1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

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

FROM: Carey A. Johnston, P.E.

USEPA/OECA/OC

ph: (202) 566 1014

johnston.carey@epa.gov

Marco Kushner

Honors Law Clerk USEPA/OECA/ETDD

DATE: 14 April 2014

SUBJECT: Potential Alternative Options for Submission of Regulatory Reports Identified in 

the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

General Overview

EPA is proposing a regulation (The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule at 40 CFR Parts 122, 

123, 127, 403, 501, and 503, “eRule”) that would require electronic reporting for most current 

paper-based NPDES reports. Data systems receiving electronic reports from programs that 

states, tribes, or local governments are authorized to manage must meet Cross Media 

Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) standards in accordance with Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Title 40 Part 3. CROMERR is intended to reduce the cost and burden of 

regulatory reporting by encouraging electronic reporting while maintaining the same level of 

corporate and individual responsibility as paper reporting.

Some state comments to the eRule suggest that implementation as proposed will not 

achieve the cost savings sought, will cause increased compliance costs on those least able to 

bear them, and will increase the burden on states who actually implement most of the NPDES 

program. A comment from North Dakota Department of Health, Water Quality Division, asserts 

that rigid CROMERR requirements are unnecessary, particularly as they pertain to non-priority 

reports such as Notices of Intent. The North Dakota comment suggests the possibility of using

other technologies such as, 2-dimensional barcodes or quick response codes (QR codes) and 

Optical Character Recognition (OCR) as a less burdensome alternative to CROMERR’s electronic 

signature and authentication procedures. 1The purpose of this memo is to explore possible 

ways of incorporating these technologies in the submission process for non-priority reports. 

 

1

See EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0327 (available at: http://www.regulations.gov)
2

Ideally, the submission process will obviate the need for a CROMERR electronic signature on 

reports that are submitted infrequently.

1. CROMERR Requirements for Non-Priority Reports

The CROMERR requirements for electronic signatures and identity proofing are different 

for priority and non-priority reports. Priority reports are identified by the EPA as reports that 

are likely to be frequently material in enforcement litigation. A list of these reports can be 

found under Appendix 1 to Part 3.

As with priority reports, the permitting authority must determine the identity of the 

individual registering to sign non-priority reports by collecting and maintaining information 

sufficient to prove the identity of that individual with legal certainty. In the case of non-priority 

reports, however, this evidence does not need to be collected prior to activation of the 

associated signature credentials. In addition, the rule allows greater flexibility in the forms of 

proof that may be used as evidence of identity, provided that they collectively meet the same 

evidentiary standard: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Appendix 1 to Part 3 only identifies priority reports. Priority reports include NPDES 

permit renewals and applications (including individual permit applications, NPDES general Form 

1, and NPDES Forms 2A-F, and 2s). The following table identifies non-priority reports identified 

for electronic reporting in the eRule. 

General Permit Reports (NOI, 

NOT, NECs, LEWs) Non-Priority Report 40 CFR Part 122.28

Biosolids Annual Program Reports Non-Priority Report 40 CFR Part 503

CAFO Annual Program Reports Non-Priority Report 40 CFR Part 122.42(e)(4)

MS4 Program Reports Non-Priority Report 40 CFR Part 122.34(g)(3), 

122.42(c)

Pretreatment Program Annual 

Reports Non-Priority Report 40 CFR Part 403.12(i)

CWA 316(b) Annual Reports Non-Priority Report 40 CFR 125 Subparts I, J 

and N

Some comments to the proposed Electronic Reporting Rule suggest that the required 

registration and identify-proofing process is too burdensome for NOI submission. There are 

many entities that may only submit one NOI or only submit an NOI once every few years. These 

commenters noted that they see it as a burden to remember their registration information for a 

process that they only use infrequently.
3

The next part of this memo explores possible technologies that may allow operators to 

comply with the eRule with the use of CROMERR approved electronic reporting tools.

2. Possible Technologies for Use with Non-Priority Reports

A. Use QR Codes to Cross-Reference Electronic Report with Separate Paper Signature.

In their comment to the eRule, North Dakota Department of Health, WQD suggests that 

EPA allow NOIs to be submitted electronically followed by a hard copy and wet-ink signature. 

The wet-ink signature would allow persons submitting NOIs to avoid a registration process that 

involves real-time, online identity-proofing while the electronic submission will ease the burden 

of data management for the state agency. 

Currently there are EPA and state programs that take electronic submissions where the 

requirements for a signed certification statement are met with a follow-on paper submission 

with handwritten signatures. See 70 FR 59858. The CROMERR final rule specifically addresses 

these “follow on paper” certifications. Section 3.10(b) only allows handwritten signatures to 

substitute for electronic signatures on submissions to EPA where “EPA announces special 

provisions” for this purpose. Likewise, Section 3.2000(a)(2) directs states to require electronic 

signatures unless the EPA has approved the state program to accept a separate paper signature 

submission.

These “special provisions” would allow follow-on paper signature submission only if it 

were reliably linked or cross-referenced with the associated electronic document. See 70 FR 

59858. According to the EPA, the linking or cross-referencing is necessary in part to ensure that 

the agency can always determine which signature submissions belong with which electronic 

documents. See 70 FR 59858. Paper signature submissions must also provide sufficient 

evidence that the signatory intended to certify to or attest to the content of the electronic 

document as this content is recorded in the copy of record for the submission. § 3.2000(a)(2). 

There are various approaches to cross-referencing or linking that would meet these needs, 

most of which involve the inclusion of extra data elements in the signature submission that 

reference the associated electronic document. Such data elements might include summary data 

from the electronic document, the date and time of the electronic submission, or even the 

calculated hash value of the electronic document. The EPA has stated that it may use these 

approaches and “other alternatives” if the decision was made to provide for follow-on paper 

signatures. See 70 FR 59848. 

QR codes should be considered as an alternative method of cross-referencing and 

linking the electronic document and paper signature. A QR code is a trademark for a twodimensional barcode. It was first used in the automotive industry in Japan. It was designed to 

allow high-speed component scanning to track vehicles during manufacture. A QR code uses 

four standardized encoding modes (numeric, alphanumeric, byte/binary, and Japanese 

characters) to store data efficiently. 

QR codes are now used in a much broader context, including both commercial tracking 

application and convenience-oriented applications aimed at mobile phone users. The QR code 
4

is also being used for authentication and to ensure security. This is primarily seen in the context 

of code payment and website logins. QR codes can be used to store bank account information 

or credit card information.

When an operator submits an electronic report, various kinds of data can be converted 

into a QR Code and affixed to both the electronic and paper document. This data could include 

the time and date of submission or unique identifying information about the operator. 

Depending on the number of alphanumeric characters in the report and the size of the QR 

Code, it may be possible to encode the report in its entirety. The largest QR Code has a data 

capacity of 7,089 numeric and 4,926 alphanumeric characters.2Certain shorter length nonpriority reports, such as a one or two page NOI, may be able to fit in these parameters. If so, the 

state could scan the paper report’s QR Code to open the electronic version of the same report.

It is possible to encode information in the QR Code using a cryptographic hashing 

function in order to verify the identity of the operator and to determine whether document 

tampering occurred.3

Figure 1: Schematic of Using the QR Code Option for eRule Reporting

 

2

See: http://www.qrcode.com/en/about/version.html

3

See Maykin Warasart and Pramot Kuacharoen, “Paper Based Document Authentication using Digital Signature 

and QR Code,” International Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology, IPCSIT vol.40 (2012).
5

4

Using this technology, the state data system can ensure that the paper signature is 

linked to the appropriate electronic submission. 

B. Avoid CROMERR Requirements by Using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and 

Intelligent Character Recognition (ICR) Software to Receive Handwritten Reports. 

Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is the mechanical or electronic conversion of 

scanned or photographed images of type written text into computer-readable text. Recognition 

of Latin-script, typewritten text is still not 100 percent accurate even where clear imaging is 

available although most OCR software claims 99 percent accuracy. However, something close to 

total accuracy might be achievable by human review or redundant entries. 

Intelligent character recognition (ICR) is an advanced OCR handwriting recognition 

system that allows fonts and different styles of handwriting to be learned by a computer during 

processing to improve accuracy and recognition levels. Most ICR software has a self-learning 

system referred to as a neural network, which automatically updates the recognition database 

for new handwriting patterns. ICR extends the usefulness of scanning devices for the purpose of 

document processing, from printed character recognition to hand-written matter recognition.

Hand-written data can be automatically converted to digital files, avoiding laborious manual 

keying and can be more accurate than traditional human data entry.

ICR software can achieve more than 97 percent accuracy. Some ICR software companies 

(e.g. Captricity5) are relying on human workers to verify and correct the results of the document 

conversion. Using this process, companies claim they can achieve better than 99 percent

 

4

The Lincoln “Gettysburg Address” is encoded in this QR Code. 

5

Note: References to specific products are for informational purposes only. EPA and the federal government do 

not endorse any specific product, service, or enterprise.
6

accuracy. The FDA is currently using this approach to manage a significant paper backlog for 

critical adverse drug reaction forms.6

Figure 2: Schematic of Using the OCR or ICR Option for eRule Reporting

Data systems could receive reports as standardized forms completed and signed by the 

operator in writing. CROMERR would not apply to this process because the reports are not 

received electronically. This process, however, would allow the state entity to save time on 

data entry and management. The state entity would scan the paper report and signature which 

would then, using OCR and ICR software, be automatically converted to a digital format and 

entered into a database. One benefit of this process is that it would allow persons without 

broadband access to submit their reports in a format that will ease the burd en of data 

management for receiving entity.

 

6

“Captricity Speeds Data Extraction and Decreases Paper Backlogs for FDA,” 2013

Available at: http://captricity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FDA-Case-Study-v4.pdf