71066 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 127, 403, 501, 

and 503 

[EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0274; FRL–9908– 

58–OECA] 

RIN 2020–AA47 

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Request for further comment. 

SUMMARY: On July 30, 2013, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposed the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule that would require 

electronic reporting instead of current 

paper-based NPDES reports. This action 

would modernize NPDES reporting, 

save time and resources for regulated 

entities and regulatory agencies, better 

protect the Nation’s waters by 

improving compliance, and provide the 

public with access to information that 

affects their communities. The proposal 

would enhance transparency and 

accountability by providing regulatory 

agencies and the public with more 

timely, complete, accurate, and 

nationally-consistent data about the 

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 

resources from data management 

activities to solving issues that threaten 

human health, water quality, and 

noncompliance issues. As a result of 

comments received on the proposed 

rule, we are soliciting further comments 

by opening a new public comment 

period. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 30, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OECA–2009–0274 by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: docket.oeca@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OECA–2009–0274. 

• Mail: Send the original and three 

copies of your comments to: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Docket Center, Enforcement and 

Compliance Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OECA–2009– 

0274. In addition, if applicable, please 

mail a copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 

EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

• Hand Deliver: Deliver your 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC, 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0274. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

EPA Docket Center’s normal hours of 

operation and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OECA–2009– 

0274. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received by the deadline will be 

included in the public docket without 

change, and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it within the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment, and, if applicable, with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters and any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, please visit 

the EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard-copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard-copy at 

the Enforcement and Compliance 

Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC, 20004. The 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 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the 

Docket for the Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is 

(202) 566–1752. Docket visitors are 

required to show photographic 

identification, pass through a metal 

detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. 

All visitor bags are processed through 

an X-ray machine and are subject to 

search. Visitors will be provided an EPA 

visitor’s badge that must be visible at all 

times in the building and returned upon 

departure. The ‘‘User Guide to the 

Docket for the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule [DCN 0104]’’ provides 

easy to follow instructions on how to 

access documents through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information, please contact 

Messrs. Andrew J. Hudock (202–564– 

6032) or Carey A. Johnston (202–566– 

1014), Office of Compliance (mail code 

2222A), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC, 20460; email 

addresses: hudock.andrew@epa.gov or 

johnston.carey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

How is this document organized? 

The outline of this document follows the 

following format: 

I. General Overview of the Supplemental 

Notice and Proposed Rule 

II. Overview of Public Comments 

III. Discussion of Key Issues Identified in 

Public Comments 

IV. Matters for Which Comments Are Sought 

V. Outreach 

VI. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

I. General Overview of the 

Supplemental Notice and Proposed 

Rule 

A. Supplemental Notice 

The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposed the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Electronic Reporting Rule on 

July 30, 2013 (78 FR 46005). The rule is 

explained in greater detail below. EPA 

received many comments on the 

proposed rule, from a variety of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71067 

stakeholder groups, and the comments 

were generally supportive of electronic 

reporting as modern and efficient. 

However, some comments raised issues 

regarding aspects of the proposed 

implementation and operation of the 

rule. In this supplemental notice, EPA is 

soliciting additional comment on the 

following issues raised by commenters: 

(1) Initial recipient status; (2) the use of 

the State Readiness Criteria and the 

possibility of EPA requiring the 

electronic submission of NPDES 

program data to EPA when authorized 

states, tribes, and territories have not 

successfully implemented electronic 

reporting; (3) implementation plan 

schedule; (4) copy of record; and (5) 

modifications of state NPDES 

regulations and statutes. We are also 

soliciting comment on Cross-Media 

Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) 

implementation, electronic reporting for 

the Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operations (CAFOs) and stormwater 

sectors, and the economic analysis. 

EPA will consider comments on any 

other aspects of the proposed rule. This 

notice opens a new public comment 

period. This notice is an opportunity for 

EPA to identify key issues raised by 

comments, clarify any 

misunderstandings about the proposed 

rule, and discuss possibilities for how 

EPA might modify the rule to address 

issues raised by stakeholders. This 

notice is not, however, intended to 

respond to all comments submitted; 

EPA will respond to all substantive 

comments when it takes final action on 

the proposed rule. There is no need to 

re-submit comments already submitted 

to EPA’s docket for the proposed rule. 

B. Proposed Rule 

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act 

(CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposed the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Electronic Reporting Rule on July 30, 

2013 (78 FR 46005). The proposed rule 

does not add to what is currently 

required to be reported by regulated 

entities under the existing Federal 

NPDES program regulations; it would 

only change how that information is to 

be reported. In particular, the proposed 

rule would substitute electronic 

reporting for certain paper-based 

reports. Over the long term, this should 

save time and resources for regulated 

entities, states, tribes, territories, and 

EPA while improving compliance and 

better protecting the Nation’s waters. 

The proposed rule would require 

regulated entities and regulators to use 

existing, available information 

technology to electronically report 

information and data related to the 

NPDES program in lieu of filing paper 

reports. 

The proposed rule would allow 

improvements to be made to the 

transparency and usefulness of 

information about regulated entities and 

permitting, compliance, and 

enforcement activities in each state 

through the use of available technology 

to electronically report facility, 

discharge, monitoring, compliance, and 

enforcement data; and providing more 

complete, accurate, and timely data to 

the public. Improving public access to 

this timely and complete information 

would help inform and empower 

communities. EPA is soliciting 

comment on how to improve public 

accessibility and usability of the data. 

EPA notes that this proposed rule does 

not change the Agency’s public 

disclosure regulations (40 CFR 2). 

This proposed rule would require that 

certain reports currently submitted on 

paper (i.e., Discharge Monitoring 

Reports (DMRs), Notices of Intent to 

discharge in compliance with a general 

permit, other general permit waivers, 

certifications, and notices of termination 

of coverage, and some program reports) 

be submitted electronically by NPDESregulated entities to EPA through EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) or to the 

authorized state, tribe, or territory 

NPDES program, or to EPA through 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). 

Importantly, while the proposed rule 

changes the method by which 

information on NPDES notices of intent 

for coverage under general permits, 

facility discharges, monitoring of 

compliance, facility reports, and 

enforcement responses is provided (i.e., 

electronic rather than paper-based), it 

does not increase the amount of 

information required from NPDESregulated entities under existing 

regulations. Similarly, though it changes 

the method through which citizens may 

access this information, this rule only 

affects information already required by 

law to be available to the public. 

States, tribes, and territories that are 

authorized to implement the NPDES 

program are the unique sources of 

certain key information regarding the 

regulated facilities. For example, states 

have facility information from NPDES 

individual permit applications, permit 

information including limits and permit 

conditions, compliance determination 

information including that from 

inspections, and enforcement response 

information. Under this proposed 

regulation, authorized NPDES programs 

would be required to share this NPDES 

program implementation information 

electronically with EPA. 

The proposed rule, in conjunction 

with EPA’s current public data access 

tools, would provide a more complete 

and easily accessible set of facility, 

permit, compliance, and enforcement 

data to the public. This would provide 

a powerful incentive for government 

and regulated entities to maintain and 

improve their performance. This can 

elevate the importance of compliance 

information and environmental 

performance within regulated entities 

and provide an opportunity for them to 

quickly address any noncompliance. 

This can also improve access to permit 

and compliance and enforcement action 

data in emergency situations (see DCN 

0105). It provides the opportunity for 

two-way communication between 

regulatory agencies and regulated 

facilities to immediately address data 

quality issues and to provide 

compliance assistance or take other 

action when potential problems are 

identified. Complete and accurate data 

would also allow EPA to evaluate 

performance across authorized 

programs. 

The requirement of electronic 

reporting of NPDES information is 

expected to result in reductions in 

burden and transaction costs. Tracking 

data electronically is less expensive, 

more efficient, more accurate, and better 

able to support program management 

decisions than paper tracking (see July 

30, 2013; 78 FR 46015–17). 

II. Overview of Public Comments 

EPA received 170 public comments 

on the proposed rule from a variety of 

stakeholder groups. The comments were 

generally supportive of electronic 

reporting as modern and efficient, but 

raised issues regarding aspects of the 

proposed implementation and operation 

of the rule. Table II–1 provides an 

overview on the public comments on 

the proposed rule. The largest number 

of public comments (by pages) came 

from government agencies with 

industrial stakeholders contributing 

most of the remaining comments. Many 

of the industrial comments came from 

the agricultural sector. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71068 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II–1—NUMBER OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBMISSIONS, PAGES, AND COMMENT EXCERPTS

Commenter type Number of 

submissions 

Number of 

comment pages 

Anonymous or Individual Person ......................................................................................................................... 32 44 

Environmental Advocacy Organization ................................................................................................................ 3 22 

Government (Local) ............................................................................................................................................. 28 114 

Government (State) ............................................................................................................................................. 39 308 

Government (Federal) ......................................................................................................................................... 2 5 

Industry (Misc.) .................................................................................................................................................... 39 188 

Industry (Agriculture) ........................................................................................................................................... 25 163 

Industry (Software Vendors) ................................................................................................................................ 2 6 

Total .............................................................................................................................................................. 170 850 

EPA has reviewed all of these 

comment submissions and identified 

the key issues raised by commenters. 

The following sections describe some of 

these key comments in more detail. 

III. Discussion of Key Issues Identified 

in Public Comments 

A. Implementation Plan 

EPA received many comments from 

states and NPDES-regulated entities on 

the proposed implementation plan and 

is considering possibilities to address 

these concerns. Most of these comments 

focused on the following issues: (1) 

Initial recipient status; (2) the use of the 

State Readiness Criteria and the 

possibility of EPA requiring the 

electronic submission of NPDES 

program data to EPA when authorized 

states, tribes, and territories have not 

successfully implemented electronic 

reporting; (3) implementation plan 

schedule; (4) copy of record; and (5) 

modifications of state NPDES 

regulations and statutes. Complete 

details on the implementation plan are 

in the proposed rule (July 30, 2013; 78 

FR 46047). The following are the most 

frequently discussed issues related to 

the implementation plan. 

1. Initial Recipient Status 

Some comments evidenced confusion 

about the concept of the ‘Initial 

Recipient,’ a term defined in the 

proposed rule at 40 CFR 127.2(b). EPA 

would like to provide some additional 

clarity in this supplemental notice. In 

general terms, the Initial Recipient is the 

first to receive electronically reported 

NPDES program data and could be the 

authorized state, tribe, or territorial 

NPDES program or EPA. The proposed 

rule also requires authorized NPDES 

programs and EPA to share NPDES 

program data (i.e., Appendix A to Part 

127) with each other on a regular 

schedule. 

Under the proposed rule, NPDESregulated entities would submit NPDES 

program data to the designated initial 

recipient. EPA’s goal is to help all states 

be the initial recipient for any data 

group (e.g., DMRs) for which they 

would like to first receive the data. In 

the proposed rule, Section 127.27 

outlines the process for requesting the 

designation of initial recipient. 

• An authorized state, tribe, or 

territory may request to be the initial 

recipient of electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

facilities for specific NPDES data groups 

by submitting a request to EPA. [Section 

127.27(a)] 

• This request shall identify the 

specific NPDES data groups for which 

the state, tribe, or territory would like to 

be the initial recipient of electronic 

NPDES information, a description of 

how its data system will be compliant 

with 40 CFR part 3 and 40 CFR part 127, 

and the date or dates when the state, 

tribe, or territory will be ready to start 

receiving this information. 

There is also a process in Section 

127.27(d) for helping states become the 

initial recipient. As noted in the 

proposed Section 127.27(d)(4), EPA will 

‘‘work with the Director of the 

authorized NPDES program to remediate 

all issues identified by EPA that prevent 

the authorized NPDES program from 

being the initial recipient. When all 

issues identified by EPA are resolved 

and the authorized state, tribe, or 

territory is the initial recipient, EPA 

shall update the initial recipient listing 

in 127.27(c) and publish this listing on 

its Web site and in the Federal 

Register.’’ 

Comments on the Initial Recipient 

term came from state and local 

governments, as well as from NPDESregulated entities. Most of these 

commenters misunderstood the Initial 

Recipient designation as being 

contingent on the State Readiness 

Criteria. The following discussion 

explains the relationship between these 

two related but distinctly different 

terms. The term ‘‘initial recipient’’ 

means the governmental entity, either 

the state or EPA, who first receives the 

electronic reports. EPA proposed to 

maintain the initial recipient list for 

each state and each NPDES data group 

and publish this list on its Web site and 

in the Federal Register. EPA’s decision 

to designate an authorized state, tribe, or 

territory as the initial recipient for 

NPDES program data is limited to the 

authorized program’s description of 

‘‘how its data system will be compliant 

with 40 CFR part 3 and 40 CFR part 127, 

and the date or dates when the state, 

tribe, or territory will be ready to accept 

NPDES information from NPDESregulated facilities in a manner 

compliant with 40 CFR part 3 and 40 

CFR part 127’’ [see 40 CFR 127.27(a)]. 

By contrast, the ‘‘State Readiness 

Criteria’’ are used when EPA is deciding 

whether to require electronic reporting 

through an Information Collection 

Request (see July 30, 2013, 78 FR 

46048). The 90 percent participation 

rate aspect of the State Readiness 

Criteria would not affect EPA’s 

determination of the Initial Recipient as 

detailed in Section 127.27. For example, 

a state can be listed as the Initial 

Recipient for receiving DMRs even if the 

electronic DMR participation rate in that 

state is less than 90 percent. 

EPA proposed using Federal Register 

notices and its Web site to provide 

notification to NPDES-regulated entities 

of the Initial Recipient status for each 

data group for each state. Commenters 

noted that EPA should improve this 

proposed notification system (e.g., 

notice by registered mail) because some 

NPDES-regulated entities (e.g., operators 

under the Construction General Permit) 

may not be aware of the Federal 

Register notices or EPA’s Web site. They 

also noted that many regulated entities 

granted a temporary waiver from the 

proposed rule would not have the 

technology to gain access to these 

notification systems. EPA is soliciting 

comment on additional means for 

providing notice on the Initial Recipient 

status. See Section IV of this notice. 

Finally, states requested clarification 

that they can obtain Initial Recipient 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71069 

1Some NPDES-regulated entities (e.g., biosolids 

generators with no discharge, categorical industrial 

users) may not have an NPDES permit. These 

entities are controlled through direct application of 

EPA regulation or may be controlled through state 

regulation or other actions. 

status after the implementation phase of 

the rule (i.e., more than 120 days after 

the effective date of the final rule). See 

Section 127.27(a). EPA intends to make 

it clear in the final rule that a state 

NPDES program can initially elect for 

EPA to be the Initial Recipient and then 

at a later date seek EPA approval to 

change the initial recipient status from 

EPA to the authorized state, tribe, or 

territory. EPA would like to provide this 

flexibility to NPDES programs as EPA’s 

preference is to defer to the authorized 

NPDES programs on how the NPDES 

program data from regulated entities 

should be routed when electronic 

reporting can be properly implemented 

(e.g., use of CROMERR-compliant tools). 

EPA is focused on changing NPDES 

reporting from paper submission to 

proper electronic submissions, not in 

becoming the Initial Recipient. 

2. State Readiness Criteria 

Under the proposal, a complete set of 

electronic information for the regulated 

universe covered by this proposed rule 

would be required two years after the 

effective date of the final rule. The 

Agency would seek to collect these data 

directly from NPDES-regulated facilities 

only if not already being submitted 

electronically to the authorized state, 

tribe, or territory given the importance 

of complete, timely, and accessible 

NPDES program data to EPA states, 

tribes, territories, and the public. 

EPA proposed three factors for the 

‘‘State Readiness Criteria,’’ which EPA 

would use to determine when to ‘‘fill in 

the gaps’’ where NPDES-regulated 

entities are not yet fully reporting 

electronically edit NPDES program data: 

(1) Participation Rate: The authorized 

state, tribe, or territory has 90 percent 

participation rate by data group (i.e., NPDESregulated entities submit timely, accurate, 

complete, and nationally consistent NPDES 

data using the NPDES program’s electronic 

reporting systems for a data group such as 

DMRs); and 

(2) Approved Electronic Reporting 

Systems: The electronic reporting systems 

used by the NPDES-regulated entity meet all 

of the minimum Federal reporting 

requirements for 40 CFR 3 (CROMERR) and 

40 CFR 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting 

Rule); and 

(3) Initial Recipient Status: EPA lists the 

state, tribe, or territory as the initial recipient 

for electronic NPDES information from 

NPDES-regulated entities on EPA’s Web site. 

Each authorized program will then designate 

the specific tools for these electronic 

submissions from their permittees. These 

designations are proposed to be made 

separately for each NPDES data group (see 40 

CFR 127.2(c) and 127.27). 

In order to provide clearer distinction 

between the Initial Recipient and State 

Readiness Criteria terms, EPA solicits 

comment on eliminating the third factor 

in the State Readiness Criteria (i.e., 

Initial Recipient Status). The first and 

second factors in the State Readiness 

Criteria clarify that EPA’s collection of 

the data will be based on the 

participation rate and the use of 

CROMERR compliant tools. 

As a means to ‘‘fill in the gaps’’ where 

NPDES-regulated entities are not yet 

reporting electronically, EPA is 

considering using its authority under 

CWA sections 101, 304(i), 308, 402(b), 

and 501 to require NPDES-regulated 

entities to electronically report NPDES 

program data to EPA. As proposed, EPA 

would use its existing authority under 

the CWA and current technology to 

facilitate electronic reporting using 

CWA authority and an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) to directly 

collect information from NPDESregulated entities that are not 

participating in state electronic 

reporting according to the proposed 

rule’s implementation schedule. EPA 

anticipates this will not be a widespread 

occurrence as electronic reporting, over 

the long term, reduces burden for the 

reporter. If we encounter widespread 

non-compliance with the electronic 

reporting requirements, EPA will take 

that as a signal to evaluate the issue. 

EPA estimates that any use of this ICR 

will taper off over time as more NPDESregulated entities utilize electronic 

reporting and as we learn more about 

electronic reporting. As previously 

noted, EPA electronically collecting 

these data from a subset of entities is 

independent of the Initial Recipient 

status of the authorized state, tribe, or 

territory. Authorized NPDES programs 

remain the data steward for any NPDES 

program data that they collect 

electronically or on paper. Under this 

proposal, EPA would be the data 

steward for the data it directly collects 

and will be responsible for resolving 

any data discrepancies. 

EPA received comments from state 

programs and regulated entities that 

were concerned about EPA’s proposal to 

require electronic reporting directly to 

EPA where progress in electronic 

reporting to the state was not meeting 

the expected level. In particular, state 

programs noted the increased burden of 

the potential double reporting (such as 

paper submission of DMR to state, 

electronic submission to EPA) and the 

potential of conflicting data between the 

two submissions, roles of the state or 

EPA data stewards, and confusion over 

which submission is the ‘copy of 

record’). States appeared interested in 

participating in electronic reporting and 

pursuing some level of state readiness 

approval, but expressed concern about 

how long it might take to meet the 90 

percent threshold for some data groups. 

One commenter noted that during the 

interim period, differing initial 

recipients for various data groups could 

be complicated or burdensome for some 

facilities. 

In particular, states noted that they 

will likely not meet the 90 percent 

participation factor in the State 

Readiness Criteria within the proposed 

rule’s two-year implementation 

schedule. Commenters noted difficulties 

in seeking and obtaining CROMERR 

approval for their electronic reporting 

systems as well as difficulties in 

outreach and training for the large 

number of NPDES-regulated entities that 

will need to switch from paper to 

electronic reporting. EPA seeks 

comment on whether it should wait 

longer after the effective date of the final 

rule to begin evaluating participation 

rates. One commenter suggested 

gradually phasing in the participation 

rate factor in the State Readiness 

Criteria as follows: Participation rate of 

30 percent by the end of the first year, 

60 percent by the end of the second 

year, and 90 percent by the end of the 

third year. EPA also seeks comment on 

this approach. EPA also seeks comment 

on whether, under one of the options 

above, it should maintain the current 

one-year schedule for the DMR data 

flow since many states and NPDES 

permittees are using NetDMR and eDMR 

tools. EPA is considering the possibility 

of a phased approach and solicits 

comment on the option of maintaining 

the one year schedule for the DMR data 

flow as well as a phased approach to 

measure participation rate as part of the 

State Readiness Criteria. 

One state suggested that if the 90 

percent participation factor is not met, 

EPA should use its CWA authority 

through use of an ICR to compel 

NPDES-regulated entities to 

electronically submit their NPDES 

program data to the authorized state, 

tribe, or territory rather than directly to 

EPA. The commenter also suggested that 

the authorized state, tribe, or territory 

could use its enforcement discretion to 

refrain from enforcing conditions in the 

permit or other control mechanisms 1

that specify paper reporting as long as 

the regulated entity successfully reports 

its data electronically using the 

appropriate CROMERR-approved 

electronic reporting system. This would 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71070 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

enable EPA and authorized states, 

tribes, and territories to realize the 

benefits of electronic reporting without 

requiring double reporting from 

regulated entities and coordinating two 

separate submissions. 

Another state commenter also 

suggested that EPA calculate for each 

authorized NPDES program one DMR 

electronic submission participant rate 

for individually permitted facilities and 

another DMR electronic submission 

participant rate for facilities covered 

under general permits. The commenter 

suggested that there are important 

differences between individually 

permitted facilities, which tend to be 

the larger facilities with a continuous 

discharge like POTWs, and facilities 

covered under general permits, which 

tend to be more numerous and include 

construction stormwater sites that might 

need only temporary NPDES permit 

coverage. Some states also use different 

state agencies to manage specific 

industrial sectors (e.g., construction 

stormwater, mines, CAFOs) and these 

industrial sectors are often covered by 

general permits. EPA solicits comment 

on all of these potential alternatives (see 

Section IV). 

With respect to the comment that the 

reporting environment could be 

complicated for some facilities if the 

state has not qualified as the initial 

recipient for all data groups, EPA notes 

that many NPDES-regulated entities 

currently submit NPDES program data 

to different agencies. For example, most 

states are not authorized to implement 

the Federal Sewage Sludge program (40 

CFR 503) and many POTWs in these 

states are required to submit DMR data 

to the state and the Annual Biosolids 

Program Report to EPA. Under the 

proposed rule, EPA would list the initial 

recipient for each data group for each 

state in the Federal Register and on its 

Web site so that regulated entities know 

to whom to submit their information. In 

addition, as noted in the proposal, EPA 

solicits comment on changing its 

regulations governing the standard 

conditions applicable to all NPDES 

permits by adding a new standard 

permit condition [see 40 CFR 

122.41(l)(9)] that would require NPDESregulated facilities to ensure that, for 

each type of electronic NPDES 

submission, the information is sent to 

the appropriate initial recipient, as 

identified by EPA, and as defined in 40 

CFR 127.2(b). Authorized NPDES 

programs would include this 

requirement in all permits and control 

mechanisms. 

Below are a few examples of how the 

proposed rule uses the Initial Recipient 

and State Readiness Criteria terms and 

more examples are in the docket (DCN 

0106). 

Example #1: EPA lists State X as being the 

Initial Recipient for DMRs and there are 

1,000 facilities in this state that are required 

to submit DMRs. One year after the effective 

date of the final rule, 900 facilities in this 

state are correctly electronically submitting 

DMRs to the state (i.e., these DMRs contain 

all Appendix A data and are submitted in 

compliance with CROMERR). What actions 

will EPA take with respect to the 100 

facilities that submitted their DMRs on paper 

to the state? 

Answer: Under the proposed rule, 

EPA would take no actions to require 

electronic submissions of DMRs from 

these facilities because 90 percent of the 

facilities in this state that are required 

to submit DMRs are electronically 

submitting these DMRs in compliance 

with Part 127 (Appendix A data 

included) and Part 3 (CROMERR— 

authentication and encryption 

standards). The electronic DMR 

submission to the state is the copy of 

record for the 900 facilities and the 

paper DMR submission to the state is 

the copy of record for the 100 facilities. 

Example #2: Assume the same scenario as 

in Example #1 but now only 750 facilities in 

this state are correctly submitting DMRs to 

the state one year after the effective date of 

the final rule. What actions will EPA take 

with respect to the 750 facilities in this state 

that are correctly electronically submitting 

DMRs to the state and the 250 facilities that 

submitted their DMRs on paper to the state? 

Answer: Under the proposed rule, 

EPA would take no actions to 

electronically collect DMRs from the 

750 facilities that are electronically 

submitting these DMRs in compliance 

with Part 127 (Appendix A data 

included) and Part 3 (CROMERR— 

authentication and encryption 

standards) to the state as the Initial 

Recipient for DMRs. However, since the 

DMR electronic submission 

participation rate is less than 90 

percent, EPA would use its CWA 

authority through use of an ICR to 

require electronic submission of DMR 

data from the 250 facilities who 

submitted their DMRs using paper 

reports. This means that these 250 

facilities will be potentially filing their 

DMR twice: Once on paper to the state 

(if required by their permit) and another 

time to EPA electronically. Once a 

facility is electronically submitting its 

DMRs to the state, the facility no longer 

is required to electronically report its 

DMRs directly to EPA. Additionally, 

tA01DE2.he electronic DMR submission 

to the state is the copy of record for the 

750 facilities and the paper DMR 

submission to the state is the copy of 

record for the 250 facilities. EPA also 

notes that authorized NPDES programs 

can help increase electronic reporting 

(and lower the instance of double 

reporting) by modifying or reissuing 

NPDES permits to include electronic 

reporting. EPA has proposed to allow 

authorized NPDES programs to do this 

through the minor modification process 

(see 40 CFR 122.63). 

Example #3: Assume the same scenario as 

in Example #2 but, after some efforts by the 

state and EPA, the DMR electronic 

submission participation to the state is now 

at or above 90 percent. What actions will 

EPA take with respect to the 100 or fewer 

facilities that submitted their DMRs on paper 

to the state? 

Answer: This is the same answer for 

Example #1. 

Example #4: State X initially requests that 

EPA be the Initial Recipient for DMRs and 

there are 1,000 facilities in this state that are 

required to submit DMRs. One year after the 

effective date of the final rule 900 facilities 

in this state are correctly electronically 

submitting DMRs to EPA. What actions will 

EPA take with respect to the 100 facilities 

that submitted their DMRs on paper to the 

state? 

Answer: This is the same answer for 

Example #1. 

Another important consideration is 

that NPDES-regulated entities with 

temporary waivers are excluded from 

the State Readiness Criteria 

participation calculations. For example, 

if State X has 1,020 facilities that are 

required to submit DMRs and 20 of 

these facilities are granted temporary 

waivers from electronic reporting, then 

as a group at least 900 of the 1,000 

DMR-submitting facilities without 

waivers [= 0.9 × (1,020¥20)] need to 

electronically submit DMRs to State X 

in order to meet the DMR electronic 

submission participation threshold of 90 

percent. 

3. Implementation Plan Schedule 

EPA proposed two phases for the 

implementation of electronic reporting 

with the first phase starting one year 

after the effective date of the final rule. 

Prior to this date, EPA will also work 

with authorized NDPDES programs in 

order to collect the necessary facility 

and permit that supports electronic 

reporting. These necessary facility and 

permit data include data on facilities 

covered by general permits so that these 

general permit covered facilities can 

electronically submit their DMRs to 

their permitting authority and these 

permitting authorities can share these 

data with EPA. Likewise, EPA will also 

work with states to collect the necessary 

data to support electronic reporting for 

the second phase. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71071 

2See 40 CFR 123.62(e). 

• Phase 1 Data (one year after the 

effective date of the final rule): EPA 

would electronically receive basic 

facility and permit information as well 

as state performance data including 

inspections, violation determinations, 

and enforcement actions. Additionally, 

EPA and states would electronically 

receive: (1) DMR information (if 

required by the NPDES permit) from 

NPDES-regulated entities; and (2) 

general permit reports [Notice of Intent 

to be covered (NOI); Notice of 

Termination (NOT); No Exposure 

Certification (NEC); Low Erosivity 

Waiver (LEW)] from facilities covered 

by Federally-issued general permits. 

• Phase 2 Data (two years after the 

effective date of the final rule): In 

addition to Phase 1 data, EPA and states 

would receive: (1) General permit 

reports from facilities covered by stateissued general permit; and NPDES 

program reports (e.g., CAFO Annual 

Report, Pretreatment Program Annual 

Report). 

As noted in the previous section of 

this notice, many states indicated that 

they likely would not be able to 

implement electronic reporting within 

two years of the effective date of the 

final rule. One commenter suggested 

that EPA should consider working with 

states to develop individual state plans 

with varying schedules for 

implementation based on each state’s 

readiness and resources to implement 

electronic reporting. Another suggestion 

was to integrate electronic reporting into 

the permit requirements in the next 

permit cycle, as permits are reissued. 

Other commenters suggested extending 

the implementation plan beyond two 

years. EPA also solicits comment on 

these alternatives. 

Adding additional phases or time 

could include pushing the timing of 

Phases 1 and 2 back by a certain amount 

of time, or including additional phases 

for certain program areas. For instance, 

MS4 program reports could be moved to 

a third phase to give states and EPA 

more time to determine how best to 

incorporate these reports into an 

electronic format. 

As noted in the proposed rule, using 

the NPDES permit cycle to implement 

electronic reporting would mean NPDES 

program data would not be fully 

available across all permits and states 

until 2022 at the earliest. Using the 

NPDES permit cycle to implement 

electronic reporting would mean that 

electronic reporting requirements would 

be incorporated into NPDES permits as 

they are re-issued. Using this approach 

would also mean that it would take 

approximately seven years to have data 

across all permits and states as 

authorized states, tribes, and territories 

will need two years to update their 

statutes and then it would take an 

additional five years for one NPDES 

permit cycle.2 Additionally, there are a 

number of NPDES permits that are 

administratively continued with some 

permits that are ten or more years old 

(see DCN 0107). EPA identifies permits 

that are administratively continued 

beyond their expiration date as 

‘‘backlogged.’’ EPA solicits comment on 

the option of EPA using its CWA 

authority through use of an ICR to 

require facilities operating under 

backlogged permits to electronically 

submit their NPDES program data. 

As noted in the proposed rule, EPA 

considered but did not choose the 

permit renewal cycle as a means to 

phase in electronic reporting as that 

approach would delay significant 

benefits of electronic reporting (e.g., 

state savings and expedited access to 

complete NPDES program data in an 

electronic format for EPA, states, tribes, 

and territories, regulated entities, and 

the public). 

With respect to individual state 

implementation plans, if EPA were to 

chose this option EPA would likely 

establish a schedule for when these 

plans were due, the criteria it would use 

to review these plans, and the time 

period for states to submit subsequent 

revisions. EPA would look to see that 

each of these plans provides enough 

detail (e.g., tasks, milestones, roles and 

responsibilities, necessary resources) to 

ensure that EPA and states can work 

together to successfully implement 

electronic reporting. The details likely 

necessary for these plans include 

identifying: (1) All tasks for capturing 

and electronically processing facility 

and permit data; (2) all tasks for 

updating any state data systems; (3) 

technologies for electronic reporting 

systems and any necessary CROMERR 

approval; (4) technologies for 

transmitting and receiving Appendix A 

data to and from EPA; (5) schedule for 

updating state statutes, regulations, and 

NPDES permits; (6) schedule for 

training NPDES regulated entities on 

how to utilize electronic reporting 

systems; (7) roles and responsibilities; 

and (8) necessary resources and 

commitments. These implementation 

plans would need to be approved by the 

authorized NPDES Director (as defined 

in 40 CFR 122.2). Under this option, 

EPA would use these plans to ensure all 

states are moving to electronic reporting 

as expeditiously as possible. EPA would 

also limit the amount of time that it will 

provide to states for full 

implementation, as EPA would like all 

stakeholders to realize the many 

benefits of electronic reporting in a 

timely manner. Finally, EPA would ask 

states to create contingencies in their 

implementation plans that might rely on 

EPA services and systems (e.g., 

NetDMR, NeT) if the state continually 

misses its own scheduled milestones. 

4. Copy of Record 

Several comments asked for 

clarification on how EPA’s proposed 

rule will affect the ‘‘copy of record’’ for 

NPDES data submissions. EPA is 

clarifying that the proposed rule does 

not change EPA’s authentication and 

encryption standards for electronic 

reporting. Below is a discussion of the 

copy of record as it pertains to the 

implementation of electronic reporting. 

An important element of EPA’s 

authentication and encryption standards 

for electronic reporting is the ‘‘copy of 

record,’’ which is ‘‘a true and correct 

copy of an electronic document received 

by an electronic document receiving 

system, which copy can be viewed in a 

human-readable format that clearly and 

accurately associates all the information 

provided in the electronic document 

with descriptions or labeling of the 

information.’’ See 40 CFR 3.3. A copy of 

record must: 

• Be a true and correct copy of the 

electronic document that was received, 

and it must be legally demonstrable that 

it is in fact a true and correct copy; 

• include all the electronic signatures 

that have been executed to sign the 

document or components of the 

document; 

• include the date and time of receipt 

to help establish its relation to 

submission deadlines; and 

• be viewable in a human-readable 

format that clearly indicates what the 

submitter and, where applicable, the 

signatory intended that each of the data 

elements or other information items in 

the document means. 

For such CROMERR compliant 

submissions, the copy of record is 

intended to serve as the electronic 

surrogate for what is commonly referred 

to as the paper submission with a ‘‘wetink’’ signature. The copy of record is 

meant to provide an authoritative 

answer to the question of what was 

actually submitted and, as applicable, 

what was signed and certified in the 

particular case. 

It is important to note that the use of 

an electronic reporting system may 

dictate where the electronic copy of 

record is retained. EPA’s NetDMR and 

CDX for NeT contain the electronic copy 

of record for submissions made with 

these tools. Likewise, state electronic 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71072 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3This EPA rule was promulgated in 2005 (see 40 

CFR part 3). 

reporting systems will contain the 

electronic copy of record for 

submissions made with these state tools. 

Under certain scenarios, as described 

in the previous sections, EPA may 

electronically collect NPDES program 

data directly from NPDES-regulated 

entities and these entities may also be 

making a paper submission of the same 

report with a ‘‘wet-ink’’ signature to the 

state. In these cases, the paper 

submission to the state with a ‘‘wet-ink’’ 

signature is the copy of record. 

5. Modifications of State NPDES 

Regulations and Statutes 

Several commenters requested 

clarification on the relationship between 

the implementation of electronic 

reporting and the schedule for any 

necessary modifications of state NPDES 

regulations and statutes. As indicated in 

the proposed rule, EPA estimated that 

some states may need to update their 

regulations or statutes to make clear that 

electronic reporting is required for the 

reports listed in Table 1 of Appendix A 

and that these electronic submissions 

must be compliant with Part 127 

(including Appendix A) and Part 3 

(CROMERR—authentication and 

encryption standards). Existing EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 123.62(e) require 

that any updates to the authorized 

NPDES program take place within oneyear of the effective date of the final rule 

(if no state statute change is required) 

and within two years of the effective 

date of the final rule (if a state statute 

change is required). 

These regulatory and statutory 

updates are unrelated to EPA’s decision 

on who can be the Initial Recipient for 

NPDES program data. However, if a 

state regulation or statute prohibits or 

inhibits the electronic reporting of 

NPDES program data to the state, then 

this might lower the electronic reporting 

participation rate of NPDES-regulated 

entities. EPA will examine cases where 

there are low participation rates to 

determine the cause as there may be 

other issues beyond regulatory or 

statutory updates that need to be 

remedied. Under certain scenarios, as 

described in the examples above, these 

lower participation rates may lead EPA 

to electronically collect NPDES program 

data directly from NPDES-regulated 

entities when the entity is also making 

a paper submission of the same data to 

the state. 

B. Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 

Regulation (CROMERR) 

EPA’s proposed rule (Part 127) 

requires that all electronic reporting 

systems that are used for implementing 

NPDES electronic reporting, whether 

already existing or to be developed by 

EPA and authorized NPDES programs, 

be compliant with EPA’s Cross-Media 

Electronic Reporting Regulation 

(CROMERR).3 CROMERR sets 

performance-based, technology-neutral 

standards for systems that states, tribes, 

and local governments use to receive 

electronic reports from facilities they 

regulate under EPA-authorized 

programs and requires program 

modifications or revisions to 

incorporate electronic reporting. 

CROMERR also addresses electronic 

reporting directly to EPA. 

EPA received a number of comments 

on various aspects of applying for, 

receiving approval and authorization, 

and implementing an electronic 

reporting system that complies with 

CROMERR. The comments can be 

divided into two key categories: (1) The 

process for CROMERR application 

approvals; and (2) the technical 

requirements for signature 

authentication. There are also two 

additional comment areas that require 

clarification: (1) Whether a NPDESregulated entity must submit a 

CROMERR application; and (2) EPA’s 

requirement to change passwords at 

least once every 90 days. 

1. Improving/Streamlining the 

Application Approval Process 

The review and approval process for 

a CROMERR application allows 75 days 

for completeness review, and 180/360 

days for new/existing systems for 

approval review. State and authorized 

program application preparation and 

amendments are not included in this 

timeframe. The actual timeframe may be 

shorter or longer. Many of the comments 

highlighted the seemingly conflicting 

timelines for implementation of the 

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule with 

the CROMERR requirements. 

Commenters expressed concern that 

system development and CROMERR 

approval would not be possible within 

the 2-year rule implementation schedule 

and that authorized programs may not 

be able to maintain their status as the 

Initial Recipient of NPDES program 

data. Commenters also questioned 

whether they would be required to 

submit more than one CROMERR 

application if they rely on multiple tools 

for electronic reporting. 

To address these concerns, EPA will 

be implementing several measures to 

streamline the CROMERR application 

submittal, review, and approval process. 

• Standard Checklists and Forms. A 

standard checklist has been developed 

for EPA national systems (e.g., NetDMR, 

NPDES Electronic reporting system 

(NeT), CROMERR shared services, 

Attorney General Statement, and 

Signature Agreements) that can be 

modified for those using these services. 

These applications require the 

authorized programs to complete a 

small amount of state-specific 

information. The timeframes for these 

approvals are generally reduced to 

between 16 to 20 weeks. See: http://

www.epa.gov/cromerr/tools/index.html 

and DCN 0109. Additionally, the 

CROMERR approval process for states 

choosing to use EPA’s NeT will have a 

significantly reduced approval process. 

EPA estimates that the approval process 

will be less than 60 days and with 

reduced submission requirements. 

• Model CROMERR Application. 

There are approximately five model 

CROMERR applications that can be 

adopted by authorized programs. These 

models illustrate different CROMERR 

solutions that can be modified for 

another program’s CROMERR 

implementation. Adopting a model 

CROMERR application will streamline 

the approval process to under 6 months. 

See: http://www.epa.gov/cromerr/tools/

index.html. 

• CROMERR Assistance and 

Training. EPA currently provides 

CROMERR assistance through online 

forms. EPA also provides direct help to 

prepare and complete the application as 

well as implement and integrate 

CROMERR services. In particular, for 

applicants that do not use the standard 

or model checklists and are building 

their own system, EPA has recently 

implemented a customer relationship 

management tool and additional 

technical support to provide triggers 

and reminders on due dates and actions 

to improve the timeframes. EPA intends 

to work with states to develop state 

specific plans on how to obtain 

CROMERR approval. See: http://

www.epa.gov/cromerr/training/

index.html. EPA is also creating a 

position that will interact with senior 

officials within the states and EPA by 

serving as the dedicated contact for 

states on the selection and 

implementation of the NPDES ereporting tool, and serve as an advocate 

for states’ CROMERR applications for 

the NPDES program from receipt to 

approval to ensure state applications are 

being addressed in a timely manner. 

2. Technical Requirements for Signature 

Authorization 

The second key area of CROMERR 

comments are the identity-proofing 

requirements for issuing electronic 

signature credentials. While the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71073 

4Also note that once the single electronic 

signature agreement/credentials are established 

they can be used for reporting to multiple 

regulatory programs in addition to NPDES. 

5For example, EPA recently approved of the City 

of Grand Rapids’ (Michigan) request to revise its 

general pretreatment regulations to allow electronic 

reporting. See February, 13 2014, 79 FR 8701. 

majority of the comments in this area 

focus on the burden of maintaining 

paper copies of signature agreements, 

the time associated with conducting 

identity proofing, and the issuance of 

signature credentials, some stakeholders 

provided comments on the existing 

NPDES signatory requirements (40 CFR 

122.22). EPA is not proposing to change 

the NPDES eligibility signatory 

requirements as these are beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. The following 

are issues that relate to this NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule. 

• Burden associated with high 

processing costs. EPA notes that all of 

the comments on the signature 

agreement requirements were based on 

the assumption of wet ink signatures on 

paper. However, EPA is now making 

available a paperless, real-time, 

electronic identity proofing service that 

reduces the application and validation 

time from days to minutes, and costs 

from dollars to cents. As noted above, as 

part of the Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

CROMERR services, electronic identityproofing is available to regulatory 

authorities that do not wish to develop 

such a system of their own. This service 

can be invoked in a way that is 

transparent to the user and would allow 

users to begin using their electronic 

signature credentials in a single session. 

• Burden associated with high turnover and infrequent reporting. 

Electronic reporting systems can 

structure the agreements and the 

associated business processes so that 

only a single agreement is collected, 

once, from each user who is granted 

authority to electronically sign 

documents in the system. For EPA CDX 

systems, a user only has to register and 

complete the signature agreement once, 

and the credentials do not expire.4

3. CROMERR Requirements for a 

NPDES-Regulated Entity 

EPA received comments from POTWs, 

particularly from California, asking 

whether they would need to become 

CROMERR-certified in order to 

undertake electronic reporting. EPA is 

using this notice to confirm that under 

this proposed rule NPDES-regulated 

entities (e.g., POTWs) are not required 

to submit a CROMERR application to 

electronically report NPDES program 

data. It is the responsibility of the 

authorized NPDES programs receiving 

these electronically reported NPDES 

program data to obtain approval from 

EPA for their electronic reporting 

systems and processes in accordance 

with EPA’s CROMERR requirements. 

Under the proposed rule, NPDESregulated entities that electronically 

report their NPDES program data would 

use CROMERR-approved electronic 

reporting systems and processes. 

Authorized NPDES programs are 

responsible for submitting CROMERR 

applications for their electronic 

reporting system and NPDES-regulated 

entities are only required to complete 

the necessary signature requirements for 

that system. 

EPA also notes that Subpart D of 

CROMERR requires that state, tribal or 

local government agencies (including 

POTWs) that receive, or wish to begin 

receiving electronic reports under their 

EPA-authorized programs (e.g., CWA 

pretreatment program) must apply to 

EPA for a revision or modification of 

those programs and obtain EPA 

approval.5 However, an important 

consideration is that the proposed rule 

does not require approved pretreatment 

programs to electronically collect 

NPDES program data from significant 

and categorical industrial users. 

Approved pretreatment programs may 

continue to collect NPDES program data 

from significant and categorical 

industrial users on paper or may elect 

to seek EPA approval for their 

CROMERR-compliant electronic 

reporting systems and processes. 

4. EPA Password Reset Requirement 

EPA also received comments on the 

90-day password reset requirement, 

suggesting that this frequency is too 

short and would be a burden for 

infrequent reporters. The 90-day 

password reset requirement is not a 

CROMERR requirement; rather, it is a 

long standing EPA security requirement 

that is used for all of our internal and 

external systems. However, most 

electronic reporting systems allow users 

to perform a password reset when their 

password has expired. For example, a 

regulated entity that only uses an 

electronic reporting system once a year 

can reset their password at the time of 

their electronic submission. A regulated 

entity would not need to access the 

electronic reporting system throughout 

the year simply to retain an active 

password or have an active password to 

initiate a password reset operation. 

5. Relationship Between CROMERR 

Requirements and the Initial Recipient 

Term 

EPA also received comments on how 

the CROMERR requirements would 

affect the Initial Recipient requirements 

in the proposed rule (see Section 

127.27). The following provides more 

explanation on the interaction between 

the CROMERR requirements and the 

Initial Recipient requirements in the 

proposed. If the Initial Recipient status 

for a particular state for a particular data 

group switches from the state to EPA, 

then the NPDES-regulated entities in 

that data group in that state would need 

to ensure they register with the 

appropriate CROMERR-compliant 

system. In this example, these NPDESregulated entities would switch from 

using a state electronic reporting system 

to an EPA electronic reporting system 

(e.g., NetDMR, NeT). Likewise, if the 

Initial Recipient status for a particular 

state for a particular data group switches 

from EPA to the state, then those 

NPDES-regulated entities in that data 

group in that state would switch from 

an EPA electronic reporting system to a 

state electronic reporting system. 

C. Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operations (CAFO) Sector 

EPA is clarifying the effects of this 

proposed rule on CAFOs in response to 

comments received that reflect 

misunderstanding about the proposed 

rule. The proposed rule would only 

require CAFOs with NPDES permits to 

submit information to permitting 

authorities that the Clean Water Act 

already requires them to provide. See 33 

U.S.C. 1342. Additionally, this 

information already is publicly 

accessible pursuant to the Clean Water 

Act and its implementing regulations. 

The proposed rule would simply 

modernize the format through which 

permitted CAFOs would submit certain 

types of information (i.e., electronic 

submission as opposed to paper-based 

reporting). This modernized format 

should increase efficiencies for 

permitted CAFOs as well as regulators. 

Permitted CAFOs that lack suitable 

Internet access would be able to receive 

temporary waivers so that they would 

not be required to submit information 

electronically. 

The following summary explains how 

the proposed rule would affect 

permitted CAFOs. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71074 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

PERMITTED CAFO RESPONSIBILITIES

Type of submission Submission format 

Individual permit applications and 

attached nutrient management 

plans (NMPs).

There is no change for the owner or operator, as a CAFO that is applying for an NPDES permit can submit forms and information in a paper format to the permitting authority. The proposed rule requires only 

selected data on the individual NPDES permit application (see Appendix A) to be electronically shared 

between states and EPA. 

Notices of Intent to discharge in 

compliance with a general permit 

(NOIs).

CAFOs seeking coverage under an NPDES general permit would electronically submit these NOIs, unless 

a temporary waiver is granted by the authorized NPDES program. The proposed rule requires only selected data on the NOIs (see Appendix A) to be electronically shared between states and EPA. 

NMPs attached to general permit 

NOIs.

There is no change to the owner or operator, as CAFOs seeking coverage under an NPDES general permit can submit these data and information in a paper format to the authorized NPDES program. Authorized NPDES program may elect to electronically receive NMPs from CAFOs; however, this proposed 

rule does not require authorized NPDES programs to share these NMPs with EPA or require electronic 

submission of NMPs. 

Annual reports and DMRs .............. Permitted CAFOs would electronically submit these compliance monitoring data, unless a waiver is granted 

by the authorized NPDES program. The proposed rule requires only selected data on the annual reports 

and DMRs (see Appendix A) to be electronically shared between states and EPA. 

The following summary lists the only 

changes the proposed rule would make 

in authorized NPDES program 

responsibilities. 

AUTHORIZED NPDES PROGRAM (GENERALLY STATES) RESPONSIBILITIES

Type of submission Submission format 

Individual permit applications ................................................................... Submit data listed in Appendix A to Part 127 electronically to EPA. 

Inspection, violation determination, and enforcement action information Submit data listed in Appendix A to Part 127 electronically to EPA. 

As indicated in the tables above, 

contrary to concerns raised by some 

commenters, this proposed rule would 

not require electronic submission of 

NMPs. Nor would the proposed rule 

require NPDES-permitted CAFOs to 

submit any new information beyond 

what is already required in the current 

regulations. 

In response to comments made 

expressing concerns that the proposed 

rule could infringe on the privacy of 

NPDES-permitted CAFO owners and 

operators or the facility, their employees 

or family members, EPA emphasizes 

that this rule would not require any 

information to be disclosed that is not 

already available to EPA and the public 

pursuant to existing legal requirements. 

See, e.g., 33 U.S.C. 1318, 1342(j); 40 CFR 

122.21(f). Information that permitted 

CAFOs submit on their permit 

applications is required to be publicly 

available pursuant to CWA section 

402(j), which requires that ‘‘[a] copy of 

each [NPDES] permit application and 

each [NPDES] permit . . . be available 

to the public. Such permit application 

or permit, or portion thereof, shall 

further be available on request for the 

purpose of reproduction.’’ See 33 U.S.C. 

1342(j). Section 402(j) applies to all 

NPDES permit applications, including 

CAFO NPDES permits. In addition, 

CWA section 402 requires that states, 

tribes, and territories implementing 

NPDES programs provide for ‘‘public 

. . . notice of each application for a 

permit and provide an opportunity for 

public hearing before a ruling on each 

such application.’’ See 33 U.S.C. 

1342(a)(1), (b)(3). 

Agricultural stakeholders also stated 

their concerns that a public national 

database with the location information 

of livestock operations could increase 

the risk of acts of terrorism at such 

operations. EPA notes that all of the 

information proposed to be submitted 

electronically is already publicly 

available today. The proposed rule is 

focused on modernizing existing 

reporting requirements by moving from 

paper to electronic submissions. The 

proposed rule does not change the data 

and information that NPDES-regulated 

entities are required to report or how 

EPA manages these data and makes it 

available to the public. Existing law 

requires that information submitted in 

connection with a permit application, as 

well as other effluent data, be available 

to the public. Permitted CAFOs and 

other sectors have been regulated under 

the NPDES program for over 40 years 

and permitted entities like CAFOs have 

been required to submit individual 

NPDES permit applications or NOIs for 

coverage under a NPDES general permit 

like any other facility seeking permit 

coverage. The proposed rule is only to 

modernize the data processed from 

paper to computer to make the program 

more efficient and effective. 

Existing law also requires authorized 

NPDES programs (usually states) to 

share NPDES program information with 

EPA. Authorized NPDES programs are 

required to ‘‘keep such records and 

submit to the Administrator such 

information as the Administrator may 

reasonably require to ascertain whether 

the State program complies with the 

requirements of CWA or of this part.’’ 40 

CFR 123.43(d). See also 40 CFR 

123.41(a) (‘‘Any information obtained or 

used in the administration of a state 

program shall be available to EPA upon 

request without restriction.’’). 

Pursuant to EPA’s NPDES data 

sharing policy, which dates back to 

1985, authorized NPDES programs share 

data, including the following data, with 

EPA’s national NPDES program 

database for all NPDES-regulated 

entities (major and non-major facilities): 

facility name; SIC code(s), facility 

address, city, state, and zip code; facility 

latitude and longitude, facility owner’s 

first and last name and full mailing 

address. For example, EPA makes these 

data available now through its ECHO 

Web site (http://echo.epa.gov) and 

Envirofacts (http:// 

www.epa.gov/enviro/). 

EPA did not propose any changes to 

the way in which it protects 

confidential business information (CBI) 

in implementing electronic reporting. It 

is long-standing existing law that 

information required by an NPDES 

application form may not be claimed 

confidential. 40 CFR 122.7(b) and (c). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71075 

6For example, EPA electronically collects Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) from chemical 

manufacturers through EPA’s CDX system. These chemical manufacturers can claim these PMNs as 

CBI. See DCN 0116. 

With respect to CAFO Annual 

Program Reports, EPA discussed how it 

will handle claims of CBI for these data 

in the 2003 CAFO rule (February 12, 

2003, 68 FR 7233). In particular, the 

2003 CAFO rulemaking states: 

EPA expects that the permitting authority 

will make this information available to the 

public upon request. This should foster 

public confidence that CAFOs are complying 

with the requirements of the rule. In 

particular, the information in the annual 

report will confirm that CAFOs have 

obtained coverage under an NPDES permit, 

are appropriately controlling discharges from 

the production area, and have developed and 

are implementing a nutrient management 

plan . . . Under the existing regulations at 40 

CFR part 2, subpart B, a facility may make 

a claim of confidentiality for information it 

must submit and EPA must evaluate this 

claim if it receives a request for the 

information from the public . . . Claims of 

confidentiality with respect to information 

submitted to the State will be processed and 

evaluated under State regulations. 

The proposed NPDES Electronic 

Reporting rule does not change the longstanding procedures for dealing with 

public and confidential information in 

the existing NPDES regulations. 

Additionally, EPA has the capability of 

electronically collecting CBI through 

EPA’s CDX system and may use this 

capability to allow NPDES permitted 

CAFOs to securely submit their CAFO 

Annual Program Reports.6

Some commenters raised questions 

about the authority of states and EPA to 

inspect CAFOs. Section 308 of the CWA 

authorizes inspections of premises 

where effluent sources are located, 33 

U.S.C. 1318(a)(B), and data gathering 

from point sources that discharge or 

may discharge, 33 U.S.C. 1318(a)(A), 

even if those facilities are not required 

to have a permit because they do not 

discharge. See also 33 U.S.C. 1342 

(requiring that authorized state 

programs have the same authority to 

inspect, monitor, enter, and require 

reports as section 308 of the Act). States 

and EPA gather information from point 

sources, including CAFOs, that 

discharge pollutants or may discharge 

pollutants for a variety of purposes, 

including determining compliance with 

applicable effluent limitations and 

verifying that the CAFO is not in fact 

discharging without a permit. See 33 

U.S.C. 1318. 

Stakeholders raised concerns about 

EPA posting information on 

unpermitted CAFOs and AFOs on EPA’s 

public Web site. The Clean Water Act 

specifically identifies concentrated 

animal feeding operations as a type of 

‘‘point source.’’ See 33 U.S.C. 1362(14). 

The NPDES permit program regulates 

discharges of pollutants from point 

sources. It is important for authorized 

NPDES programs (generally states) to 

report inspection information on all 

facilities (permitted or unpermitted) to 

EPA, as they currently do, so that EPA 

can know that the state has inspected 

the facility and found either that there 

is no discharge and no permit is 

required or there is a discharge and a 

possible violation. This reporting also 

benefits the facility because it avoids a 

possibly duplicative EPA inspection. 

In order to address comments 

regarding the privacy interests of an 

unpermitted CAFO and AFO that an 

authorized state NPDES program or EPA 

has assessed and found to have not 

violated the Clean Water Act, EPA is 

proposing a change to its current 

practice regarding the facility specific 

information it collects from states and 

posts to its ECHO Web site for these 

facilities (unpermitted CAFOs and 

AFOs that state inspectors found were 

not discharging and do not require an 

NPDES permit). EPA is proposing to 

mask all facility identifying information 

for this subset of facilities and only post 

the information submitted by states on 

the total number of inspections of these 

facilities by state. 

EPA is proposing to make this change 

a year after the effective date of the final 

rule. EPA anticipates it will need a year 

after the final rule to coordinate with 

states on identifying the exact set of 

CAFOs and AFOs currently in EPA’s 

data systems that qualify for this 

proposed facility specific information 

redaction and the necessary data 

management rules for future state 

inspections of CAFOs and AFOs. This 

proposed change addresses the concerns 

from agricultural stakeholders about 

posting facility specific information for 

CAFOs that are not discharging and not 

required to have NPDES permits. EPA 

seeks comment on this proposed change 

and the proposed timing. 

The following is an example of how 

EPA could mask facility name and 

location (address and latitude and 

longitude) as well as facility contact 

information (contact name and phone 

number) for its ECHO Web site. [Note: 

Each unpermitted CAFO and AFO that 

does not have a Clean Water Act 

violation as determined by the 

authorized state NPDES program or EPA 

would have a unique number as shown 

below in Facility #2.] 

Facility #1—unmasked information Facility #2—masked information 

Show-Me State Animal Farm, Location: 11300 Ozark Lane, Perryville, 

Missouri 63775, County: Perry, Lat.: 37.836084, Long: ¥89.738644, 

Contact: Grant Wood, Phone: 999–867–5309, Inspection(s): 3/14/

2010 (no violation identified); 6/22/2014 (discharging without an 

NPDES permit). 

Unpermitted CAFO/AFO–0000001, Location: Missouri, County: Redacted from Web site, Lat./Long.: Redacted from Website, Contact: 

Redacted from Web site, Phone: Redacted from Website, Inspection(s): 2/17/2009 (no violation identified); 5/25/2013 (no violation 

identified). 

The above table is provided for 

illustration only. In this hypothetical 

example, the unpermitted CAFO shown 

in the column labeled ‘‘Facility #1— 

Unmasked Information’’ would not have 

its facility and contact information 

displayed on EPA’s Web site until the 

weekly refresh of ECHO data from ICIS– 

NPDES after 22 June 2014, which is the 

date the state or EPA Region identified 

that the facility had a Clean Water Act 

violation (i.e., discharging without an 

NPDES permit) and entered these data 

into ICIS–NPDES. If an unpermitted 

CAFO does not have a Clean Water Act 

violation as determined by the 

authorized state NPDES program or 

EPA, then the facility and contact 

information would not be displayed on 

EPA’s ECHO Web site (see the column 

labeled ‘‘Facility #2—Masked 

Information’’ in the above table). 

EPA solicits comment on this 

approach. Additionally, under existing 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B, a facility, including any 

CAFO or AFO, may make a claim of 

confidentiality for information it must 

submit to EPA or to the authorized 

State. These claims will be processed 

and evaluated under federal or State 

regulations, respectively. 

Agricultural stakeholders also 

commented that electronic reporting of 

NPDES program data may provide a 

disincentive to seek NPDES permit 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71076 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

coverage in order to keep information 

related to the facility and facility contact 

out of EPA’s databases. EPA has a 

statutory duty to implement a 

permitting program for CAFOs that 

discharge. This proposed rule does not 

change the requirement that CAFOs 

discharging pollutants into waters of the 

United States are subject to NPDES 

regulation. 

Finally, in response to comments 

received, EPA is soliciting comment on 

a few changes to CAFO data elements in 

Appendix A to Part 127 (see DCN 0108). 

EPA believes that these edits, generated 

from comments by states, make the 

revised Appendix A more clear and 

implementable (see DCN 0128 through 

0142). 

D. Stormwater Sector 

EPA received a number of comments 

on how electronic reporting will be 

implemented for NPDES-regulated 

entities that manage stormwater. The 

following section describes these 

comments. 

1. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

Systems (MS4s) 

Polluted stormwater runoff is 

commonly transported through 

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

Systems (MS4s), from which it is often 

discharged untreated into local 

waterbodies. To prevent harmful 

pollutants from being washed or 

dumped into an MS4, regulated entities 

(e.g., municipalities) must obtain a 

NPDES permit and develop a 

stormwater management program. 

Under the proposed rule, MS4 regulated 

entities must electronically submit 

certain MS4 data. These data include: 

(1) Notices of intent (NOIs) for coverage 

under a NPDES general permit; and (2) 

MS4 program reports. 

NPDES general permits are most often 

used by NPDES permitting authorities 

for Phase II MS4s (i.e., smaller MS4s for 

which federal regulations were issued in 

1999). The MS4-specific data elements 

related to NOI submissions are 

identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 

127 at pp. 46093–46094 of the proposed 

rule. These MS4-specific data elements 

are in addition to basic facility and 

permit data that are also required to be 

submitted electronically, as identified in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 at pp. 

46084–46088 of the proposed rule. In a 

separate data submission, the 

authorized NPDES program will also 

share MS4 information (e.g., basic 

facility, permit, and MS4-specific 

information) from individual NPDES 

permit applications with EPA. 

EPA also proposed a requirement that 

MS4-regulated entities electronically 

submit their MS4 program reports, 

which is an existing compliance 

monitoring reporting requirement [see 

40 CFR 122. 42(c) and 40 CFR 

122.34(g)(3)]. The required MS4-specific 

data elements from the MS4 program 

reports are identified in Appendix A to 

40 CFR part 127 at pp. 46107–46108 of 

the proposed rule. 

During the public comment period for 

the proposed rule, several commenters, 

particularly from local governments, 

provided EPA with MS4-related 

comments. Many of these commenters 

expressed concern about how EPA 

would implement electronic reporting 

for MS4 regulated entities. In particular, 

they noted that MS4 program reports are 

generally not uniform as each MS4 

program implements its program 

differently. These commenters asked 

EPA to clarify its plans to standardize 

and electronically collect these data. 

EPA intends to use a combination of 

drop-down lists and text fields in its 

electronic reporting systems to 

effectively characterize the activities of 

the MS4 facilities for electronic 

reporting of NOIs and program reports. 

An example of this flexibility can be 

seen in EPA’s NOI form for Phase II 

MS4 regulated entities in Region 1 (see 

DCN 0110). EPA recognizes that 

requirements will vary from one state to 

another; therefore, the electronic 

reporting systems developed by EPA or 

by other parties will need to be 

adaptable to reflect the additional 

information that particular states may 

seek in addition to the data described in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. 

Some commenters indicated that it 

would be helpful if the information 

provided in electronic NOIs could be 

used to ‘‘auto-fill’’ or pre-populate data 

submitted with MS4 program reports. 

EPA is interested in making electronic 

reporting as easy as possible and will 

review this suggestion as part of the 

development of its NPDES eReporting 

Tool (NeT). 

Several commenters also indicated 

that EPA should adjust Appendix A to 

40 CFR part 127 to better reflect the 

different requirements and terminology 

utilized for Phase I MS4s (i.e., those 

large and medium MS4s for which 

federal regulations were issued in 1990) 

and Phase II MS4s. EPA solicits 

comment on potential specific changes 

to Appendix A related to MS4s (see 

DCN 0108). 

2. Industrial and Construction 

Stormwater Electronic Reporting 

Stormwater runoff from construction 

and industrial activities can have a 

significant impact on water quality. As 

stormwater flows over a construction or 

industrial site, it can pick up pollutants 

like sediment, debris, and chemicals 

and transport these to a nearby storm 

sewer system or directly to a river, lake, 

or coastal water. The proposed rule 

requires construction operators and 

industrial facilities seeking coverage by 

an NPDES permit or a waiver from 

having to have NPDES permit coverage 

to electronically submit data. 

In the preamble to the proposed rule 

(pp. 46025–46027) and in the proposed 

regulatory text [40 CFR 127.11(b)], EPA 

stated that operators of regulated 

construction sites and industrial 

facilities would be required to 

electronically submit NOIs for coverage 

under a NPDES general permit. Under 

the proposed rule authorized NPDES 

programs would also electronically 

process data from paper NPDES 

individual permit applications 

submitted by construction operators (see 

Appendix A). In total, this data includes 

certain categories of industrial activities 

and large construction sites regulated by 

the Phase I stormwater regulations 

promulgated in 1990 and small 

construction sites identified in the 

Phase II stormwater regulations 

promulgated in 1999. These regulated 

entities may already be required by their 

permits to electronically submit DMRs. 

In a separate data submission, the 

authorized NPDES program would also 

share additional information (e.g., basic 

facility, permit, and construction and 

industrial stormwater information) with 

EPA from individual NPDES permit 

applications and waiver or exclusion 

from NPDES permitting determinations. 

During the public comment period, 

some commenters indicated that the 

universe of NPDES-regulated 

construction sites was large and 

changing often as sites were completed. 

These commenters had concerns about 

how electronic reporting would work 

for this large and changing universe of 

NPDES-regulated entities. In particular, 

some of these commenters noted the 

difficulty in getting construction 

operators to apply for and maintain 

electronic signatures for use with 

CROMERR electronic reporting systems. 

As an alternative to use of a CROMERR 

electronic reporting system one 

commenter suggested EPA allow NPDES 

programs the possibility of using 

automatic identification and data 

capture technology [e.g., two 

dimensional barcodes such as Quick 

Response (QR) codes, optical character 

recognition]. For example, a potential 

user could complete an online form and 

then print out a paper copy of the form 

with a two-dimensional barcode or in a 

format that can be used by an optical 

character reader. The potential user 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71077 

would then certify these data as correct 

by signing this paper print-out in ink. 

The use of this data capture technology 

could enable a NPDES-regulated entity 

to submit NPDES program data on paper 

with a ‘‘wet-ink’’ signature and have the 

NPDES program data structured to allow 

easy data importation into the state data 

system and subsequent sharing with 

EPA. This would mean that the state 

would need to procure and manage this 

automatic identification and data 

capture technology, maintain the paper 

submission with the NPDES program 

data and ‘‘wet-ink’’ signature, and train 

potential users; however, some states 

have suggested this option may be less 

burdensome than requiring all 

construction stormwater NPDESregulated entities to obtain and maintain 

a digital signature. 

Some commenters suggested that EPA 

adjust the minimum set of federal 

NPDES data (Appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 127) to better distinguish between 

construction stormwater and industrial 

stormwater data elements as well as 

required data for individual application 

versus NOIs for coverage under a 

general permit. EPA solicits comments 

on these potential changes to Appendix 

A (see DCN 0108). 

E. Economic Analysis 

EPA received numerous comments 

related to its economic analysis of the 

incremental costs associated with the 

proposed rule. Commenters include 

state environmental agencies, 

municipalities, private industry, and 

trade groups and associations. The 

majority of the comments focused on 

rule implementation costs, data entry 

burden, dual reporting requirements, 

benefits of the rule, and impacts on 

small entities. 

Commenters expressed concern that 

the economic analysis may not 

accurately reflect the financial impact 

on states because it excludes or 

underestimates costs for information 

technology (IT) system development 

and upgrades; annual IT maintenance 

and operation (e.g., a hotline for NPDESregulated entities; password resets; 

system maintenance); outreach and 

training for NPDES-regulated entities; 

training of program staff; and revisions 

to statutes or regulations to implement 

the proposed rule. 

A number of commenters also 

suggested that that the Economic 

Analysis underestimated the costs to 

NPDES-regulated entities. For example, 

a number of larger companies, 

municipalities, and sanitation districts 

indicate that they would need to 

upgrade their data management systems 

to be compatible with the state’s or 

EPA’s new electronic system. They also 

expressed concern that the analysis 

underestimated costs to NPDESregulated entities operating in multiple 

states, because they will need to 

generate customized reports related to 

permit conditions and state formatting 

requirements. 

Small entities with NPDES permits 

such as small municipalities, CAFOs, 

and construction firms stated that the 

analysis did not take into account that 

some NPDES-regulated entities may 

need to buy a computer and obtain 

Internet access or travel to a site (e.g., 

local library) with public access to 

computers in order to electronically 

enter and submit the required data. EPA 

notes that some of these facilities may 

be eligible for temporary waivers. Some 

commenters also noted that electronic 

data entry could be more difficult and 

time-consuming than writing data on 

paper, especially for entities that do not 

have extensive computer experience. 

Commenters indicated that attending 

trainings for the electronic systems 

could be a burden to small entities. 

Some NPDES-regulated entities 

expressed concern that they could be 

designing their internal data 

management systems and procedures for 

electronic reporting directly to EPA and 

then potentially redesigning them for a 

different state system at a later time if 

the Initial Recipient changes. 

Some commenters also questioned the 

benefits associated with the proposed 

rule. They argued that the reason that 

most states have not expanded 

electronic reporting to NOIs and 

program reports is because electronic 

reporting on seldom-reported 

documents (such as once a year 

reporting or once every five year No 

Exposure Certifications) or simple but 

very frequently received documents 

(such as Notices of Termination for 

construction stormwater general 

permits) will require more ad-hoc time 

and staff than accepting such 

documents via FAX, as PDFs via email, 

or as a hard copy. Some commenters 

also disagreed with EPA’s analysis that 

the rule will result in improvements in 

water quality and increases in permittee 

compliance due to better awareness of 

compliance status and public scrutiny. 

EPA received few data from 

commenters that can be used to update 

its economic analysis. EPA solicits 

additional data and information to 

inform the economic analysis 

supporting this rule (see EPA–HQ– 

OECA–2009–0274–0135). For example, 

EPA solicits data on the savings due to 

the more efficient form preparation and 

processing (including postage savings) 

as well as savings related to improved 

data quality as electronic reporting tools 

will include the ability to check for 

certain types of errors. 

EPA received a number of comments 

regarding the proposed rule’s potential 

Federalism implications, expressing 

concern that the proposal could infringe 

upon the lead role of authorized states, 

tribes, and territories. EPA wants to 

clarify that it does not intend to change 

or infringe upon the lead role of 

authorized states, tribes, and territories. 

The purpose of the proposed rule is to 

shift the collection and management of 

information from NPDES forms and 

reports from a paper-based system to an 

electronic-based system. The proposed 

rule does not change the wellestablished relationship between EPA 

and authorized state, tribal, and 

territorial programs as these authorized 

programs will continue to be the lead in 

all aspects of the NPDES program 

including permitting, inspections, 

compliance determinations, and 

enforcement actions. Under the existing 

regulatory scheme, authorized states, 

tribes, territories are already required to 

collect the information covered by this 

rule from NPDES-regulated entities and 

make it available to EPA. The main 

focus of the proposed rule is to have 

that information submitted 

electronically, saving time and money 

for states as well as the regulated 

community. EPA notes that close 

coordination and discussion with states 

about the best way to move towards the 

shared goal of shifting to electronic 

reporting is very important and EPA has 

gone beyond just complying with the 

Presidential Executive Order that 

requires EPA to work collaboratively 

with states and local governments. 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ EPA and several 

authorized state NPDES programs are 

regularly holding discussions and 

technical exchanges on all aspects of the 

rulemaking (see DCN 0111) and these 

discussions have meaningfully informed 

several aspects of this supplemental 

notice. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13132, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and state and local governments, 

EPA specifically solicits comment on 

the proposed rule and this supplemental 

notice from state and local officials. EPA 

will continue to consult with state and 

local officials throughout the rule 

development process to ensure they 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71078 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7See ‘‘Standards for the Use or Disposal of 

Sewage Sludge,’’ 40 CFR part 503. 

8EPA has authorized eight states to run the 

Federal biosolids program (40 CFR part 503). These 

eight states are Arizona, Michigan, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. 

have meaningful and timely 

opportunities for input. 

F. Waivers 

In the preamble to the proposed rule, 

EPA introduced the concept of 

temporary waivers from electronic 

reporting of NPDES information. As 

described in the proposed rule at 40 

CFR 127.15, these temporary waivers 

would be made available at the 

discretion of the authorized NPDES 

program (and subject to EPA review) in 

situations where regulated facilities 

lacked sufficient broadband availability. 

The process for granting such temporary 

waivers from electronic reporting is 

described in the proposed regulation at 

40 CFR 127.24. Authorized NPDES 

programs would be required to enter the 

hard-copy NPDES information 

submitted by facilities with waivers into 

the state or federal NPDES data system 

and share it with EPA. Under the 

proposal, temporary waivers would be 

available for one year at a time. EPA 

requested comment on the need for such 

temporary waivers, possible options for 

such waivers, and on the possibility of 

temporary waivers for religious reasons. 

During the public comment period for 

the proposed rule, EPA received several 

comments on temporary waivers. The 

majority of the comments on this topic 

supported the overall concept of 

temporary waivers from NPDES 

electronic reporting; three commenters 

disagreed. Commenters suggested that 

EPA should make permanent waivers 

for NPDES-regulated entities located in 

religious communities (e.g., Amish, 

Mennonite, and Hutterite). Other 

comments indicated support for making 

temporary waivers automatic in certain 

locations (e.g., areas where less than 10 

percent of the population has sufficient 

broadband availability). Commenters 

expressed support for waivers that 

would have a longer duration than the 

one-year renewable timeframe identified 

in the proposed rule. Several 

commenters suggested that waivers 

should also be made available for 

certain circumstances beyond 

broadband availability issues, such as 

undue burden or cost. States also 

requested that they be provided with 

more flexibility in providing waivers 

from electronic reporting. A few 

commenters also suggested that EPA 

make the determinations of temporary 

waiver eligibility rather than the states, 

even if the state has authorization to 

implement the NPDES program. As 

described in Section IV, EPA solicits 

comment on temporary waivers and 

permanent waivers for NPDES-regulated 

entities located in religious 

communities. 

G. Miscellaneous Issues 

This section describes other issues 

raised by commenters. 

1. Electronic Reporting for the 

Pesticides General Permit and Vessels 

General Permit 

Several commenters had questions 

regarding the application of the 

proposed rule to regulated entities 

subject to EPA’s Pesticides General 

Permit and Vessels General Permit. EPA 

provides NPDES permit coverage for 

pesticide applicators where EPA is the 

permitting authority and vessel 

operators nationwide. These permits 

predate the proposed NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule; however, EPA has 

developed an electronic reporting 

system for these regulated entities to 

submit Notices of Intent (NOIs) for 

coverage under these general permits. 

EPA currently allows operators to 

request a waiver from electronic 

reporting based on an undue burden or 

expense associated with electronic 

reporting (see DCN 0112). There are no 

additional costs to EPA or the operators 

regulated by EPA’s pesticide applicators 

and vessels general permits with 

implementation of the proposed rule as 

nearly all of these regulated entities are 

already using EPA’s electronic reporting 

system. EPA will incorporate data on 

pesticide applicators regulated by state 

permits into the economic analysis. 

EPA is not proposing to exempt these 

two permits from the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule. In particular, EPA’s 

General Permit regulations (40 CFR 

122.28) apply to all general permits and 

EPA’s proposed revisions to this 

regulatory language that implement 

electronic reporting do not exclude 

pesticide applicators or vessel operators 

(or any other sector or general permit). 

EPA will require electronic reporting of 

general permit reports (i.e., NOIs, NOTs, 

LEWs, and NECs) and DMRs (if required 

by the NPDES permit) when it re-issues 

these permits after the effective date of 

the final rule. EPA intends to clarify this 

in the final rule and supporting 

documentation. 

2. Modification of Data Elements in 

Appendix A 

In response to public comments on 

the proposed rule, EPA reviewed the 

minimum set of federal NPDES data 

(Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) and 

is seeking comment on potential 

changes to some of these data elements 

(see DCN 0108). Additionally, EPA is 

seeking comment on including two data 

elements that support the Clean 

Watersheds Needs Survey, which is 

conducted by EPA under authority of 

Sections 205(a) and 516 of the Clean 

Water Act. These changes would reduce 

burden on states by eliminating most of 

the need for EPA to collect these two 

data elements from states as part of its 

quadrennial survey. These two POTW 

data elements are: (1) POTW 

Wastewater Treatment Technology 

Level Description [The highest level of 

treatment (e.g., primary equivalent to 

secondary, secondary, advanced, other) 

that the POTW provides at each outfall]; 

and (2) POTW Wastewater Treatment 

Technology Unit Operations [The 

treatment technology unit process 

information at each outfall for POTWs 

greater than 10 MGD]. Example 

wastewater treatment technology level 

descriptions and unit operations are 

provided in the docket (see DCN 0113). 

3. Biosolids Annual Report 

Several EPA Regions are using the 

DMR form to collect data for the 

Biosolids Annual Report as required by 

EPA regulations.7 These regulations 

require that all Publicly Owned 

Treatment Works (POTWs) servicing a 

population greater than 10,000, having a 

design flow rate greater than one million 

gallons per day, or designated as Class 

I facilities submit an annual report to 

the permitting authority every year on 

February 19th. In particular, EPA 

Region 6 is using the NetDMR electronic 

reporting system to collect data for the 

Biosolids Annual Report from facilities 

in Region 6 states (see DCN 0114 and 

0115). EPA solicits comment on the 

practicality of using the DMR form to 

collect data for the Biosolids Annual 

Report. EPA notes that using the DMR 

form may be difficult to capture specific 

information related to pathogen 

reduction methods, vector attraction 

reduction methods, cumulative and 

annual loading rates, incineration 

related data, and site restrictions. EPA 

notes that the use of the DMR form to 

report Biosolid Annual Report data, 

while more efficient, may reduce the 

ability of the authorized NPDES 

program to determine facility-level 

compliance. EPA also solicits comment 

on allowing POTWs to use state eDMR 

systems to submit their Biosolids 

Annual Report when the state is not 

authorized for the biosolids program.8

EPA also solicits comment on 

changing the deadline for submission of 

these Biosolids Annual Reports from 

Phase 2 (two years after the effective 

date of the final rule) to Phase 1 (one 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71079 

year after the effective date of the final 

rule). EPA notes that only eight states 

are authorized to run the Federal 

Biosolids Program (40 CFR part 503). 

This means that EPA implements the 

biosolids program and collects these 

annual reports for 42 states as well as 

tribes and territories. 

In addition, EPA Region 7 (Kansas 

City, KS) is the EPA National Biosolids 

Center of Excellence and this center is 

dedicated to creating efficiencies in the 

Federal Biosolids Program. EPA’s 

National Biosolids Center coordinates 

all assistance to states and NPDES 

regulated entities on the Federal 

Biosolids Program and collects and 

reviews Biosolids Annual Reports for all 

facilities in the 42 states as well as tribes 

and territories where EPA implements 

the NPDES program for biosolids. This 

EPA office is capable of standardizing 

the Annual Biosolids Report for those 

42 states, tribes, and territories, and 

providing individual help for each of 

the eight authorized states in order to 

resolve any outstanding implementation 

issues (e.g., State Readiness Criteria) 

within the first year of implementation 

of the rule. EPA would like to realize 

the many benefits of electronic reporting 

for the Annual Biosolids Report as soon 

as possible and solicits comment on 

changing the deadline for submission of 

these Biosolids Annual Reports from 

Phase 2 to Phase 1. 

IV. Matters for Which Comments Are 

Sought 

The following sections identify 

specific issues on which EPA invites 

comment. Please note that there is no 

need to re-submit comments previously 

submitted to EPA’s docket for this 

rulemaking. You may find the following 

suggestions helpful when preparing 

your comments to EPA on the proposed 

rule and this notice: 

• To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

identify the appropriate docket 

identification number (found in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register notice) in the subject line on 

the first page of your comments or 

response. 

• To help ensure that your 

submission is routed correctly, on the 

first page of your submission, provide 

the name of the proposed rule; date of 

the Federal Register notice; and the 

Federal Register citation (e.g., ll 

[volume number] FR ll [page 

number]) related to your comments or 

response. 

• Clearly identify those sections of 

the preamble or the proposed rule on 

which you are commenting. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

and explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

• Describe clearly any assumptions 

that you used as a basis for your 

comments. 

• Provide any technical information 

and/or data that you used to support 

your views. 

• If you provide any estimate of 

potential economic burdens or costs, 

please carefully consider the 

information provided in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, particularly in 

Sections VII (Non-Monetary Benefits 

and Economic Analysis), VIII.A 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), 

VIII.C (Regulatory Flexibility Act), and 

IV.D (Data Considerations), and provide 

detailed explanations of how you 

arrived at your estimate. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your comments or concerns. 

• Clearly identify your preferences 

and, if applicable, offer feasible 

alternatives that will effectively meet 

the same goals. 

Submit your comments as directed in 

the ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register notice before the comment 

period deadline identified in the DATES

section of this notice. 

A. Implementation Plan 

1. EPA solicits comment from the 

states on making the Initial Recipient 

determination in Section 127.27(a) an 

‘opt-out’ process for an authorized state, 

tribe, or territory NPDES programs. 

Under this process, an authorized 

NPDES program would need to notify 

EPA within 120 days of the effective 

date of the final rule if it wishes EPA to 

be the Initial Recipient for a particular 

data group. If EPA receives no such 

notification, EPA would designate the 

state, tribe, or territorial NPDES program 

as the Initial Recipient. 

2. EPA solicits comment on additional 

means for providing notice to NPDES 

regulated entities on the Initial 

Recipient status. 

3. In order to provide a clearer 

distinction between the Initial Recipient 

and State Readiness Criteria terms, EPA 

solicits comment on eliminating the 

third factor in the State Readiness 

Criteria (i.e., Initial Recipient Status). 

4. EPA solicits comment on different 

options for using a phased approach or 

longer interval before applying 

participation rate as part of the State 

Readiness Criteria. For example, EPA 

could require increasing participation 

rates over a longer implementation 

period (e.g., 30 percent participation 

rate for Year 1, 60 percent participation 

rate for Year 2, and 90 percent 

participation rate for Year 3). 

5. EPA solicits comment on the 

concept of using EPA’s CWA authority 

through use of an ICR to require NPDESregulated entities to electronically 

submit their NPDES program data to 

their authorized state, tribe, or territory 

as a ‘‘fill in the gaps’’ measure where the 

authorized NPDES program has a 

CROMERR-approved electronic tool. 

The proposed rule had NPDES-regulated 

entities reporting these data to EPA. 

EPA would retain the ability to assess 

and pursue enforcement actions on 

NPDES-regulated entities that fail to 

comply with the data submission 

requirements. 

6. EPA solicits comment on extending 

or adding additional phasing to the 

implementation period, linking 

implementation of electronic reporting 

to the NPDES permit cycle for entities 

with NPDES permits, or allowing states 

to extend their implementation of 

electronic reporting to a specific date 

following EPA approval of their 

individual implementation plan. These 

implementation plans would need to be 

approved by the authorized NPDES 

Director (as defined in 40 CFR 122.2). 

7. EPA solicits comment on the option 

to calculate for each authorized NPDES 

program one DMR electronic 

submission participant rate for 

individually permitted facilities and 

another DMR electronic submission 

participant rate for general permit 

covered facilities. 

8. EPA solicits comments on practical 

ways to streamline the implementation 

of the approval process for CROMERR 

within the parameters of the existing 

CROMERR regulation. 

9. EPA solicits comment on the option 

of EPA using its CWA authority through 

use of an ICR to require facilities 

operating under backlogged permits to 

electronically submit their NPDES 

program data. 

B. Stormwater Sector 

1. EPA solicits comment on its 

proposed approach to use a combination 

of drop-down lists and text fields in its 

electronic reporting systems to 

effectively characterize the activities of 

the MS4 facilities for electronic 

reporting of NOIs and program reports. 

2. EPA solicits comment on providing 

flexibility in the final rule for the 

construction stormwater program that 

would allow authorized NPDES 

programs the possibility of using 

automatic identification and data 

capture technology (e.g., two 

dimensional barcodes, optical character 

recognition) instead of requiring 

construction site operators to secure and 

maintain electronic signature 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71080 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9See the economic analysis for the proposed rule 

for more information on these training sessions 

(EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0274–0135). 

credentials for use with CROMERR 

compliant electronic reporting systems. 

3. EPA also solicits comment on 

changes to stormwater data elements in 

Appendix A (see DCN 0108). 

C. Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operations (CAFO) Sector 

1. EPA solicits comment on the 

approach of removing facility specific 

information from EPA’s ECHO Web 

page about non-permitted CAFO/AFOs 

that state inspectors found were not 

discharging and do not require an 

NPDES permit. As discussed in this 

notice, EPA is proposing to mask facility 

specific information on these 

unpermitted CAFO/AFOs and only 

show the total number of these masked 

facilities by state. EPA plans to enhance 

its data system (ICIS–NPDES) to provide 

states and Regions with the necessary 

capability to identify these nonpermitted CAFO/AFOs that do not 

require an NPDES permit. In particular, 

after these enhancements States and 

Regions will need to enter or verify the 

following data into ICIS–NPDES for 

each non-permitted CAFO/AFO that 

does not require an NPDES permit: 

(1) Unpermitted CAFO/AFO has an 

‘‘Unpermitted ID’’ with no associated 

‘‘NPDES Permit ID;’’ (2) unpermitted 

CAFO/AFO has a ‘‘CAFO Permit 

Component;’’ and (3) unpermitted 

CAFO/AFO has no CWA NPDES 

violations. If these three conditions are 

met EPA will remove facility specific 

information for these facilities from 

EPA’s ECHO Web page one year after 

the effective date of the final rule. EPA 

solicits comment on the timing of this 

proposed change. 

2. As previously discussed in Section 

III.C, agricultural stakeholders focused 

their comments on the public 

availability of Appendix A data related 

to CAFOs. EPA emphasizes that this 

rule would not require any information 

to be disclosed that is not already 

available to EPA and the public 

pursuant to the Clean Water Act. 

3. EPA is soliciting comment on a few 

changes to CAFO data elements in 

Appendix A to Part 127 (see DCN 0108). 

EPA believes that these edits, generated 

from comments by states, make the 

revised Appendix A more clear and 

implementable (see DCN 0128 through 

0142). 

D. Economic Analysis 

1. EPA solicits comment on what 

NPDES program information technology 

upgrades might be necessary for 

regulatory authorities or NPDESregulated entities. For example, EPA 

seeks information on the labor hours 

and capital equipment and/or software 

needed to upgrade or expand state batch 

system databases to store all Appendix 

A data. For labor hour estimates, please 

provide the labor category for the hours 

needed. Please also provide information 

on the number of Appendix A data 

elements for which the upgrade/

expansion is needed. 

2. EPA solicits comment on the 

expected costs for CROMERR 

implementation as it specifically relates 

to the proposed NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule. For example, please 

provide estimates of burden (including 

labor category) and costs for using EPA’s 

electronic reporting systems. 

3. EPA solicits comment on the 

expected costs for eNOI and eProgram 

Report training. For example, please 

provide the amount of training (in labor 

hours) that NPDES-regulated entities 

and states would require in the use of 

electronic systems for NOIs and 

program reports, including the labor 

categories (e.g., managerial, technical, 

clerk, etc.). EPA will be training states 

that elect to use EPA’s electronic 

reporting systems on how to use these 

tools and how to train potential users. 

EPA will work with states on the 

training needs of potential users and 

conduct some training sessions at the 

request of the states. States will also be 

responsible for conducting regular 

training sessions for NPDES-regulated 

entities on how to use EPA’s electronic 

reporting systems.9

4. EPA solicits comment on costs 

related to computer and Internet access 

for NPDES-regulated entities. For 

example, EPA solicits comment and 

information on the number or percent of 

NPDES-regulated entities that do not 

currently have readily available access 

to a computer and/or the Internet. 

Please also provide the estimated cost of 

a computer and/or Internet access and 

the labor hours and labor categories as 

well as any travel expenses related to 

offsite computer and Internet access 

(e.g., local public library). 

5. EPA solicits comment on costs 

related the use of existing electronic 

systems. For example, EPA asks 

authorized NPDES programs to provide 

information on the utilization of 

existing electronic systems in terms of 

the percent of major and minor 

permittees (by individual and general 

permit covered facilities) and other 

NPDES-regulated entities actively 

reporting to DMR, NOIs, and/or program 

report systems. 

6. EPA solicits comments on the 

difference in labor hours associated 

with the current regulatory requirement 

for states to produce an annual 

noncompliance report (ANCR) versus 

the labor hours that would be associated 

with a state’s review of non-major 

noncompliance information in the 

proposed quarterly NPDES 

noncompliance report (NNCR) 

generated by EPA. 

E. Waivers 

1. EPA solicits comment on whether 

waivers from NPDES electronic 

reporting should be automatic for 

counties where only a small fraction of 

the population (e.g., less than 10 

percent) has sufficient broadband 

availability. 

2. EPA solicits comment on the 

appropriate effective timeframe for these 

‘‘automatic’’ waivers. Should there be a 

review period for these ‘‘automatic’’ 

waivers? 

3. EPA solicits comment on whether 

temporary waivers should extend for the 

life of the NPDES permit or another 

timeframe. 

4. EPA solicits comment on whether 

EPA should allow authorized NPDES 

programs to grant a temporary waiver 

based on the NPDES-regulated entity’s 

lack of technical expertise and what 

criteria, if any, the authorized program 

should use in making these decisions. 

5. EPA solicits comment on whether 

it should make available in the final rule 

permanent waivers for NPDES-regulated 

entities located in religious 

communities where electronic reporting 

would not be consistent with the 

community’s religious beliefs (e.g., 

Amish, Mennonite, and Hutterite). 

F. Miscellaneous Issues 

1. EPA is soliciting comment on how 

to improve public accessibility and 

usability of the data. EPA notes that this 

proposed rule does not change the 

Agency’s public disclosure regulations 

(40 CFR 2). 

2. EPA reviewed the minimum set of 

federal NPDES data (Appendix A to 40 

CFR part 127) and is seeking comment 

on potential changes to some of these 

data elements (see DCN 0108). 

3. EPA solicits comment on the 

practicality of using the DMR form to 

collect data for the Biosolids Annual 

Report. EPA also solicits comment on 

allowing POTWs to use state eDMR 

systems to submit their Biosolids 

Annual Report when the state is not 

authorized for the biosolids program. 

4. EPA also solicits comment on 

changing the deadline for submission of 

these Biosolids Annual Reports from 

Phase 2 (two years after the effective 

date of the final rule) to Phase 1 (one 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71081 

year after the effective date of the final 

rule). 

V. Outreach 

Section VI of the proposed rule details 

EPA extensive outreach efforts prior to 

the proposed rule. EPA continued this 

outreach during the public comment 

period on the proposed rule (DCN 

0111). In particular, EPA held over 30 

webinars and meetings with over 1,200 

people to discuss the proposed rule. 

Upon publication of this notice, EPA 

will provide a new comment period and 

will conduct additional stakeholders 

meetings to further discuss and refine 

particular aspects of the rule prior to 

promulgation. Outreach to stakeholders 

will continue to be supported through 

the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

Web site; however, the Web site may be 

expanded to include more robust rule 

schedules as the rule nears 

promulgation, as well as additional rule 

documentation that may or may not be 

included as part of the formal docket 

library. Stakeholders that wish to hold 

a meeting with EPA should send an 

email to Messrs. Hudock or Johnston 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section). 

Finally, EPA would also continue to 

provide technical assistance and 

support to states, tribes, and territories 

during the transition to electronic 

reporting. Outreach from EPA to the 

states, tribes, and territories may be very 

useful in the identification of specific 

needs and the development of such 

assistance, support, and funding. EPA 

also solicits comment and suggestions 

on how to reach and inform the broad 

range of facilities affected by this 

proposed rulemaking. 

VI. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

[58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)] this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ Accordingly, EPA submitted 

this action to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 

any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 122 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Hazardous substances, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

40 CFR Part 123 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Hazardous substances, 

Indians—lands, Intergovernmental 

relations, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

pollution control. 

40 CFR Part 127 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Electronic reporting 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

40 CFR Part 403 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Compliance monitoring, 

Enforcement program and activities, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

40 CFR Part 501 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Indians—lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

requirements, Sewage disposal. 

40 CFR Part 503 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sewage disposal. 

Dated: November 18, 2014. 

Cynthia Giles, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27918 Filed 11–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 409, 410, 418, 440, 484, 

485 and 488 

[CMS–3819–N] 

Medicare and Medicaid Programs; 

Conditions of Participation for Home 

Health Agencies; Extension of 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: This notice extends the 

comment period for the October 9, 2014 

proposed rule entitled ‘‘Conditions of 

Participation for Home Health 

Agencies’’ (79 FR 61164). The comment 

period for the proposed rule, which 

would have ended on December 8, 2014, 

is extended for 30 days. 

DATES: The comment period is extended 

to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on 

January 7, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer 

to file code CMS–3819–P. Because of 

staff and resource limitations, we cannot 

accept comments by facsimile (FAX) 

transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

four ways (please choose only one of the 

ways listed): 

1. Electronically. You may submit 

electronic comments on this regulation 

to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions. 

2. By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments to the following 

address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Attention: 

CMS–3819–P, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, 

MD 21244–8016. 

Please allow sufficient time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

3. By express or overnight mail. You 

may send written comments to the 

following address only: Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Attention: CMS–3819–P, Mail 

Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. 

4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, 

you may deliver (by hand or courier) 

your written comments ONLY to the 

following addresses prior to the close of 

the comment period: 

a. For delivery in Washington, DC— 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert 

H. Humphrey Building, 200 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. (Because access 

to the interior of the Hubert H. 

Humphrey Building is not readily 

available to persons without Federal 

government identification, commenters 

are encouraged to leave their comments 

in the CMS drop slots located in the 

main lobby of the building. A stamp-in 

clock is available for persons wishing to 

retain a proof of filing by stamping in 

and retaining an extra copy of the 

comments being filed.) 

b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD— 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. 

If you intend to deliver your 

comments to the Baltimore address, call 

telephone number (410) 786–9994 in 

advance to schedule your arrival with 

one of our staff members. 

Comments erroneously mailed to the 

addresses indicated as appropriate for 

hand or courier delivery may be delayed 

and received after the comment period. 

Inspection of Public Comments: All 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period are available for 

viewing by the public, including any 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS