPA presented a NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule webinar to the states, with 82 entities in attendance including, 45 state, 30 EPA, 6 contractors, and 1 federal attendee.

### 8 15 July 2013 Subsequent to these consultations, on April 25, 2012, EPA met with the NACWA’s National Environmental Policy Forum. On April 26, 2012, EPA met again with the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) in Napa, California. From May 1, until May 3, 2012, EPA gave presentations at the National Stormwater Conference in Baltimore to the states. On May 23, 2012, EPA conducted a webinar with the National Associa tion of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), Water Environment Federation (WEF), and the National Rural Water Association (NRWA) with 136 attendees. From May 29, 2012, until June 1, 2012 EPA held the National 2012 Ex change Network Meeting. On June 14, 2012, EPA presented a webinar to th e regulated community, including industry and municipalities, which make up the Federal Water Qua lity Coalition. On July 11, 2012, there was a discussion between EPA and the states regarding Stormw ater that was coordinated by ACWA. On July 17, 2012, EPA gave a rule presentati on to public interest groups including the River Network, the Clean Water Action Network, and the Environmental Integrity Project. On July 24, 2012, EPA gave a rule presentation at the 2012 National Environmental Enfo rcement Information vMeeting. On October 3, 2012, a rule presentation was made to the W EFTEC 2012 National Meeting at New Orleans.

In concert with these meetings and the series of web sessions, EPA also implemented a website for the NPDES Electronic Rule. The NPDES Electronic Rule webs ite is a government flagship project that falls under the theme of “Expanding Public Awareness and Involvement in the Development of Rules and Regulations.” The purpose of the website was to provide background information on the rule, the status of rule development, announcements of upcoming stak eholder meetings, and a discussion forum with questions and topics. To date, over half a million visitors have accessed the website.

EPA also engaged in dialogue with a State Working Group to explore the implementation issues related to this proposed rule. This technical working grou p focused on identifying issues and roadblocks to implementing various aspects of the proposed rule, an d shared information concerning how these issues could be best addressed. EPA worked with Associa tion of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) and ECOS to identify a group of 11 states to help EPA understand the concerns of individual states. These states supported the concept of electronic reporting, bu t also raised concerns related to implementation requirements, funding, and available resources. The pa rticipants also noted the varying degrees of state readiness for electronic reporting. Some states requested that EPA explicitly identify the required data and the need for each item. EPA has a ddressed these concerns through the phased implementation plan and the identification of required data in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127.

Upon request, EPA also met with states in an individual capacity. On September 24, 2012, EPA presented a webinar to Kentucky discussing the im plementation and outreach process for the proposed rule. On November 16, 2012, EPA presented a webi nar to Tennessee’s Department of Environment and Conservation in regards to their questions and comme nts on the implications of the electronic reporting system. EPA also reached out to the states on numer ous occasions through the ICIS State Dialogue Calls, where some states provided comment on the proposed rule. As of February 2, 2012, 29 states participated in this dialogue with EPA.


### 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA recognizes the importance of balancing the need fo r data collection efforts against burden and costs to the respondents. From the inception of the NPD ES program, cost has been one of the major factors considered in establishing application requirement s, monitoring conditions, and report contents and frequencies. In the past 10 years, the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government have stressed the need for evaluating the costs and benef its of regulation and the financial impact on the regulated community, state, and local government. EPA expects that the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule would ultimately result in savings for regulated entities, states, and EPA through the elimination of requirements associated with mailing and pro cessing paper reports.

### 9 15 July 2013 EPA and authorized states need current information about regulated entities, discharge characteristics, enforcement actions, and program performance to fulf ill oversight responsibilities. In addition, EPA must track permits, compliance activities, and enforcement ac tions to ensure that state programs are carrying out the provisions of the CWA in a timely manner. Th e information currently being reported, and subject to the proposed rule, is submitted on a variety of schedules. Some information is only submitted once (e.g., applying for a permit), some information is submitted regularly (e.g., monthly discharge monitoring reports), while some information is submitted as ne eded (e.g., enforcement actions). The reporting frequencies associated with the NPDES program, as laid out in existing ICRs, represent the minimum reporting frequency attainable while still supporti ng the programmatic requirements of the NPDES program. Therefore, less frequent re porting would make it more difficult for EPA to effectively provide guidance to state programs, review or comment on state actions, or intervene in compliance or enforcement cases, as necessary.

This ICR does not alter the reporting frequencies associ ated with the NPDES program, but rather changes the mode of submission from paper to electronic. The effects of less frequent collection of NPDES data are discussed in the program’s current ICRs, including:

 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syst em (NPDES) Program (OMB Control No. 2040- 0004);

 National Pretreatment Program (OMB Control No. 2040-0009);

 Cooling Water Intake Structures New Fac ility Rule (OMB Control No. 2040-0241);

 Cooling Water Intake Structures Phase II Ex isting Facilities (OMB Control No. 2040-0257);

 Cooling Water Intake Structures Phase III F acilities (OMB Control No. 2040-0268); and

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



### 3(e) General Guidelines

This information collection is consistent with th e requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implem enting regulations (5 CFR 1320.6), and OMB Guidance.


### 3(f) Confidentiality

Permit applications and othe r respondent reports can contain confiden tial business information. If this is the case, the respondent may request that such informa tion be treated as confidential. All confidential data would be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA’s Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. An y claim of confidentiality must be asserted at the time of submission. CWA section 308(b) specifically states, however, that effluent data may not be treated as confidential.


### 3(g) Sensitive Questions

The requirements addressed in this ICR do not incl ude sensitive questions. Sensitive questions are defined in EPA’s ICR Handbook, Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as “questions concerning sexual behavi or or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private.” The info rmation addressed in this ICR is generally related to potential pollutants and the processes that generate tho se pollutants. The only information collected about individuals is the name and contact in formation for responsible individuals.

### 10 15 July 2013 

## 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND TH E INFORMATION REQUESTED

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

The reporting requirements associated with this info rmation collection activity would apply to EPA and state authorized NPDES programs as well as to regulated entities.

EPA issues NPDES permits except where a state demons trates that it has adequate legal, technical, and financial capabilities in place to administer the NPDES program. To date, 46 states and one U.S. territory are authorized by EPA to administer the NPDES program, or parts of it. EPA is the authorized NPDES program for the entire program in the other 4 states, for all of the tribes and 15 territories. EPA is also the authorized NPDES program for any subprogram for wh ich authorized states have declined to assume responsibility, and for certain national subprograms su ch as vessels. The authorized states and territories are considered respondents for evaluating paperwork burden in this ICR. The current NPDES program authorization status is posted on EPA’s website. 5

NPDES regulated entities, whether permitted by EPA or a state, are also respondents in this ICR. The NPDES regulated entities affected by this information collection activity include:

 Standard industrial dischargers;

 Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs);

o Biosolids generators and handlers;

o POTWs with combined sewer systems (CSSs);

o Approved pretreatment program and significant industrial users (SIUs);

o POTWs with sanitary sewer systems (SSSs); and

 Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs);

 Stormwater discharges (including industrial, construction, and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).

A significant portion of NPDES regulated entities are publicly-owned (i.e., municipal) treatment works (POTWs) classified in the NAICS system as Se wage Treatment Facilities (NAICS sector 221320). In contrast, non-municipal dischargers fall in to more than 1,000 NAICS classifications including industrial, agricultural, commercial, and service sectors.

5 See http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes /statestribes/astatus.cfm.

### 11 15 July 2013 

### 4(b) Information Requested

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

(4)(b)(i)(1) Electronic Reporting from NPDES Regulated Entities EPA is proposing to revise existing fe deral regulations to change the mode by which NPDES information is provided. Under the proposed ru le, regulated entities would be require d to report certain information electronically instead of submitting paper reports. Th e information to be submitted electronically varies by NPDES subprogram, as indicated below. NPD ES reporting requirements not listed below would continue being submitted in the manner prescribed by applicable authorized NPDES programs:

 Standard Industrial Dischargers would be required to submit th eir DMRs and general permit reports (i.e., NOIs, NOTs) 6 electronically.

 POTWs would be required to submit DMRs and the following:

o Biosolids Generators and Handlers would be required to submit their annual program reports 7 electronically. Biosolids generators a nd handlers covered under a general permit would submit their general permit repor ts (i.e., NOIs, NOTs) electronically.

o Combined Sewer Systems would be required to submit th eir DMRs and sewer overflow reports (including bypass events) 8 electronically. Those regulated entities regulated under general permits would also be required to submit electronic general permit reports (i.e., NOIs, NOTs).

o Approved Pretreatment Program would be required to submit electronic DMRequivalents [40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)] a nd annual program reports [40 CFR 403.12(i)]. 9 Those regulated entities regulated under genera l permits would also be required to submit electronic general permit reports (i.e., NOIs, NOTs).

o Sanitary Sewer Systems would be required to submit their DMRs and sewer overflow reports (including bypass events) 10 electronically. Those regulated entities regulated under general permits would also be required to submit elect ronic general permit reports (i.e., NOIs, NOTs).

 Significant Industrial Users (indirect dischargers to PO TWs not covered under Approved Pretreatment Program) would be require d to submit electronic program reports.

 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations would be required to submit DMRs and their general permit reports (i.e., NOIs, NOTs) and annual program reports 11 electronically.

 Stormwater Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) would be required to submit their DMRs and annual program reports 12 electronically. MS4s cove red under a general permit would submit their general permit repor ts (i.e., NOIs, NOTs) electronically.

 Stormwater Industrial and Construction General Permits would be required to submit DMRs and their general permit reports (i.e., NOI s, NOTs, LEWs, and NECs) electronically.

Existing federal regulations already require the subm ission of these reports; however, most reports are submitted on paper. This informa tion collection activity only changes the mode by which they are

6 Only those general permits located in states where EP A is the authorized NPDES program would be required to submit electronic NOIs during the period of this ICR.

7 Electronic reporting of program reports would be required two years after the effective date of the rule.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.

### 12 15 July 2013 submitted. This information collection activity do es not create any new reporting requirements or add new data elements beyond what is requi red to be collected by regulation.

The implementation plan of the proposed rule will likely require some regulated entities to report the same information to their authorized NPDES program s, as required by permit, and electronically to EPA for a period of time. The affected facilities will be located in states that do not have sufficiently comprehensive electronic reporting when the rule is promulgated. The separate reporting to EPA will be discontinued on a state-by-state basis as each of the a ffected states achieves adequate electronic reporting. For this analysis, EPA assumed that all states would have adequate electronic reporting three years after the effective date of the rule.

The separate electronic reporting will allow EPA, for the first time in the history of the program, to assemble comprehensive data on virtually all NPDES regul ated entities. EPA will share that data with the states so EPA and the states can all begin using the data to improve program management, which will lead to improved water quality.

(4)(b)(i)(2) Data Submissions from Authorized NPDES Programs Historically, EPA has relied upon authorized NPDES programs to receive data from regulated entities, enter that data into databases, enter their own progra mmatic data into databases, and then forward some of that data to EPA. Under the proposed rule, EPA w ould require regulated entities to submit a large portion of their NPDES data electronically, thus significantl y reducing the amount work performed by the states.

Nevertheless, EPA would still require certain NPD ES information from authorized NPDES programs, particularly information linked to NPDES permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities and responsibilities of the authorized NPDES program s. The types of NPDES information that EPA would require authorized NPDES programs to report electronically include:

 Facility and permit information for individually-issued NPDES permits (much of this information is already reported to EPA and resi des in national NPDES databases), for industrial users located in cities without approved local pr etreatment programs, and for general permits (generally to be entered by authorized NPDES programs once in the permit cycle, and when the permit is modified, and linked to facility- submitted general permit report information);

 Limit and limit set information , which characterize the parameters of releases (total dissolved solids, pH, etc.) authorized by each NPDES permit;

 Compliance monitoring information documenting and tracking compliance monitoring activities (e.g., inspections) at permitted facilities;

 Violation information for data associated with single even t, effluent, and compliance schedule violations; and,

 Enforcement action information about the enforcement action itself, as well as associated compliance schedules and penalties.

4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities

(4)(b)(ii)(1) Regulated Entities In order to comply with this information collec tion activity, regulated entities would be required to complete some or all of the following activities, de pending on the type of permit under which it is regulated and the state in which it is located:

 Check an EPA website to determine if they need to report to both EPA and to the state authorized NPDES program;

### 13 15 July 2013  Set up an account on the Central Data Exchange (C DX) or a similar data portal provided by their authorized NPDES program;

 Mail the authorized NPDES program an electronic signature agreement (ESA) stating that their electronic PIN number is the legal equivalent of their written signature;

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

 Submit general permit reports, DMRs, and Program Reports electronically using reporting tools developed by EPA, state authorized NPDES progr ams, or EPA-approved third-party developers; and

 Report electronically to EPA in addition to cu rrent state authorized NPDES program reporting requirements if the state does not have an electronic reporting system.

(4)(b)(ii)(2) State Authorized NPDES Programs State authorized NPDES programs would be required to complete some or all of the following activities:

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

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

 Share programmatic data required by Appendix A to 40 CFR 127, such as inspections, violations determinations and enforcement ac tions, with EPA electronically;

 Modify permits to include electronic reporting requirements; and

 Reconcile regulated entity pape r reports with information submitted electronically to EPA.



## 5. THE INFORMATION COLLEC TED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHOD OLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

EPA Headquarters would conduct the following activities in order to implement electronic reporting of NPDES program data:

 Develop a training webinar for authorized NPDES programs;

 Modify NetDMR and NPDES e-Reporting Tool (NeT ) to accommodate data defined in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127, and create a new electronic tool for program report submission;

 Accept data from regulated entities, receive data from state authorized NPDES programs, and send EPA data to state authorized NPDES programs;

 Conduct routine database refreshes, updates, and licensing; and

 Reconcile regulated entity pape r reports submitted to state authorized NPDES programs with information submitted electronically to EPA.

To comply with this information collection activ ity, EPA Region authorized NPDES programs would also be required to complete the following activities:

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

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

 Modify permits to require electronic submissions; and

 Share programmatic data required by Appendix A to 40 CFR 127, such as inspections, violations determinations and enforcement ac tions, with EPA electronically.

### 14 15 July 2013 

### 5(b) Collection Methodol ogy and Management

This information collection activity would require re gulated entities to submit certain data electronically, and would require authorized NPDES programs to share with EPA a larger percentage of the NPDES data they collect from regulated entities or generate wh ile administering the NPDES program locally. EPA would store the data in the Integrated Complianc e Information System (ICIS)-NPDES, EPA’s central repository for NPDES program information.

Authorized NPDES programs use the National Envir onmental Information Exchange Network to share information with EPA, and with each other, over the internet. All 50 states have a node on the Exchange Network and participate in some degree of data shari ng. However, not all states store all of the required data electronically. For this reason, to accept electroni c reporting from regulated entities, or data transfers from EPA, some states would need to modify their data systems to map all of the required data elements to the appropriate fields within their systems.

ICIS-NPDES ensures that the NPDES information regarding regulated entities remains available, accessible, and in a nationally consistent format for analyses. The public may access NPDES program information via the EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) or Envirofacts websites, which derive their NPDES program data from ICIS-NPDES.

The proposed rule does not dictate how the state aut horized NPDES programs collect data electronically from regulated entities. Several states have already developed or are developing electronic reporting tools for use by NPDES-regulated entities, and EPA encourag es them to continue that work. To assist other states in converting to electronic reporting, EPA would develop new, or modify existing, reporting tools to allow for the electronic submission of informa tion from NPDES-regulated entities. These tools would use the Environmental Information Exchange Network’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) to flow data into ICIS-NPDES. Authorized NPDES programs would ha ve the option to use EPA’s electronic reporting tools, EPA-approved third-party software provider tools, or to build their own tools. All reporting tools, whether existing or to be developed, would be co mpliant with EPA’s Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR).


### 5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

During the period of this ICR, EPA expects regulated entities to incur net costs while implementing electronic reporting. In addition, some regulated en tities will incur net costs while reporting electronically to EPA in addition to meeting state authorized NP DES program requirements. State authorized NPDES programs would also incur costs during the period of this ICR, but by definition are not considered to be small entities.

As estimated in the Economic Analysis for the proposed rule, all small parent entities potentially affected by this proposed rule would have a cost impact of l ess than one percent of their annual revenue. Since the estimated regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typical parent entity’s revenue (i.e., less than one percent), the impacts of this regulation are likely to be minimal.


### 5(d) Collection Schedule

During the first year after rule promulgation, EPA wo uld develop and offer webi nars that state and EPA Region authorized NPDES programs would attend. Prio r to rule promulgation, EPA would implement the necessary IT changes to allow for electronic repor ting by regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs to begin reporting electronically immediately if they are able to do so.

### 15 15 July 2013 During the first year of the rule, state and EPA Region authorized NPDES programs would share facility information, limits, and limit sets with EPA so that information reported electronically by regulated entities can be compared to their permit requirement s. Regulated entities would need to check an EPA website to determine whether they are required to re port electronically to EPA in addition to submitting separate reports to the state authorized NPDES program . Regulated entities would also need to register to use the electronic reporting tools. EPA Region authorized NPDES programs would begin modifying permits to require electronic reporting, as well as begi n to enter the newly shared data into ICIS-NPDES.

Also during the first year of the rule, regulated entiti es located in authorized states that lack electronic reporting tools would begi n reporting DMRs electronically to EPA . DMRs would be reported according to the schedules required by permits, typically monthly. State authorized NPDES programs and EPA would hold monthly conference calls to reconcile th e data submitted electronically by regulated entities. EPA Regions would also enter programmatic data into ICIS-NPDES and modify permits to require electronic reporting during the first year.

The schedule for authorized NPDES programs to sh are programmatic data with EPA is based on the frequency with which the required data are generated. For example, en forcement action data would need to be shared when an enforcemen t action occurs. As a result, frequencies vary by subprogram and by permit type. Table 1 below presents relevant annual reporting frequencies by data family, subprogram, and permit type. The annual reporti ng frequency assumes that, for exam ple, reports that are submitted every 5 years have annual reporting frequencies of 0.2, i.e., authorized NPDES programs must enter the relevant data elements for 20% of regulated entities in a given year. Note that there are two principal mechanisms for authorized NPDES programs to share their programmatic data with EPA. States that use ICIS-NPDES as their programmatic data system will like ly enter the data directly. States that operate their own information systems will most likely enter th eir programmatic data into those systems, and flow the data to ICIS-NPDES periodically.

### 16 15 July 2013 Table 1: Annual Reporting Frequency Summary by Data Family and Permit Type

Subprogram Permit Type Annual Reporting Frequency

Permits Limits Limit Sets DMRs Program Reports Compliance Monitoring Violations Enforcement Actions Industrial and Stormwater

Standard Industrial Dischargers Individual Major 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 0 0.2 0.4 0.11 Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 0 0.2 0.4 0.11 General Nonmajor 0.2 0 0 12 0 0.2 0.4 0.11

CAFOs Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0 0 0 1 0.2 0.01 0.02 General Nonmajor 0.2 0 0 0 1 0.2 0.01 0.02

Stormwater Phase I MS4 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 1 0.2 0.06 0.12 Phase II MS4 0.2 0 0 0 0.4 0.2 0.01 0.01 Construction General Permit 0.17 0 0 0 b 0 0.05 0.02 0.02

Multisector General Permit 0.18 0 0 3 0 0.05 0.02 0.02
SIUs Nonmajor n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a POTWs

Biosolids Individual Major 0.2 a 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Pretreatment Individual Major 0.2 a 0.2 0.2 12 1 0.20 0.23 0.39 Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 1 0.17 0.14 0.22

CSSs Individual Major 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 11.22 11.22 0.23 0.36 Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 11.22 11.22 0.11 0.14 General Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 11.22 11.22 0.11 0.14

SSSs Individual Major 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 2.57 2.57 0.23 0.36 Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 2.57 2.57 0.11 0.14 General Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 2.57 2.57 0.11 0.14

a Annual reporting frequency applies only to those permit data elements specific to the pretreatment or biosolids program. All ot her permit data elements are captured by CSSs and SSSs and have an annual reporting frequency of 0.
b 1% of Stormwater Construction regulated entities have DMR require ments 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.



## 6. ESTIMATING TH E BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

This section presents the burden and cost estimates associ ated with the proposed rule that would require electronic submission for general permit reports, DM Rs, and program reports. EPA estimates that the proposed rule would affect an average of 233,213 respondents each year 13 . In the long-term, respondents would experience annual burden reduc tion and cost savings. This ICR Supporting Statement presents the total paperwork burden and costs/cost savings associated with the requirements of the proposed electronic reporting rule in the first three years after promulgati on. As noted previously, the annual savings expected from this proposed rule will not be fully realized un til the fourth year after rule promulgation (e.g., once dual reporting to EPA ceases and EPA fully eliminates annual and quarterly no ncompliance reports).


### 6(a) Estimating Total Respondent Burden

This section discusses the total potential paperwork -related burden to respondents of the proposed electronic reporting rule during the three-year period of the ICR. As described previously, the proposed

13 This number is a three-year average covering both regu lated entities and state authorized NPDES programs. In the first year all regulated entities must check the EPA webs ite, and some may incur savings associated with paper mailings (288,994). In the second year, some regulated en tities must dual report to EPA and some may incur savings associated with paper mailings (205,252). In the third year, fewer regulated entities must dual report to EPA and a greater number incur savings associated with paper ma ilings (205,252). Additionally, 47 authorized NPDES programs would incur burden and cost in all three years of this ICR.

### 17 15 July 2013 rule does not change any of the recordkeeping or reporting requirements set out in earlier ICRs or required by authorized NPDES programs. The propo sed rule does change the mode of submission for regulated entities and requires authorized NPDES progra ms to share more of that data, and their own programmatic data, with EPA. Note that the burden to respondents would vary year-to-year during the first three years of implementation as the requirements of the rule are rolled out. Four years after the effective date of the rule, after implementation is co mplete, the requirements of the proposed rule would remain the same in all subsequent years. The me thodology EPA uses to the estimate incremental burden associated with electronic reporting requirements follows the methodology used in the Economic Analysis of the Proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. 14

Respondents affected by this ICR include regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs. Due to the different activities required of each respondent group, the burden to regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs is discussed separately be low. The detailed burden estimates for regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs are presented in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

6(a)(i) Regulated Entities As a result of this information collection activity , EPA estimates that regulated entities would incur additional burden in carrying out the additional pa perwork activities that would be imposed by the proposed rule. Specifically, they w ould incur costs to: 1) check the EPA website to determine whether they are subject to Section 308 reporting; 2) register w ith CDX or a similar data portal in order to transmit required data directly to ICIS-NPDES; 3) establish an electronic signature agreement in order to use the data portal; 4) participate in training on how to el ectronically report DMRs; and 5) for some regulated entities, electronically report DMRs and general pe rmit reports to EPA until their authorized NPDES program has an electronic reporting system in place. EPA estimates the burden associated with each of these activities as described below.

(6)(a)(i)(1) Checking the EPA Website All regulated entities, regardless of subprogram a nd permit type, would check an EPA website to determine if they need to report both to EPA and to the state authorized NPDES program. Whether the regulated entity needs to report to EPA would depe nd on whether the state authorized NPDES program already has an electronic system in place that m eets certain minimum requirements. Regulated entity managers would need five minutes (0.08 hours) to find the EPA website and review instructions on electronic reporting to EPA in their state.

(6)(a)(i)(2) Registration with CDX, Electronic Signature Agreement, and NetDMR Training To submit information through NetDMR and NPDES e-Reporting Tool (NeT), or comparable tools operated by individual authorized NPDES programs, a ll regulated entities will need to register with CDX, EPA’s Exchange Network node, or an equivalent system prescribed by the applicable state authorized NPDES program. Because state authorized NPDES progr ams’ IT systems are highly variable, both in the technology used and the scope of reporting (e.g., eDMR), this analysis applies the estimated costs of the EPA-built systems to all regulated entities.

To use the electronic reporting system for NetDMR an d NeT, each regulated entity would need to set up an account, either on the Central Data Exchange (C DX), EPA’s node on the Exchange Network, or a similar data portal provided by their authorized NPDES program. It is estimated that it would take

14 U.S. EPA. 2013. Economic Analysis of the Proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.

### 18 15 July 2013 regulated entities 20 minutes (0.33 hours) to register for an electronic account with CDX. Additionally, regulated entities using NetDMR and NeT would need to spend another 11 minutes (0.18 hours) to mail an electronic signature agreement (ESA) to the au thorized NPDES program. The estimated time required to complete the CDX registration and ESA application, as well as the cost to mail the ESA application, is based on data from the Electronic Pre-Manufacturing Notice Proposed rule.

NetDMR or authorized NPDES program eDMR systems are sufficiently complex that many regulated entities would need training to effectively use th em. 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 third party testing laboratory can upload their DMR monitoring information directly into the NetDMR system. Therefore, it is assumed that a manager and a technical staff person at facilities us ing NetDMR or state eDMR systems would engage in 1.7 hours of on-line training to familiarize them selves with the electronic reporting process for DMRs. This estimate is based on the length of EPA’s NetD MR training. Experience with currently operating systems has shown that training is not necessary fo r submitting general permit reports electronically, as these tools are less complicated.

It was assumed that one managerial staff member and one technical staff member would complete CDX registration, an Electronic Signature Agreement, or NetDMR training based on the reporting requirements of the permitted facility. Whether the regulated entit y is required to use NetDMR or NeT would depend on the type of permit and associated reporting requ irements. Regulated entities covered under individual permits that are required to submit DMRs would need to register to use NetDMR or the authorized NPDES program equivalent, while thos e covered under general pe rmits would need to register to use NeT or the authorized NPDES program equivalent.

Implementation costs vary based on the permit type (individual, general, major, non-major) and the reporting requirements of the applicable subprogram . The activities specific to each permit type and subprogram are discussed below.

Standard Industrial Dischargers Standard industrial dischargers covered under individual permits would use NetDMR, or a similar tool, to electronically submit DMRs. Therefore, they would in cur burden to register with CDX, establish an ESA, and take NetDMR training, for a total burden of 4.25 hours per regulated entity. Standard industrial dischargers covered under gene ral permits would use NeT, or a simila r tool, to submit their general permit reports and DMRs. Therefore, they would incur only the burden to register with CDX, for a total burden of 0.67 hours per regulated entity.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) CAFOs covered under individual permit s would use NeT, or a similar tool, to submit their annual reports, which requires registering with CDX and establishing an ESA, for a total burden of 0.85 hours per regulated entity. CAFOs covered under ge neral permits would need to register with CDX in order to use NeT, or a similar tool, for a total burden of 0.67 hours per regulated entity.

Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs) CSSs covered under genera l permits would use NetDMR, or a similar tool, to electronically submit DMRs and NeT to submit combined sewer overflow re ports. They would incur burden to register with CDX, establish an ESA, and take Net DMR training, fo r a total burden of 4.25 hours per regulated entity. CSSs covered under genera l permits would use NeT, or a similar tool, to submit their general permit reports and DMRs. Therefore, they would incur burden to register with CDX only, for a total burden of 0.67 hours per regulated entity.

### 19 15 July 2013 Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) SSSs covered under general permits w ould use NetDMR, or a similar tool, to electronically submit DMRs and NeT to submit sanitary sewer overflow reports. Th ey would incur burden to register with CDX, establish an ESA, and take Net DMR training, for a total burden of 4.25 hours per regulated entity. SSSs covered under general permits would use NeT, or a similar tool, to submit their general permit reports and DMRs. Therefore, they would incur burden to regist er with CDX only, for a total burden of 0.67 hours per regulated entity.

Stormwater Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Phase I MS4s would use NetDMR, or a similar tool, to electronically submit DMRs and NeT to submit annual reports. They would incur burden to register with CDX, establish an ESA, and take Net DMR training, for a total burden of 4.25 hours per regulat ed entity. Phase II MS4s would use NeT, or a similar tool, to submit annual reports, and therefore would incur burden to register with CDX and establish an ESA, for a total burden of 0.85 hours per regulated entity. 15

Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MGP) Regulated entities covered under industrial stormwater pe rmits would need to register with CDX in order to use NeT, or a similar tool, for a total burden of 0.67 hours per regulated entity.

Stormwater Construction General Permit (CGP) Regulated entities covered under construction stormwater permits would need to register with CDX in order to use NeT, or a similar tool, for a to tal burden of 0.67 hours per regulated entity.

(6)(a)(i)(3) Electronic Reporting to EPA In states with authorized NPDES program but no el ectronic reporting system in place, regulated entities would be required to continue their current reporting to the state authorized NPDES program and, in addition, report electronically to EPA. This requireme nt would stay in effect until the state authorized NPDES program implements an electronic reporting system meeting certain requirements (expected to be completed three years after the effective date of the rule). To report electronically to EPA, facilities would copy information from their paper forms into an online web form provided by EPA. The process of copying the data onto the electronic form is estim ated to take 10 seconds per data element.

During the period of this ICR, electronic reporting to EPA would begin in the second year for all DMRs and in the third year for general permitted facility data and program reports. Note that for this analysis, it is assumed that only half of the facilities reporting to EPA in the second year would report in the third year because authorized NPDES programs would have made progress in electronic reporting activities.

General permit reports (i.e., NOIs, NOTs, NECs, LEWs ) for Federally-issued general permits would also be required to be electronically reported during the first year, but EPA is the authorized NPDES program for these permits and expects to di scontinue paper-based reporting, so the electronic reporting would not result in additional burden. 16 EPA expects this dual reporting of information to EPA to only last until the end of the third year after the rule becomes effectiv e. Because the electronic reporting requirements vary

15 Ibid.
16 By definition, Federally-issued general permits are administered by EPA Regions. It is assumed that all EPA Regions would adopt EPA’s electronic tools, and therefore facilities located in states where the EPA Region is the authorized NPDES program would begin electronic reporting and discontinue paper reports one year after the effective date of the rule.

### 20 15 July 2013 based on the permit type (individual, general, major, non-major) and the reporting requirements of the applicable subprogram, the activities specific to each subprogram are discussed in the sections below.

Standard Industrial Dischargers Both individual and general standard industrial disch argers are required to submit monthly DMRs. There are 11 Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 data elements on the DMRs that would be electronically reported to EPA using NetDMR or NeT, or similar tools, de pending on the permit type. The incremental reporting burden per facility to electronically submit DMRs is 22 minutes (0.37 hours) per year.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) General permit-covered CAFOs would be required to use NeT, or a similar tool, to electronically report the information to EPA. For this analysis, it is assume d that half of the CAFOs would need to dual report permit information to EPA in the third year to account for those facilities in states that do not yet have adequate electronic reporting systems. A CAFO gene ral permit reports consis t of 60 data elements. Therefore, the incremental reporting burden per facility to electronically submit ge neral permit reports is 10 minutes (0.17 hours) per year. Note because permits are issued every five years, only 20% of facilities would incur this cost in the third year.

In the third year, approximately one half of the CAFO s would also need to submit program report data to EPA electronically. The incremental reporting burden per facility is 10 seconds per program report.

Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs) Both individual and general CSSs are required to submit monthly DMRs. There are 11 Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 data elements on the DMRs that would be electronically reported to EPA using NetDMR or NeT, or similar tools, depending on the permit ty pe. The incremental reporting burden per facility to electronically submit DMRs is 22 minutes (0.37 hours) per year.

In the third year, EPA assumed that approximately one half of the CSSs would also need to submit annual program report data on overflow and bypass events to EPA electronically. The average yearly frequency is 12.43, based on the number of CSOs and bypasses divided by the number of CSSs (to represent the number of overflows per year). The incremental repor ting burden per facility is 10 seconds per program report.

Approved Pretreatment Program Pretreatment facilities are required to submit m onthly DMRs. There are 11 Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 data elements on the DMRs that would be electroni cally reported to EPA using NetDMR, or a similar tool, depending on the permit type. The incremental reporting burden per facility to electronically submit DMRs is 22 minutes (0.37 hours) per year.

In the third year, EPA assumed that approximately one ha lf of the indirect dischargers would also need to submit program report data to EPA electronically. The incremental reporting burden per facility is 10 seconds per program report.

Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) In the third year, EPA assumed that approximately one half of the SIUs would also need to submit program report data to EPA electronically. The incr emental reporting burden per facility is 10 seconds per program report.

### 21 15 July 2013 Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) Both individual and general SSSs are required to submit monthly DMRs. There are 11 Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 data elements on the DMRs that would be electronically reported to EPA using NetDMR or NeT, or similar tools, depending on the permit ty pe. The incremental reporting burden per facility to electronically submit DMRs is 22 minutes (0.37 hours) per year.

In the third year, EPA assumed that approximately one half of the SSSs would also need to submit annual program report data on overflow and bypass events to EPA electronically. The average yearly frequency is 2.70, based on the number of SSOs and bypasses di vided by the number of SSSs (to represent the number of overflows per year). The incremental repor ting burden per facility is 10 seconds per program report.

Stormwater Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Phase I MS4s are required to submit monthly DMRs . There are 11 Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 data elements on the DMRs that would be electronically reported to EPA using NetDMR, or a similar tool, depending on the permit type. The incremental reporting burden per facility to electronically submit DMRs is 22 minutes (0.37 hours) per year.

In the third year, EPA assumed that approximately one half of the MS4s would also need to submit annual program report data to EPA electronically. Phase I MS4s must submit annual program reports. Phase II MS4s must submit program reports in the second and fourth years of the five year permit cycle, resulting in an annual frequency of 0.4. The incr emental reporting burden per facility is 10 seconds per program report.

6(a)(ii) State Authorized NPDES programs EPA estimates that state authorized NPDES program s would incur additional burden in carrying out the additional activities required by the proposed rule. Sp ecifically, they would incur burden to: 1) attend EPA training webinars; 2) enter NPDES programmatic data for all facilities; 3) reconcile information submitted separately to state authorized NPDES progr ams and EPA as required by Section 308; 4) submit programmatic data to EPA; and 5) modify permits to include electronic reporting requirements. However, with the implementation of electronic reporting, state authorized NPDES programs would also receive savings from: 1) elimination of time spent processing paper DMRs and program reports; and 2) data entry savings, as information on DMRs and general permit reports w ould be flowed directly into ICIS-NPDES. EPA estimates the burden associated with each of these activities as described below.

(6)(a)(ii)(1) EPA Training Webinars Two data clerks and one programmer from each stat e authorized NPDES program would be required to attend online training webinars explaining the cha nges to the ICIS-NPDES system and the new data standards. The webinar is 90 minutes, transl ating to a burden of 4.5 hours per state.

(6)(a)(ii)(2) Initial Data Entry For the electronic systems 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 would need to have their facility information, limits and limit sets entered into databases. Currently, much of the mon itoring information for nonmajor permits is maintained on paper files or electronically in state computer systems that is not routinely shared with EPA.

Additionally, EPA does not have de tailed information about the information systems of the authorized NPDES programs. Therefore, EPA does not know wh ich of those systems conform to the requirements of this information collection activity, or how much of the data has been entered into information systems.

### 22 15 July 2013 For that reason, EPA assumes each authorized NP DES program would manually enter appropriately formatted permit, limit, and limit set information into the new system within the first year of rule promulgation so that regulated entities can use the system to sign up for electronic accounts during the first year. In reality, many states may have already au tomated much of this data, in which case their costs and burden would be lower than those estimated in this analysis.

The burden associated with initial data entry is estim ated by multiplying the number of permit, limit, and limit set data elements required for each subprogram and permit type by the number of permits and the average data entry burden for the mode of submi ssion (batch, hybrid, or direct) and subprogram. Estimated data entry times were devel oped by surveying nine states with regard to the time requirements associated with entering various data elements. This su rvey is described in further detail in the Economic Analysis of the Proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Ru le. Due to the variation in the number and types of permits, data entry burden, and frequency of reporting, the burden for initial data entry will vary by state. The average burden per state for this activity is 9,959 hours.

(6)(a)(ii)(3) Reconcile Electronic Reporting to EPA Once electronic reporting to EPA begins, EPA and st ate authorized NPDES programs would need to confirm that the same information is received by both parties. EPA and the state authorized NPDES programs would meet monthly to compare submissi ons and identify and resolve discrepancies via conference call. One manager from each state would a ttend a monthly 1-hour reconciliation meeting, for a total of 12 hours per state authorized NPDES progr am in the first year. EPA assumed that only one-half of the states would need these monthly meetings with EPA in the second year because they are likely to have developed adequate electronic tools to eliminate the need for dual reporting to EPA.

(6)(a)(ii)(4) Submit Programmatic Data to EPA The proposed rule would change the amount of information authorized NPDES programs must share with EPA. This analysis estimates the change in data entry burden for state authorized NPDES programs by multiplying the change in the number of programmatic data elements in each subprogram and permit type (major vs. nonmajor, individual vs . general) by the frequency of reporting (see Table 1), the number of permits, and average data entry burden for each mode of submission (batch, hybrid, or direct) and subprogram. As noted above, estimated data entry tim es were developed by surveying nine states with regard to the time requirements associated with entering various data elements. Due to the variation in the number and types of permits, data entry burden, and frequency of reporting, the burden for submitting programmatic data to EPA will vary by state. The av erage burden reduction per state for this activity is 29,209 hours.

(6)(a)(ii)(5) Modify Permits to Include Electronic Reporting Requirements State authorized NPDES programs would need to m odify existing permits to include requirements to report data electronically. EPA estimates that this activity would require approximately 5 minutes (0.83 hours) per permit, and would occur during the second year of the rule. However, because permits are regularly reissued every 5 years, 20% of the permits would have to be reissued/renewed at this time as part of the existing NPDES permitting process. Thus, additional effort to include electronic reporting requirements would not be needed (i.e., it would be do ne as part of the existing reissuance process). Thus, only 80% of the permit modifications woul d be incremental to the proposed rule.

(6)(a)(ii)(6) DMR Processing Savings Electronic submission of DMRs by regulated entities would create savings for state authorized NPDES programs in the first three years after the effective da te of the rule by eliminating the cost of processing incoming DMRs. Currently, authorized NPDES programs receive these reports in the mail, staff open and inspect them to ensure they are filled out correctly, enter their information into the state or EPA data

### 23 15 July 2013 system, and usually store them in a physical filing system. This process is estimated to take a data entry clerk 20 minutes per DMR. Following rule implementa tion, the processing activities would be automated. As a result, authorized NPDES programs would save $10.65 for every DMR received electronically.

(6)(a)(ii)(7) Program Report Processing Savings Electronic submission of program reports by regulated entities would create savings for state authorized NPDES programs in the second and third years after the e ffective date of the rule by eliminating the cost of processing incoming program reports. Currently, aut horized NPDES programs receive these reports in the mail, staff open and inspect them to ensure they are filled out correctly, enter their information into the state or EPA data system, and usually store them in a physical filing system. This process is estimated to take a data entry clerk 7.5 minutes per program report. Following rule implementation, the processing activities would be automated. As a result, authorized NPDES programs would save $3.99 for every program report received electronically.

(6)(a)(ii)(8) Elimination of ANCR/QNCR Existing CWA regulations (40 CFR 123.45) require th at authorized NPDES programs submit to EPA annual, quarterly, and semi-annual re ports regarding the compliance stat us of regulated entities in their jurisdiction. To meet this requirement, state aut horized NPDES programs submit their non-compliance information to the Regional Administrator, who subm its them to EPA headquarters. Under the proposed rule, this information will be read ily available to EPA directly from ICIS-NPDES, obviating the need for state authorized NPDES programs to compile and subm it the information. Therefore, the proposed rule will eliminate this reporting requirement, resulting in savings for state authorized NPDES programs.

EPA estimates that state authorized NPDES progr ams will incur reductions associated with this requirement in the third year after the effective date of the rule. The burden reduction for these activities vary based on whether states are direct, batch, or hybrid users, with a total burden reduction of approximately 15,800 hours.


### 6(b) Total Respondent Costs

To estimate the total respondent costs, EPA multiplies the burden estimates derived in Section 6(a) by the appropriate labor costs (discussed in Section 6(b )(i) below). Next, EPA estimates the capital costs associated with paper and mailing savings (see Sectio n 6(b)(ii) below). Detailed cost estimates for regulated entities and state authorized NPDES progr ams are presented in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

6(b)(i) Labor Costs EPA estimates respondent costs by multiplying the unit burden hour estimates described above by fully loaded hourly rates for workers of appropriate labor categories. The analysis uses 2012 hourly wage rates for three job categories: managerial, programmer, and data clerk; each of which includes fringe benefits and overhead. Average wage data for these categories we re taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation in December 2012, which has separate wage estimates for government and private sector workers. 17

The managerial labor rate is defined as the average hour ly wage for staff that plan, direct, or coordinate electronic data processing, information systems, systems analysis, and computer programming. The programmer labor rate is defined as the average hourly wage for staff that convert project specifications

17 http://www.bls.gov/ne ws.release/ecec.nr0.htm

### 24 15 July 2013 and statements of problems and procedures to detaile d logical flow charts for coding into computer language; develop and write computer programs to stor e, locate, and retrieve specific documents, data, and information; and may program web sites. The data clerk labor rate is defined as the average hourly wage for staff who compute, classify, and record num erical data to keep financial records complete; perform any combination of routine calculating, posti ng, 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 BLS provides hourly wage and benefit rates (e.g., paid leave and insurance). Based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical indus try trade associations, an additional loading factor of 17% is applied to hourly wages and benefits to account for general overhead (see Table 2). 18

Table 2: Deriving Loaded Hourly Costs

Cost Components, by Job Category 2012 BLS Government Hourly Wage Rate 2012 BLS Industry Hourly Wage Rate Managerial Hourly Wage $34.46 $40.77 Benefits $16.55 $17.95 Overhead $5.86 $6.93 Managerial Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour $56.87 $65.65 Programmer Hourly Wage $34.09 $33.18 Benefits $16.03 $13.68 Overhead $5.80 $5.64 Programmer Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour $55.92 $52.50 Data Clerk Hourly Wage $17.52 $16.24 Benefits $11.45 $7.20 Overhead $2.98 $2.76 Data Clerk Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour $31.95 $26.20

6(b)(ii) Capital Costs Regulated entities would benefit from reduced paper and postage costs as a result of submitting DMRs electronically in all three years after the effective da te of the proposed rule (Phase 1 data). Regulated entities would benefit from reduced paper and postage costs as a result of submitting electronic program reports electronically in the second and third year s after rule promulgation (Phase 2 data).

According to EPA NPDES program experts, the averag e DMR is five pages long. DMRs are filled out by the regulated entity, sent to an independent laborator y, and then sent to the authorized NPDES program. Therefore, electronic DMR submission would save regulated entities two standard envelopes, two first class stamps and five pages of paper, for a total of $1.01 per submission.

According to EPA NPDES program experts, the average program report is 1.5 pages long. Program reports are filled out by the regulated entity and sent to the authorized NPDES program. Therefore, electronic program report submission would save regula ted entities one standard envelope, one first class stamp and 1.5 pages of paper, for a total of $0.52 per submission.

18 Heiden Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry Compli ance Costs Under the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule , Prepared for the Chemical Manufactur ers Association, D ecember 14, 1989.

### 25 15 July 2013 

### 6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

EPA Headquarters and EPA Regions would incur burden and cost asso ciated with the transition to electronic reporting and newly shared data. Due to the different activities each group would undertake to comply, the burden to EPA Headquarters and EPA Regions is discussed separately in the following sections. When calculating the Agency cost, EPA uses the loaded hourly costs for government workers shown in Table 2. The detailed burden and cost estimates for EPA are presented in Appendix C.

6(c)(i) EPA Headquarters EPA Headquarters is responsible for IT implementa tion, operations and maintenance of the ICIS-NPDES system, developing webinars for authorized NPDES programs, and reconciling regulated entity electronic reporting to EPA with regulated entity paper reporting to states. The burden associated with each of these activities is discussed below.

(6)(c)(i)(1) IT Implementation EPA would need to augment the current NetDMR a nd NeT systems, as well as develop a new tool for submitting program reports electronically. Cost estimates for IT system modifications were derived by comparing the architecture of the current system to the requirements of the rule. The burden to implement the necessary IT infrastructure is approximately 79,300 hours for a single year.

(6)(c)(i)(2) Operations and Maintenance EPA would have ongoing annual costs to operate and maintain the necessary ch anges 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 author ized NPDES programs. Maintenance includes routine database refreshes, updates, and licensing. The annua l burden of EPA activities required by the proposed rule to support this information collection ac tivity are estimated at 17,400 hours per year.

(6)(c)(i)(3) Develop Webinars To ensure that state authorized NPDES programs ar e properly informed of the changes to the ICISNPDES system and the new data standards, EPA w ould develop and offer two 90-minute online training webinars (for NetDMR and NeT). The webinars would require a total of 100 hours of EPA technical time to develop.

(6)(c)(i)(4) Reconcile Electronic Reporting to EPA Once electronic reporting to EPA is initiated, EPA a nd state authorized NPDES programs would need to confirm that the same information is received by both parties. EPA and the state authorized NPDES programs would meet monthly to compare submissions and identify and resolve discrepancies. One EPA manager would conduct m onthly 1-hour rec onciliation meetings with each state authorized NPDES program, for a total of 432 hours in the first and second years of the rule (assuming only half of the states need to attend the meetings in the second year).

(6)(c)(i)(5) Develop New National Non-Compliance Report Under the proposed rule, compliance information will be readily available to EPA directly from ICISNPDES, obviating the need for state authorized NPD ES programs to compile and submit the information. Therefore, the proposed rule will replace the existi ng annual, quarterly, and se mi-annual reports with a National Non-Compliance Report that EPA headquarters will develop. The burden to develop this report is approximately 40 hours, 4 hours for a manager and 36 hours for a programmer.

### 26 15 July 2013 6(c)(ii) EPA Regions EPA Region authorized NPDES programs would incur cost s similar to those incurred by state authorized NPDES programs (discussed in Section 6(a) above). Specifically, they would incur costs to: 1) attend EPA training webinars; 2) enter newly shared data for all facilities; 3) modify permits to require electronic reporting; and, 4) submit programmatic da ta to EPA. However, with the implementation of electronic reporting, EPA Regions would also receive savings from: 1) elimination of time spent processing paper DMRs and program reports; 2) elimin ation of mailing pre-populated DMRs to regulated entities; 3) data entry savings, as information on DM Rs and general permit re ports would be flowed directly into ICIS-NPDES, and 4) elimination of annual, quarterly, and semi-annual non-compliance reports. The burden increase or reduction associated with each of these activities is discussed below.

(6)(c)(ii)(1) EPA Training Webinars Two data clerks and one programmer from each EPA Region authorized NPDES program would be required to attend the 90-minute online training webinar offered by EPA.

(6)(c)(ii)(2) Initial Data Entry As with state authorized NPDES programs, EPA Re gion authorized NPDES programs would need to share their facility information, limits and limit set s with EPA. This analysis assumes each EPA Region authorized NPDES program would manually enter appr opriately formatted limit and limit set information into the new system in the first year after the effectiv e date of the rule so that regulated entities would be able to use the system when the proposed rule requi res them to sign up for electronic accounts. In reality, many EPA Regions may have already automated much of this data, in which case their costs would be lower than those estimated in this analysis.

The data entry burden associated with initial data entr y is estimated by multiplying the number of permit, limit, and limit set data elements required for each subprogram and permit type by the number of permits and the average data entry burden for the mode of submission (all Regions are direct users) and subprogram. Estimated data entry times were developed by surveying nine states with regard to the time requirements associated with entering various data elemen ts. This survey is described in further detail in the Economic Analysis of the Proposed NPDES Electr onic Reporting Rule. Due to the variation in the number and types of permits, data entry burden, and frequency of reporting, the burden for initial data entry will vary by region. The average burde n per region for this activity is 675 hours.

(6)(c)(ii)(3) Permit Modifications EPA Regions would modify permits for regulated entities in states where the EPA Region is the authorized NPDES program to require electronic reporti ng. It is estimated that it would take EPA Regions five minutes per permit to make the necessary modifi cations. However, because permits are regularly reissued every 5 years, 20% of the permits would have to be reissued/renewed at this time as part of the existing NPDES permitting process. Thus, additional e ffort to include electronic reporting requirements would not be needed (i.e., it would be done as part of the existing reissuance process), and only 80% of the permit modifications would be incremental to the proposed rule.

(6)(c)(ii)(4) Submit Programmatic Data to EPA The proposed rule would increase the amount of in formation authorized NPDES programs must share with EPA. In this analysis, the data entry bur den for EPA Region authorized NPDES programs is estimated by multiplying the number of programmati c data elements in each permit subprogram and permit type (major vs. nonmajor individual vs. nonmaj or general) by the average data entry burden for each mode of submission and subprogram. The total cost for each permit is then multiplied by the number of permits as well as the frequency of reporting. Estima ted data entry times were developed by surveying nine states with regard to the time requirements associated with entering various data elements.

### 27 15 July 2013 EPA Regions would also receive savings from no longer having to enter information submitted by regulated entities on paper DMRs and general permit reports. Data entry savings are calculated using the same method as data entry costs: multiply the number of programmatic data elements that are no longer entered by the Region by the data entry burden, numbe r of permits, and frequency of reporting. Due to the variation in the number and types of permits, data entry burden, and fre quency of reporting, the burden for submitting programmatic data to EPA will vary by region. The average burden reduction per region for this activity is 632 hours.

(6)(c)(ii)(5) DMR Processing Savings Electronic submission of DMRs by regulated entities would create savings for EPA Region authorized NPDES programs in the first three years after the effec tive date of the rule by eliminating the cost of processing incoming DMRs. Currently, authorized NP DES programs receive these reports in the mail, staff open and inspect them to ensure they are filled out correctly, enter their information into the state or EPA data system, and usually store them in a physical filing system. This process is estimated to take a data entry clerk 20 minutes per DMR. Following rule implementation, the processing activities would be automated. As a result, authorized NPDES pr ograms would save $10.65 for every DMR received electronically.

(6)(c)(ii)(6) Program Report Processing Savings Electronic submission of program reports by regulated entities would create savings for EPA Region authorized NPDES programs in the second and third y ears after the effective date of the rule by eliminating the cost of processing incoming progra m reports. Currently, authorized NPDES programs receive these reports in the mail, staff open and inspect them to ensure they are filled out correctly, enter their information into the state or EPA data system, and usually store them in a physical filing system. This process is estimated to take a data entry cl erk 7.5 minutes per program report. Following rule implementation, the processing activities would be auto mated. As a result, authorized NPDES programs would save $3.99 for every program report received electronically.

(6)(c)(ii)(7) Pre-Populated DMR Paper and Mailing Savings EPA Regions would also experience savings by no longer sending pre-populated DMR forms to regulated entities. Currently, EPA Regions mail DMR forms with regulated entity-specific limits to an estimated 50% of all NPDES regulated entities. When fully implemented, the proposed rule would allow all authorized NPDES programs to provide electronic copies of DMR forms to all regulated entities, making them universally available and eliminating the need to mail the forms out. EPA Regions would save $2.37 per permit in paper and mailings savings.

(6)(c)(ii)(8) Elimination of ANCR/QNCR Existing CWA regulations (40 CFR 123.45) require th at authorized NPDES programs submit to EPA annual, quarterly, and semi-annual re ports regarding the compliance stat us of regulated entities in theirjurisdiction. To meet this requirement, EPA Region authorized NPDES programs submit their noncompliance information to the Regional Administrato r, who submits them to EPA headquarters. Under the proposed rule, this information will be readily available to EPA Headquarters directly from ICISNPDES, obviating the need for EPA Region author ized NPDES programs to compile and submit the information. Therefore, the proposed rule will elim inate this reporting requirement, resulting in savings for EPA Region authorized NPDES programs.

EPA estimates that EPA Region authorized NPDES pr ograms will incur reductions associated with this requirement in the third year after the effective date of the rule. The burden reduction for these activities is approximately 1,132 hours per year across all EPA Regions.

### 28 15 July 2013 

### 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe

The respondent universe is comprised of state author ized NPDES programs and regulated entities. As was noted in Section 4(a), 46 states and one U.S. territory are authorized by EPA to administer some or all of the NPDES program. The regulated entity respondent uni verse is estimated based on information in ICISNPDES and information provided by EPA’s Office of Water. Table 3 summarizes the regulated entity universe by subprogram and permit type.

Table 3: Regulated Entity Universe Summary

Subprogram Number of Permits

Individual

Majors a Individual Nonmajors General Nonmajors
Industrial and Stormwater Standard Industrial Dischargers 3,727 38,926 31,805 CAFOs 0 2,782 11,624 Stormwater 297 6,300 322,137 b
SIUs c 0 20,630 0 POTWs Biosolids 4,209 694 0 Pretreatment 1,390 109 0 CSSs 591 199 38 SSSs 3,682 9,955 1,945

a Note that there are approximately 6,700 major facilities, which often have more than one NPDES component.
b This universe includes 222,137 regulated entit ies covered under stormwater construction general permits (CGP). According to EPA's work on the post-construc tion rulemaking, the average construction company owns/operates 2.9 construction sites. Therefore the number of facilities that would incur costs associ ated with the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule is the total number of construction site s divided by 2.9. Throughout this ICR, the number of CGP respondents included in the count of regulated entities corresponds to the number of construction compani es rather than the number of individual facilities.

c Not NPDES-permitted.



### 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

This section presents the total incremental burden an d cost to regulated entities, authorized NPDES programs and EPA to comply with the information co llection requirements associated with the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule in the three-year period covered by this ICR.

6(e)(i) Respondent Tally The bottom line burden hours and costs for regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs are the average annual hours and costs co llectively incurred for all activities during the 3-year period covered by this ICR. Table 4 provides a summary of the aver age annual number of respondents, burden hours, and costs. A more detailed summary is provided in Appendix A and B. 19

19 The appendices present the total incremental burden an d cost to regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs over the three-year period of the ICR. These costs are divided by three to calculate the average annual incremental burden and cost.

### 29 15 July 2013 Table 4: Average Annual Respondent Burden and Cost

Regulated Entities States/tribes/territories Totals Unique Respondents (number)* 233,166 47 233,213 Responses (number) 187,114 1,069,905 1,257,019 Incremental Burden (hours) 108,201 -298,493 -190,292 Incremental Costs (labor) $6,249,803 -$17,758,888 -$11,509,085 Incremental Costs (capital) -$1,018,325 $0 -$1,018,325 Total Incremental Costs $5,231,478 -$17,758,888 -$12,527,410 *Note that the number of unique respondents includes regulated entities that both submit information (a response) and experience a cost or cost savings while the number of re sponses is limited to a count of information submitted.



### 6(f) The Agency Tally

Incremental Agency bottom line burden hours and costs are the average annual incremental hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities during the 3- year period covered by this ICR. Table 5 provides a summary of the average annual burden hours and co sts. A more detailed summary is provided in Appendix C. 20

Table 5: Average Annual Incremental Agency Burden and Cost Burden (hours) -6,508 Costs (labor) -$1,688,351 Costs (capital & O&M) $1,478,364 Total costs -$209,986



### 6(g) Reasons for Change in Burden

EPA believes electronic reporting is needed to improve data quality and availab ility while reducing costs. Specifically, the proposed rule is expected to sav e time and resources for regulated entities and states while improving compliance and better protecting the Nation’s waters. This ICR estimates that respondents would incur a total average annual incr emental burden reduction of 181,089 hours to comply with the requirements of the proposed NPDES Electroni c Reporting Rule in the first three years of its implementation. Note that regulated entities savings ar e related entirely to postage and mailing supplies; they do not experience a reduction in labor burden.


### 6(h) Burden Statement

The calculations made for this ICR cover the burden a nd costs for EPA, authorized states, and operators of regulated entities. This ICR estimates a total average annual burden of 108,201 hours for 233,166 regulated entity respondents at a cost of $5,231,478. Burden reduction for the state respondents is 298,493 hours annually for 47 state respondents at a cost sav ings of $17,758,888. Agency burden reduction is 6,508 hours annually at a cost savings of $209,986. The annual reporting and record-keeping burden reduction this collection of information is est imated to average 0.82 hours per respondent.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial r esources expended by persons to generate, maintain, or disclose or provide information to or for a fe deral agency. This incl udes the time needed to:

20 The appendix presents the total incremental burden and cost to the Agency over the thre e-year period of the ICR. These costs are divided by three to calculate the average annual incremental burden and cost.

### 30 15 July 2013  Review instructions;

 Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying inform ation, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;

 Adjust existing ways to comply with any previous ly applicable instructions and requirements;

 Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

 Search data sources;

 Complete and review the collection of information; and

 Transmit or otherwise disclose information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a pers on is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OM B control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket fo r this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA2009-0274, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. Th e EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, an d the telephone number for the OECA Docket is (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public dock et that are available electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulator y Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attentio n: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 in any correspondence.