**Data A**

**vailability Table (Review Period Ending: CY11)**

**States Number of A** **ctive 'Major' Facilities**  **(Column A )**  **Number of A ctive 'Major'**  **Facilities with Limit Data (Column B)** 

Alabama 190 190 Alaska 44 40 Arizona 74 74 Arkansas 183 183 California 263 239 Colorado 123 118 Connecticut 97 97 Delaware 20 19 District of Columbia* 5 5 Florida 224 199 Georgia 188 188 Hawaii 20 18 Idaho* 37 36 Illinois 277 277 Indiana 196 196 Iowa 125 125 Kansas 55 55 Kentucky 132 130 Louisiana 326 326 Maine 78 77 Maryland 93 86 Massachusetts* 124 121 Michigan 176 175 Minnesota 99 97 Mississippi 96 96 Missouri 176 173 Montana 35 35 Nebraska 53 53 Nevada 14 11 New Hampshire* 49 49 New Jersey 146 146 New Mexico* 42 42 New York 338 338 Derived From: Manual pull by EPA/OECA/OC/ETDD (Jerry Lappan). For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query

against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012.North Carolina 222 220

North Dakota 26 26 Ohio 298 298 Oklahoma 106 106 Oregon 68 68 Pennsylvania 409 409 Puerto Rico* 71 71 Rhode Island 25 25 South Carolina 162 162 South Dakota 29 29 Tennessee 156 155 Texas 649 636 Utah 37 37 Vermont 32 32 Virgin Islands 8 8 Virginia 152 135 Washington 46 20 West Virginia 101 100 Wisconsin 130 129 Wyoming 23 23 National Total 6658 6513

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

**Notes: Column**  Comment/Source of Data (A) (B)

(C) (D) (E) (F) (G)

(H) (I) (J) (K) (L)

**Ad ditional Caveats:** 

1 This value is calculated from the following formula [=(Column B+Column G)/(Column A + Column F)] The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY. This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]

For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query

against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012. This value is calculated from the following formula[=(Column C+Column H)/(Column A + Column F)] The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY. The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY. This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]2

3 Neither PCS nor ICIS-NPDES completely supports determining whether a facility was active on any

given date in the past. The best available method is to determine the status based on the last date on which the status changed. Therefore, the counts of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010 are approximate. In PCS, if a facility

is new since the year of interest and its active status has never changed, it is not possible to determine that the facility is newer than the year of interest. Such new facilities are counted in the universe of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010.**Number of A ctive 'Major'** 

**Facilities with DMR Data (Column C)**  **Percentage of A ctive 'Major'**  **Facilities with Limit Data [=Column B/Column A**  **] (Column D)**  **Percentage of A ctive 'Major'**  **Facilities with DMR Data [=Column C/Column A**  **] (Column E)** 

190 100.0% 100.0% 36 90.9% 81.8% 73 100.0% 98.6% 180 100.0% 98.4% 238 90.9% 90.5% 118 95.9% 95.9% 97 100.0% 100.0% 19 95.0% 95.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% 198 88.8% 88.4% 185 100.0% 98.4% 18 90.0% 90.0% 36 97.3% 97.3% 275 100.0% 99.3% 195 100.0% 99.5% 124 100.0% 99.2% 55 100.0% 100.0% 130 98.5% 98.5% 321 100.0% 98.5% 77 98.7% 98.7% 79 92.5% 84.9% 121 97.6% 97.6% 174 99.4% 98.9% 97 98.0% 98.0% 95 100.0% 99.0% 170 98.3% 96.6% 35 100.0% 100.0% 51 100.0% 96.2% 11 78.6% 78.6% 49 100.0% 100.0% 145 100.0% 99.3% 36 100.0% 85.7% 334 100.0% 98.8% Derived From: Manual pull by EPA/OECA/OC/ETDD (Jerry Lappan). For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query

against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012.220 99.1% 99.1% 26 100.0% 100.0% 297 100.0% 99.7% 105 100.0% 99.1% 68 100.0% 100.0% 407 100.0% 99.5% 71 100.0% 100.0% 25 100.0% 100.0% 161 100.0% 99.4% 29 100.0% 100.0% 154 99.4% 98.7% 620 98.0% 95.5% 37 100.0% 100.0% 32 100.0% 100.0% 8 100.0% 100.0% 134 88.8% 88.2% 5 43.5% 10.9% 99 99.0% 98.0% 129 99.2% 99.2% 23 100.0% 100.0% 6427 97.8% 96.5%

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

This value is calculated from the following formula [=(Column B+Column G)/(Column A + Column F)] The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY. This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]

For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query

against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012. This value is calculated from the following formula[=(Column C+Column H)/(Column A + Column F)] The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY. The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY. This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]Neither PCS nor ICIS-NPDES completely supports determining whether a facility was active on any

given date in the past. The best available method is to determine the status based on the last date on which the status changed. Therefore, the counts of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010 are approximate. In PCS, if a facility

is new since the year of interest and its active status has never changed, it is not possible to determine that the facility is newer than the year of interest. Such new facilities are counted in the universe of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010.**Number of A ctive 'Non-Major'**  **Facilities (Column F)**  **Number of A ctive "Non**  **Ma jor" Facilities with Limit**  **Data (Column G)**  **Number of A ctive 'Non-Major'**  **Facilities with DMR Data (Column H)** 

1496 1283 717 52 26 22 110 13 10 713 713 686 329 243 8 524 255 245 79 79 76 32 29 26 7 7 7 313 302 296 790 593 460 116 33 25 141 125 121 1419 1404 1222 1466 1452 1430 1542 1295 1270 1188 55 46 1564 1386 1294 1264 256 173 288 210 200 842 518 415 131 120 117 1566 833 73 658 29 21 1412 1301 1174 3016 2759 2330 163 161 157 681 620 578 111 0 0 38 36 36 3418 709 648 94 90 87 1211 1083 10321052 992 568 104 3 2 3098 3089 2952 381 379 372 324 6 5 4062 130 115 179 179 171 66 63 59 326 320 316 265 255 218 1247 791 490 2287 2170 1936 131 94 86 153 3 3 63 63 51 915 4 2 246 75 20 855 366 325 925 19 13 1418 27 12 43375 25763 22001

The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring

For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query

against the The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY. The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoringNeither PCS nor ICIS-NPDES completely supports determining whether a facility was active on any

given date in the past. The best available method is to determine the status based on the last

In PCS, if a facility

is new since the year of interest and its active status has never changed, it is not possible to determine that the facility is newer than the year of interest. Such new facilities are**Percentage of A ctive 'Non** 

**Ma jor' Facilities with Limit**  **Data [=Column G/Column F]**

**(Column I) Percentage of A** **ctive 'Non Ma**  **jor' Facilities with DMR Data [=Column I/Column F]**  **(Column J) Percentage of A** **ctive Facilities with Limit Data**  **[=(Column B+Column G)/(Column A** 

**+ Column F)] (Column K)** 

85.8% 47.9% 87.4% 50.0% 42.3% 68.8% 11.8% 9.1% 47.3% 100.0% 96.2% 100.0% 73.9% 2.4% 81.4% 48.7% 46.8% 57.7% 100.0% 96.2% 100.0% 90.6% 81.3% 92.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.5% 94.6% 93.3% 75.1% 58.2% 79.9% 28.4% 21.6% 37.5% 88.7% 85.8% 90.4% 98.9% 86.1% 99.1% 99.0% 97.5% 99.2% 84.0% 82.4% 85.2% 4.6% 3.9% 8.8% 88.6% 82.7% 89.4% 20.3% 13.7% 36.6% 72.9% 69.4% 78.4% 61.5% 49.3% 64.6% 91.6% 89.3% 94.5% 53.2% 4.7% 57.9% 4.4% 3.2% 16.6% 92.1% 83.1% 92.6% 91.5% 77.3% 91.9% 98.8% 96.3% 99.0% 91.0% 84.9% 91.7%

- - 8.8%

94.7% 94.7% 97.7% 20.7% 19.0% 24.0% 95.7% 92.6% 97.1% 89.4% 85.2% 91.7%94.3% 54.0% 95.1% 2.9% 1.9% 22.3% 99.7% 95.3% 99.7% 99.5% 97.6% 99.6% 1.9% 1.5% 18.9% 3.2% 2.8% 12.1% 100.0% 95.5% 100.0% 95.5% 89.4% 96.7% 98.2% 96.9% 98.8% 96.2% 82.3% 96.6% 63.4% 39.3% 67.4% 94.9% 84.7% 95.6% 71.8% 65.6% 78.0% 2.0% 2.0% 18.9% 100.0% 81.0% 100.0% 0.4% 0.2% 13.0% 30.5% 8.1% 32.5% 42.8% 38.0% 48.7% 2.1% 1.4% 14.0% 1.9% 0.8% 3.5% 59.4% 50.7% 64.5%**Percentage of A ctive** 

**Facilities with DMR Data [=(Column C+Column**  **H)/(Column A**

**+ Column F)] (Column L)** 

53.8%

60.4% 45.1% 96.7% 41.6% 56.1% 98.3% 86.5% 100.0% 92.0% 66.0% 31.6% 88.2% 88.3% 97.8% 83.6% 8.1% 84.0% 31.1% 75.7% 52.8% 93.3% 14.2% 15.6% 84.2% 78.3% 97.0% 85.7% 8.8% 97.7% 22.3% 90.4% 88.2%61.9% 21.5% 95.7% 97.9% 18.6% 11.7% 96.8% 92.3% 97.7% 84.0% 45.9% 87.1% 73.2% 18.9% 83.1% 12.7% 8.6% 44.4% 13.5% 2.4% 56.8%**Data A**

**vailability Table (Review Period Ending: CY10)**

**States Number of A** **ctive 'Major' Facilities**  **(Column A )**  **Number of A ctive 'Major'**  **Facilities with Limit Data (Column B)** 

Alabama 191 191 Alaska 44 40 Arizona 75 73 Arkansas 183 183 California 265 239 Colorado 114 114 Connecticut 97 97 Delaware 20 19 District of Columbia* 5 5 Florida 225 200 Georgia 193 193 Hawaii 20 18 Idaho* 37 36 Illinois 275 275 Indiana 195 195 Iowa 125 125 Kansas 55 55 Kentucky 132 130 Louisiana 329 329 Maine 80 79 Maryland 93 86 Massachusetts* 124 121 Michigan 176 174 Minnesota 98 96 Mississippi 97 97 Missouri 176 175 Montana 36 36 Nebraska 53 53 Nevada 14 11 New Hampshire* 51 51 New Jersey 147 147 New Mexico* 35 35 New York 340 340 North Carolina 222 220 North Dakota 26 26 Ohio 298 298 Oklahoma 106 106 Oregon 68 68 Pennsylvania 404 404 Puerto Rico* 72 72 Rhode Island 25 25 South Carolina 162 162 South Dakota 29 29 Tennessee 158 157 Derived From: Manual pull by EPA/OECA/OC/ETDD (Jerry Lappan). For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012.Texas 642 632 Utah 36 36 Vermont 32 32 Virgin Islands 8 8 Virginia 154 120 Washington 39 19 West Virginia 101 100 Wisconsin 129 129 Wyoming 23 23 National Total 6643 6493

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

**Notes: Column**  Comment/Source of Data (A) (B)

(C) (D) (E) (F) (G)

(H) (I) (J) (K) (L)

**Ad ditional Caveats:** 

1

2

3 The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY. This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=(Column B+Column G)/(Column A + Column F)]

For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query

against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012. Neither PCS nor ICIS-NPDES completely supports determining whether a facility was active on any

given date in the past. The best available method is to determine the status based on the last date on which the status changed. Therefore, the counts of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010 are approximate.

In PCS, if a facility

is new since the year of interest and its active status has never changed, it is not possible to determine that the facility is newer than the year of interest. Such new facilities are counted in the universe of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010. This value is calculated from the following formula[=(Column C+Column H)/(Column A + Column F)] The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY. This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]**Number of A ctive 'Major'** 

**Facilities with DMR Data (Column C)**  **Percentage of A ctive 'Major'**  **Facilities with Limit Data [=Column B/Column A**  **] (Column D)**  **Percentage of A ctive 'Major'**  **Facilities with DMR Data [=Column C/Column A**  **] (Column E)** 

191 100.0% 100.0% 34 90.9% 77.3% 73 97.3% 97.3% 178 100.0% 97.3% 235 90.2% 88.7% 114 100.0% 100.0% 97 100.0% 100.0% 19 95.0% 95.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% 199 88.9% 88.4% 189 100.0% 97.9% 18 90.0% 90.0% 36 97.3% 97.3% 273 100.0% 99.3% 195 100.0% 100.0% 124 100.0% 99.2% 55 100.0% 100.0% 130 98.5% 98.5% 327 100.0% 99.4% 79 98.8% 98.8% 80 92.5% 86.0% 121 97.6% 97.6% 174 98.9% 98.9% 96 98.0% 98.0% 97 100.0% 100.0% 164 99.4% 93.2% 36 100.0% 100.0% 52 100.0% 98.1% 11 78.6% 78.6% 51 100.0% 100.0% 146 100.0% 99.3% 35 100.0% 100.0% 336 100.0% 98.8% 219 99.1% 98.6% 26 100.0% 100.0% 298 100.0% 100.0% 105 100.0% 99.1% 68 100.0% 100.0% 402 100.0% 99.5% 72 100.0% 100.0% 25 100.0% 100.0% 162 100.0% 100.0% 29 100.0% 100.0% 157 99.4% 99.4% Derived From: Manual pull by EPA/OECA/OC/ETDD (Jerry Lappan). For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012.612 98.4% 95.3% 36 100.0% 100.0% 32 100.0% 100.0% 8 100.0% 100.0% 113 77.9% 73.4% 11 48.7% 28.2% 100 99.0% 99.0% 129 100.0% 100.0% 23 100.0% 100.0% 6406 97.7% 96.4%

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY. This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=(Column B+Column G)/(Column A + Column F)]

For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query

against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012. Neither PCS nor ICIS-NPDES completely supports determining whether a facility was active on any

given date in the past. The best available method is to determine the status based on the last date on which the status changed. Therefore, the counts of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010 are approximate.

In PCS, if a facility

is new since the year of interest and its active status has never changed, it is not possible to determine that the facility is newer than the year of interest. Such new facilities are counted in the universe of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010. This value is calculated from the following formula[=(Column C+Column H)/(Column A + Column F)] The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY. This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]**Number of A ctive 'Non-Major'**  **Facilities (Column F)**  **Number of A ctive "Non**  **Ma jor" Facilities with Limit**  **Data (Column G)**  **Number of A ctive 'Non-Major'**  **Facilities with DMR Data (Column H)** 

1486 1299 720 53 26 20 113 13 13 704 704 675 362 225 5 446 244 231 80 78 77 32 29 28 7 7 7 302 290 278 810 612 475 128 29 22 145 125 120 1435 1411 1257 1471 1461 1438 1542 1280 1255 1211 52 37 1539 1355 1268 1322 262 170 292 211 203 828 506 416 152 134 129 1570 841 636 683 65 16 1480 1357 1310 3008 2719 1945 164 162 155 686 627 583 95 46 34 34 3492 721 673 95 91 84 1222 1084 1022 1084 1010 938 107 3 2 3050 3042 2992 375 373 366 324 6 5 4112 140 117 180 180 173 65 62 61 341 328 327 290 262 217 1259 806 4852300 2222 1938 127 92 84 154 3 3 67 67 47 953 4 3 212 82 63 864 369 330 909 17 14 1483 28 16 43771 25851 22763

The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring

For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query

against the

Neither PCS nor ICIS-NPDES completely supports determining whether a facility was active on any

given date in the past. The best available method is to determine the status based on the last

In PCS, if a facility

is new since the year of interest and its active status has never changed, it is not possible to determine that the facility is newer than the year of interest. Such new facilities are The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring**Percentage of A ctive 'Non** 

**Ma jor' Facilities with Limit**  **Data [=Column G/Column F]**

**(Column I) Percentage of A** **ctive 'Non Ma**  **jor' Facilities with DMR Data [=Column I/Column F]**  **(Column J) Percentage of A** **ctive Facilities with Limit Data**  **[=(Column B+Column G)/(Column A** 

**+ Column F)] (Column K)** 

87.4% 48.5% 88.8% 49.1% 37.7% 68.0% 11.5% 11.5% 45.7% 100.0% 95.9% 100.0% 62.2% 1.4% 74.0% 54.7% 51.8% 63.9% 97.5% 96.3% 98.9% 90.6% 87.5% 92.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.0% 92.1% 93.0% 75.6% 58.6% 80.3% 22.7% 17.2% 31.8% 86.2% 82.8% 88.5% 98.3% 87.6% 98.6% 99.3% 97.8% 99.4% 83.0% 81.4% 84.3% 4.3% 3.1% 8.5% 88.0% 82.4% 88.9% 19.8% 12.9% 35.8% 72.3% 69.5% 78.0% 61.1% 50.2% 64.3% 88.2% 84.9% 92.4% 53.6% 40.5% 58.1% 9.5% 2.3% 20.6% 91.7% 88.5% 92.2% 90.4% 64.7% 90.9% 98.8% 94.5% 99.0% 91.4% 85.0% 92.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.1% 73.9% 73.9% 87.6% 20.6% 19.3% 23.9% 95.8% 88.4% 96.9% 88.7% 83.6% 91.2% 93.2% 86.5% 94.2% 2.8% 1.9% 21.8% 99.7% 98.1% 99.8% 99.5% 97.6% 99.6% 1.9% 1.5% 18.9% 3.4% 2.8% 12.0% 100.0% 96.1% 100.0% 95.4% 93.8% 96.7% 96.2% 95.9% 97.4% 90.3% 74.8% 91.2% 64.0% 38.5% 68.0%96.6% 84.3% 97.0% 72.4% 66.1% 78.5% 1.9% 1.9% 18.8% 100.0% 70.1% 100.0% 0.4% 0.3% 11.2% 38.7% 29.7% 40.2% 42.7% 38.2% 48.6% 1.9% 1.5% 14.1% 1.9% 1.1% 3.4% 59.1% 52.0% 64.2%**Percentage of A ctive** 

**Facilities with DMR Data [=(Column C+Column**  **H)/(Column A**

**+ Column F)] (Column L)** 

54.3%

55.7% 45.7% 96.2% 38.3% 61.6% 98.3% 90.4% 100.0% 90.5% 66.2% 27.0% 85.7% 89.5% 98.0% 82.7% 7.3% 83.7% 30.1% 75.8% 53.9% 90.6% 46.4% 14.3% 89.2% 66.2% 95.5% 85.9% 10.1% 87.6% 22.5% 91.5% 86.9% 88.6% 21.1% 98.3% 97.9% 18.6% 11.5% 97.2% 95.6% 97.2% 77.1% 45.3%86.7% 73.6% 18.8% 73.3% 10.5% 29.5% 44.6% 13.8% 2.6% 57.9%**Data A**

**vailability Table (Review Period Ending: CY09)**

**States Number of A** **ctive 'Major' Facilities**  **(Column A )**  **Number of A ctive 'Major'**  **Facilities with Limit Data (Column B)** 

Alabama 191 191 Alaska* 44 40 Arizona 77 72 Arkansas 182 182 California 274 241 Colorado 114 114 Connecticut 100 100 Delaware 20 19 District of Columbia* 5 5 Florida 225 199 Georgia 189 189 Hawaii 20 18 Idaho* 37 36 Illinois 275 275 Indiana 195 195 Iowa 125 125 Kansas 55 55 Kentucky 132 130 Louisiana 328 328 Maine 82 81 Maryland 93 86 Massachusetts* 125 122 Michigan 179 174 Minnesota 97 88 Mississippi 98 97 Missouri 174 171 Montana 40 40 Nebraska 51 51 Nevada 13 10 New Hampshire* 51 51 New Jersey 148 148 New Mexico* 35 35 New York 344 344 North Carolina 221 218 Derived From: Manual pull by EPA/OECA/OC/ETDD (Jerry Lappan). For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012.North Dakota 26 26

Ohio 298 298 Oklahoma 103 103 Oregon 68 68 Pennsylvania 390 390 Puerto Rico* 75 75 Rhode Island 25 25 South Carolina 164 164 South Dakota 29 29 Tennessee 157 156 Texas 639 631 Utah 36 36 Vermont 33 33 Virgin Islands 6 6 Virginia 154 101 Washington 31 19 West Virginia 101 100 Wisconsin 129 129 Wyoming 23 23 National Total 6635 6451

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

**Notes: Column**  Comment/Source of Data (A) (B)

(C) (D) (E) (F)

(G)

(H) (I) (J) (K) (L)

**Ad ditional Caveats:**  The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY. This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=(Column B+Column G)/(Column A + Column F)] This value is calculated from the following formula[=(Column C+Column H)/(Column A + Column F)] The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY. This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]1

2

3 For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query

against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012. Neither PCS nor ICIS-NPDES completely supports determining whether a facility was active on any

given date in the past. The best available method is to determine the status based on the last date on which the status changed. Therefore, the counts of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010 are approximate. In PCS, if a facility

is new since the year of interest and its active status has never changed, it is not possible to determine that the facility is newer than the year of interest. Such new facilities are counted in the universe of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010.**Number of A ctive 'Major'** 

**Facilities with DMR Data (Column C)**  **Percentage of A ctive 'Major'**  **Facilities with Limit Data [=Column B/Column A**  **] (Column D)**  **Percentage of A ctive 'Major'**  **Facilities with DMR Data [=Column C/Column A**  **] (Column E)** 

191 100.0% 100.0% 33 90.9% 75.0% 72 93.5% 93.5% 175 100.0% 96.2% 239 88.0% 87.2% 114 100.0% 100.0% 100 100.0% 100.0% 19 95.0% 95.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% 197 88.4% 87.6% 183 100.0% 96.8% 18 90.0% 90.0% 36 97.3% 97.3% 273 100.0% 99.3% 195 100.0% 100.0% 123 100.0% 98.4% 55 100.0% 100.0% 130 98.5% 98.5% 313 100.0% 95.4% 81 98.8% 98.8% 80 92.5% 86.0% 122 97.6% 97.6% 174 97.2% 97.2% 88 90.7% 90.7% 97 99.0% 99.0% 160 98.3% 92.0% 40 100.0% 100.0% 51 100.0% 100.0% 10 76.9% 76.9% 51 100.0% 100.0% 148 100.0% 100.0% 35 100.0% 100.0% 341 100.0% 99.1% 217 98.6% 98.2% Derived From: Manual pull by EPA/OECA/OC/ETDD (Jerry Lappan). For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012.26 100.0% 100.0% 293 100.0% 98.3% 102 100.0% 99.0% 68 100.0% 100.0% 388 100.0% 99.5% 75 100.0% 100.0% 25 100.0% 100.0% 164 100.0% 100.0% 29 100.0% 100.0% 155 99.4% 98.7% 612 98.7% 95.8% 36 100.0% 100.0% 32 100.0% 97.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% 93 65.6% 60.4% 18 61.3% 58.1% 100 99.0% 99.0% 129 100.0% 100.0% 23 100.0% 100.0% 6349 97.2% 95.7%

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY. This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=(Column B+Column G)/(Column A + Column F)] This value is calculated from the following formula[=(Column C+Column H)/(Column A + Column F)] The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY. This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query

against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012. Neither PCS nor ICIS-NPDES completely supports determining whether a facility was active on any

given date in the past. The best available method is to determine the status based on the last date on which the status changed. Therefore, the counts of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010 are approximate. In PCS, if a facility

is new since the year of interest and its active status has never changed, it is not possible to determine that the facility is newer than the year of interest. Such new facilities are counted in the universe of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010.**Number of A ctive 'Non-Major'**  **Facilities (Column F)**  **Number of A ctive "Non**  **Ma jor" Facilities with Limit**  **Data (Column G)**  **Number of A ctive 'Non-Major'**  **Facilities with DMR Data (Column H)** 

1499 1301 764 51 24 17 120 13 13 692 692 670 388 200 6 426 237 226 80 78 74 33 30 29 10 10 10 292 279 269 855 618 428 120 27 19 147 127 121 1423 1399 1239 1491 1480 1448 1551 1266 1186 1241 50 30 1464 1324 1244 1297 239 164 304 213 209 816 518 412 154 135 129 1504 830 682 643 103 16 1538 1377 1354 2976 2723 2237 162 160 153 676 625 559 82 0 0 47 35 35 3594 699 651 104 99 92 1223 1083 1025 1119 1012 970110 3 2 2964 2955 2905 370 369 364 324 6 5 4306 149 128 180 180 178 77 70 69 354 338 334 308 260 219 1271 823 494 2303 2248 1917 125 91 84 155 3 3 66 66 40 984 4 1 212 94 83 875 364 339 887 17 13 1568 28 19 44062 25773 22914

The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoringFor PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query

against the

Neither PCS nor ICIS-NPDES completely supports determining whether a facility was active on any

given date in the past. The best available method is to determine the status based on the last

In PCS, if a facility

is new since the year of interest and its active status has never changed, it is not possible to determine that the facility is newer than the year of interest. Such new facilities are**Percentage of A ctive 'Non** 

**Ma jor' Facilities with Limit**  **Data [=Column G/Column F]**

**(Column I) Percentage of A** **ctive 'Non Ma**  **jor' Facilities with DMR Data [=Column I/Column F]**  **(Column J) Percentage of A** **ctive Facilities with Limit Data**  **[=(Column B+Column G)/(Column A** 

**+ Column F)] (Column K)** 

86.8% 51.0% 88.3% 47.1% 33.3% 67.4% 10.8% 10.8% 43.1% 100.0% 96.8% 100.0% 51.5% 1.5% 66.6% 55.6% 53.1% 65.0% 97.5% 92.5% 98.9% 90.9% 87.9% 92.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.5% 92.1% 92.5% 72.3% 50.1% 77.3% 22.5% 15.8% 32.1% 86.4% 82.3% 88.6% 98.3% 87.1% 98.6% 99.3% 97.1% 99.3% 81.6% 76.5% 83.0% 4.0% 2.4% 8.1% 90.4% 85.0% 91.1% 18.4% 12.6% 34.9% 70.1% 68.8% 76.2% 63.5% 50.5% 66.4% 87.7% 83.8% 92.1% 55.2% 45.3% 59.7% 16.0% 2.5% 25.8% 89.5% 88.0% 90.1% 91.5% 75.2% 91.9% 98.8% 94.4% 99.0% 92.5% 82.7% 93.0%

- - 10.5%

74.5% 74.5% 87.8% 19.4% 18.1% 22.6% 95.2% 88.5% 96.4% 88.6% 83.8% 91.1% 90.4% 86.7% 91.8%2.7% 1.8% 21.3% 99.7% 98.0% 99.7% 99.7% 98.4% 99.8% 1.9% 1.5% 18.9% 3.5% 3.0% 11.5% 100.0% 98.9% 100.0% 90.9% 89.6% 93.1% 95.5% 94.4% 96.9% 84.4% 71.1% 85.8% 64.8% 38.9% 68.6% 97.6% 83.2% 97.9% 72.8% 67.2% 78.9% 1.9% 1.9% 19.1% 100.0% 60.6% 100.0% 0.4% 0.1% 9.2% 44.3% 39.2% 46.5% 41.6% 38.7% 47.5% 1.9% 1.5% 14.4% 1.8% 1.2% 3.2% 58.5% 52.0% 63.6%**Percentage of A ctive** 

**Facilities with DMR Data [=(Column C+Column**  **H)/(Column A**

**+ Column F)] (Column L)** 

56.5%

52.6% 43.1% 96.7% 37.0% 63.0% 96.7% 90.6% 100.0% 90.1% 58.5% 26.4% 85.3% 89.0% 97.4% 78.1% 6.6% 86.1% 29.4% 75.1% 54.1% 90.0% 50.9% 14.1% 88.7% 76.1% 95.5% 83.9% 10.5% 87.8% 21.4% 91.4% 87.2% 88.6%20.6% 98.0% 98.5% 18.6% 11.0% 99.2% 92.2% 96.1% 73.6% 45.4% 86.0% 74.5% 18.6% 63.9% 8.3% 41.6% 45.0% 14.0% 2.6% 57.7%**Data A**

**vailability Table (Review Period Ending: FY08)** Derived From: State Review Framework - Multi-State Report (http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/trends/srf_multistate_report.html)

**States Number of** 

**Ac tive 'Major'**  **Facilities (Column A** **) Number of A** **ctive**

**'Major' Facilities with DMR Data**  **[=Round(Column A**

**x Column C)]**  **(Column B) Percentage of** 

**Ac tive 'Major'**  **Facilities with DMR Data**  **(Column C) Number of A** **ctive**

**'Non-Major' Facilities**  **(Column D)**

Alabama 190 186 97.9% 1,385 Alaska* 41 32 78.0% 38 Arizona 71 68 95.8% 104 Arkansas 113 111 98.2% 668 California 213 173 81.2% 320 Colorado 96 96 100.0% 538 Connecticut 102 102 100.0% 64 Delaware 21 19 90.5% 35 District Of Columbia* 5 4 80.0% 12 Florida 201 190 94.5% 243 Georgia 189 128 67.7% 725 Hawaii 19 17 89.5% 113 Idaho* 35 33 94.3% 120 Illinois 248 221 89.1% 1,248 Indiana 195 194 99.5% 1,423 Iowa 125 90 72.0% 1,536 Kansas 51 11 21.6% 1,162 Kentucky 133 125 94.0% 1,700 Louisiana 235 211 89.8% 1,298 Maine 86 80 93.0% 277 Maryland 90 78 86.7% 1,337 Massachusetts* 109 104 95.4% 141 Michigan 183 158 86.3% 457 Minnesota 93 86 92.5% 678 Mississippi 87 83 95.4% 1,491 Missouri 174 161 92.5% 2,889 Montana 24 24 100.0% 134 Nebraska 50 46 92.0% 633 Nevada 12 10 83.3% 69 New Hampshire* 45 45 100.0% 42 New Jersey 150 149 99.3% 3,609 New Mexico* 34 33 97.1% 94 New York 323 318 98.5% 1,150 North Carolina 214 212 99.1% 1,086 North Dakota 26 23 88.5% 98 Ohio 287 277 96.5% 3,015 Oklahoma 103 101 98.1% 361 Oregon 68 68 100.0% 318 Pennsylvania 379 375 98.9% 6,729 Puerto Rico* 73 72 98.6% 162 Rhode Island 22 22 100.0% 69 South Carolina 166 156 94.0% 370South Dakota 29 27 93.1% 301

Tennessee 147 140 95.2% 1,123 Texas 610 540 88.5% 2,319 Utah 35 35 100.0% 122 Vermont 33 30 90.9% 147 Virgin Islands 4 4 100.0% 56 Virginia 154 128 83.1% 954 Washington 77 6 7.8% 436 West Virginia 100 96 96.0% 814 Wisconsin 122 122 100.0% 642 Wyoming 23 19 82.6% 1,247 **National Total:** 6,415 5,839 91.0% 46,102

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

**Notes: Column** 

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Comment/Source of Data

State Review Framework Metric W01A3C - Active facility universe: NPDES non-major individual permits (Current) This value is calculated from the following formula [= Round(Column D x Column F)] State Review Framework Metric W01C3C - Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr) This value is calculated from the following formula [= Round((Column B + Column E)/(Column A + Column D))] State Review Framework Metric W01A1C - Active facility universe: NPDES major individual permits (Current) This value is calculated from the following formula [= Round(Column A x Column C)] State Review Framework Metric W01B3C - Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)Derived From: State Review Framework - Multi-State Report (http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/trends/srf_multistate_report.html)

**Number of A ctive 'Non**  **Ma jor' Facilities with**  **DMR Data [=Round(Column D x**  **Column F)] (Column E)**  **Percentage of**

**Ac tive 'Non-Major'**  **Facilities with DMR Data**  **(Column F) Percentage of** 

**Ac tive Facilities**  **with DMR Data [=Round((B + E) /**  **(A + D))]**  **(Column G)**

615 44.4% 50.9% 13 34.2% 57.0% 5 4.8% 41.7% 626 93.7% 94.4% 0 0.0% 32.5% 228 42.4% 51.1% 59 92.2% 97.0% 26 74.3% 80.4% 9 75.0% 76.5% 203 83.5% 88.5% 135 18.6% 28.8% 9 8.0% 19.7% 97 80.8% 83.9% 1,006 80.6% 82.0% 1,296 91.1% 92.1% 571 37.2% 39.8% 17 1.5% 2.3% 349 20.5% 25.9% 148 11.4% 23.4% 151 54.5% 63.6% 465 34.8% 38.1% 82 58.2% 74.4% 278 60.8% 68.1% 19 2.8% 13.6% 341 22.9% 26.9% 1,771 61.3% 63.1% 107 79.9% 82.9% 295 46.6% 49.9% 0 0.0% 12.3% 2 4.8% 54.0% 577 16.0% 19.3% 52 55.3% 66.4% 976 84.9% 87.8% 918 84.5% 86.9% 0 0.0% 18.5% 2,783 92.3% 92.7% 347 96.1% 96.6% 4 1.3% 18.7% 54 0.8% 6.0% 150 92.6% 94.5% 46 66.7% 74.7% 309 83.5% 86.8%191 63.5% 66.1% 263 23.4% 31.7% 1,667 71.9% 75.3% 77 63.1% 71.3% 1 0.7% 17.2% 28 50.0% 53.3% 0 0.0% 11.6% 18 4.1% 4.7% 186 22.9% 30.9% 9 1.4% 17.1% 2 0.2% 1.7% 17,581 38.1% 44.6%

State Review Framework Metric W01A3C - Active facility universe: NPDES non-major individual permits (Current) This value is calculated from the following formula [= Round(Column D x Column F)] State Review Framework Metric W01C3C - Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr) This value is calculated from the following formula [= Round((Column B + Column E)/(Column A + Column D))] State Review Framework Metric W01A1C - Active facility universe: NPDES major individual permits (Current) This value is calculated from the following formula [= Round(Column A x Column C)] State Review Framework Metric W01B3C - Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)**Data A**

**vailability Table (Review Period Ending: FY07)** Derived From: August 2008 IDEA data. Manual file pulled by EPA/OECA/OC/ETDD (Jerry Lappan).

**States Number of** 

**Ac tive 'Major'**  **Facilities (Column A** **) Number of A** **ctive**

**'Major' Facilities with DMR Data**  **(Column B) Percentage of** 

**Ac tive 'Major'**  **Facilities with DMR Data**  **[=Column B / Column A** 

**] (Column C)**  **Number of A ctive** 

**'Non-Major' Facilities**  **(Column D) Number of A** **ctive 'Non**

**Ma jor' Facilities with**  **DMR Data (Column E)** 

Alabama 190 172 90.5% 1,409 583 Alaska* 33 25 75.8% 75 12 Arizona 71 57 80.3% 119 0 Arkansas 111 86 77.5% 692 547 California 245 185 75.5% 395 0 Colorado 111 96 86.5% 247 190 Connecticut 103 103 100.0% 69 61 Delaware 21 20 95.2% 35 28 District Of Columbia* 1 1 100.0% 10 7 Florida 207 183 88.4% 242 173 Georgia 176 117 66.5% 733 3 Hawaii 20 17 85.0% 112 5 Idaho* 36 35 97.2% 150 98 Illinois 246 212 86.2% 1,269 1,004 Indiana 195 195 100.0% 1,406 1,278 Iowa 125 91 72.8% 1,532 596 Kansas 53 13 24.5% 1,169 20 Kentucky 134 127 94.8% 1,723 1,025 Louisiana 239 211 88.3% 1,265 142 Maine 86 67 77.9% 270 169 Maryland 80 68 85.0% 1,210 519 Massachusetts* 112 108 96.4% 146 107 Michigan 184 135 73.4% 470 247 Minnesota 93 69 74.2% 693 14 Mississippi 87 69 79.3% 1,509 302 Missouri 175 154 88.0% 2,879 1,364 Montana 23 23 100.0% 124 100Nebraska 54 51 94.4% 610 387

Nevada 13 10 76.9% 71 0 New Hampshire* 42 42 100.0% 44 29 New Jersey 150 135 90.0% 3,647 573 New Mexico* 34 32 94.1% 110 59 New York 325 320 98.5% 1,160 984 North Carolina 214 184 86.0% 1,099 713 North Dakota 26 19 73.1% 100 1 Ohio 287 244 85.0% 3,000 2,483 Oklahoma 96 77 80.2% 378 283 Oregon 69 65 94.2% 323 4 Pennsylvania 376 369 98.1% 6,632 54 Puerto Rico* 72 71 98.6% 160 142 Rhode Island 22 22 100.0% 67 40 South Carolina 166 138 83.1% 372 306 South Dakota 29 27 93.1% 315 165 Tennessee 155 125 80.6% 1,244 215 Texas 599 503 84.0% 2,319 1,469 Utah 35 35 100.0% 122 79 Vermont 33 31 93.9% 146 1 Virgin Islands 4 4 100.0% 51 25 Virginia 151 109 72.2% 971 2 Washington 77 56 72.7% 438 108 West Virginia 99 81 81.8% 819 164 Wisconsin 129 124 96.1% 707 13 Wyoming 23 20 87.0% 1,345 3 **National Total:** 6,437 5,533 86.0% 46,203 16,896

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

**Notes: Column** 

(A) (B) (C) (D) Comment/Source of Data

State Review Framework Metric W01B3C Denominator - Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr) State Review Framework Metric W01B3C Numerator - Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr) This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A] State Review Framework Metric W01C3C Denominator - Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)(E) (F) (G) This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column E / Column D]

This value is calculated from the following formula [= Round((Column B + Column E)/(Column A + Column D))] State Review Framework Metric W01C3C Numerator - Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)**Percentage of**

**Ac tive 'Non-Major'**  **Facilities with DMR Data**  **[=Column E / Column D]**  **(Column F) Percentage of** 

**Ac tive Facilities**  **with DMR Data [=Round((B + E) /**  **(A + D))]**  **(Column G)**

41.4% 47.2% 16.0% 34.3% 0.0% 30.0% 79.0% 78.8% 0.0% 28.9% 76.9% 79.9% 88.4% 95.3% 80.0% 85.7% 70.0% 72.7% 71.5% 79.3% 0.4% 13.2% 4.5% 16.7% 65.3% 71.5% 79.1% 80.3% 90.9% 92.0% 38.9% 41.5% 1.7% 2.7% 59.5% 62.0% 11.2% 23.5% 62.6% 66.3% 42.9% 45.5% 73.3% 83.3% 52.6% 58.4% 2.0% 10.6% 20.0% 23.2% 47.4% 49.7% 80.6% 83.7%63.4% 66.0%

0.0% 11.9% 65.9% 82.6% 15.7% 18.6% 53.6% 63.2% 84.8% 87.8% 64.9% 68.3% 1.0% 15.9% 82.8% 83.0% 74.9% 75.9% 1.2% 17.6% 0.8% 6.0% 88.8% 91.8% 59.7% 69.7% 82.3% 82.5% 52.4% 55.8% 17.3% 24.3% 63.3% 67.6% 64.8% 72.6% 0.7% 17.9% 49.0% 52.7% 0.2% 9.9% 24.7% 31.8% 20.0% 26.7% 1.8% 16.4% 0.2% 1.7% 36.6% 42.6%

State Review Framework Metric W01B3C Denominator - Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr) State Review Framework Metric W01B3C Numerator - Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)

State Review Framework Metric W01C3C Denominator - Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)This value is calculated from the following formula [= Round((Column B + Column E)/(Column A + Column D))] State Review Framework Metric W01C3C Numerator - Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)