Enforcement Targeting and Data Division 

Office of Compliance 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

DCN 0040 

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 

(www.regulations.gov) 

28 June 2013 

Economic Analysis of the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Electronic Reporting Proposed Rule 
ii 28 June 2013

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ ii

Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi

Table of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... viii

List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ ix

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... xi

ES.1 Purpose of the Proposed Rule ......................................................................................................... xi

ES.2 Savings, Costs, and Benefits ........................................................................................................... xi

ES.3 Major Factors Taken into Consideration in Estimating Savings and Costs .................................. xiv

ES.4 Key Acts and Regulations that Must be Addressed by the EA ..................................................... xiv

ES.5 Key Steps for Implementation ....................................................................................................... xiv

Section 1. – Background and Overview of the Economic Analysis of the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Statutory and Regulatory History of the NPDES Program .......................................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Clean Water Act .............................................................................................................. 1-2

1.2.2 1985 PCS Policy .............................................................................................................. 1-3

1.2.3 1987 Water Quality Act and 2000 Wet Weather Water Quality Act .............................. 1-3

1.3 Summary of the NPDES Program Reporting Requirements ........................................................ 1-3

1.3.1 Current Status .................................................................................................................. 1-3

1.3.2 Regulated Entity Types ................................................................................................... 1-5

1.3.3 Expected Data ................................................................................................................. 1-6

1.3.4 Regulated Entity Supplied Data ...................................................................................... 1-7

1.3.5 Authorized NPDES Program Supplied Data ................................................................... 1-8

1.3.6 Electronic Reporting ....................................................................................................... 1-9

1.4 Description of the Proposed Rule ................................................................................................. 1-9

1.4.1 Statement of Need ........................................................................................................... 1-9

1.4.2 Changes to the NPDES Program under the Proposed Rule........................................... 1-10

1.5 Organization of the Report ......................................................................................................... 1-15

Section 2. – Estimating the Permit Universe and Required Data Reporting/Submittal ................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Types of NPDES Permits ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.2 NPDES Subprograms ...................................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.3 Required Data .................................................................................................................. 2-4

2.1.4 Organization of this Section ............................................................................................ 2-5

2.2 Summary of Permit Universe and Methods Used to Estimate Annual Frequencies for 

Required Reporting ...................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.3 Standard Industrial Direct Dischargers ........................................................................................ 2-6

2.3.1 Permit Universe ............................................................................................................... 2-6

2.3.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family ................................................................. 2-7

2.3.3 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.4 Biosolids ....................................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.4.1 Permit Universe ............................................................................................................... 2-9

2.4.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family ............................................................... 2-10

2.4.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-11

2.5 CAFOs ........................................................................................................................................ 2-11
iii 28 June 2013

2.5.1 Permit Universe ............................................................................................................. 2-12

2.5.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family ............................................................... 2-12

2.5.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-13

2.6 CSSs ........................................................................................................................................... 2-14

2.6.1 Permit Universe ............................................................................................................. 2-14

2.6.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family ............................................................... 2-15

2.6.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-16

2.7 Pretreatment ............................................................................................................................... 2-16

2.7.1 Permit Universe ............................................................................................................. 2-17

2.7.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family ............................................................... 2-17

2.7.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-19

2.8 SSSs ............................................................................................................................................ 2-19

2.8.1 Permit Universe ............................................................................................................. 2-19

2.8.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family ............................................................... 2-20

2.8.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-21

2.9 Stormwater ................................................................................................................................. 2-22

2.9.1 Permit Universe ............................................................................................................. 2-22

2.9.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family ............................................................... 2-22

2.9.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-26

2.10 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) ............................................................................................ 2-26

2.10.1 Permit Universe ............................................................................................................. 2-26

2.10.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family ............................................................... 2-27

2.10.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2-27

2.11 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 2-27

Section 3. – Activities Affected by the Proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule ...................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Updating the Reporting Process ................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 State Authorized NPDES program and EPA Implementation of a Data Exchange ........ 3-3

3.2.2 Compliance with the Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule ........................................ 3-4

3.2.3 Supplying Facility, Limit and Limit Set data .................................................................. 3-4

3.3 Electronic Reporting to EPA during Transition ........................................................................... 3-4

3.3.1 Regulated Entity Electronic Reporting to EPA ............................................................... 3-5

3.3.2 EPA and State Authorized NPDES Programs’ Reconciling Regulated entity 

Reports 3-5

3.4 Using the Updated System ........................................................................................................... 3-5

3.4.1 Regulated Entity Registration and Notice of Intent ........................................................ 3-5

3.4.2 Regulated Entity Training ............................................................................................... 3-6

3.4.3 Regulated Entity Discharge Monitoring and Program Report Submission ..................... 3-6

3.4.4 Additional Required Data from the Authorized NPDES Program .................................. 3-6

3.4.5 Replacing the Annual Non-Compliance Report, Quarterly Non-Compliance 

Report, and Semi-Annual Statistical Summaries with the New National Non-Compliance 

Report 3-7

3.5 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3-7

Section 4. – Estimating the Economic Impacts of the Proposed NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule ......................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Labor Costs .................................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.3 Cost of Updated Information Sharing among Authorized NPDES Programs and EPA .............. 4-3

4.3.1 Electronic Reporting Tool Implementation Costs ........................................................... 4-4

4.3.2 Operations and Maintenance of the Updated System ...................................................... 4-5
iv 28 June 2013

4.3.3 Total Costs ....................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.4 Regulated Entity and Authorized NPDES Program Savings and Costs Associated with 

Using the Updated Systems .......................................................................................................... 4-6

4.4.1 Regulated Entity Registration and Training Costs .......................................................... 4-6

4.4.2 Data Entry Costs .............................................................................................................. 4-7

4.4.3 Reconciling Electronic Reporting to EPA ..................................................................... 4-11

4.4.4 National Non-Compliance Report ................................................................................. 4-11

4.4.5 Total Annual Processing, Submission and Data Entry Costs of Using the Updated 

System 4-11

4.4.6 Total Costs of the Proposed Rule .................................................................................. 4-12

4.4.7 Submission and Processing Savings from Electronic Reporting................................... 4-12

4.5 Summary: Implementation and Return on Investment ............................................................... 4-15

Section 5. – Small Entity Analysis ......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Impact on Small Entities .............................................................................................................. 5-1

5.3 Definitions of Small Entities ........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.4 Methodology Overview ................................................................................................................ 5-2

5.5 Census Sectors .............................................................................................................................. 5-5

5.5.1 Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities ............................................................ 5-7

5.5.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships ..................................................................... 5-8

5.5.3 Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities ................................................................... 5-9

5.5.4 Estimate Number of Small Parent Entities .................................................................... 5-10

5.5.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs ..................................................................... 5-10

5.5.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios ......................................................................................... 5-11

5.6 Municipalities Operating Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) ................................... 5-11

5.6.1 Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities .......................................................... 5-12

5.6.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships ................................................................... 5-13

5.6.3 Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities ................................................................. 5-13

5.6.4 Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities .............................................................. 5-14

5.6.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs ..................................................................... 5-14

5.6.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios ......................................................................................... 5-14

5.7 Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 5-15

5.7.1 Characterize the Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities ............................................. 5-15

5.7.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships ................................................................... 5-16

5.7.3 Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities ................................................................. 5-16

5.7.4 Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities .............................................................. 5-16

5.7.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs ..................................................................... 5-17

5.7.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios ......................................................................................... 5-17

5.8 Agriculture ................................................................................................................................. 5-17

5.8.1 Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities .......................................................... 5-18

5.8.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships ................................................................... 5-19

5.8.3 Construct Annual Revenue of Parent Entities ............................................................... 5-19

5.8.4 Identify Small Parent Entities ........................................................................................ 5-19

5.8.5 Calculate Parent Entity Compliance Costs .................................................................... 5-20

5.8.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios ......................................................................................... 5-20

5.9 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 5-22

Section 6. – Benefits ................................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Savings due to Electronic Reporting ............................................................................................ 6-1

6.2.1 Processing Savings .......................................................................................................... 6-1
v 28 June 2013

6.2.2 Data Entry (NOIs, DMRs, and Program Reports) Savings ............................................. 6-1

6.2.3 Eliminating ANCR,QNCR, and SASS ............................................................................ 6-2

6.2.4 Total Savings ................................................................................................................... 6-2

6.3 Improved NPDES Information ..................................................................................................... 6-2

6.4 Improved Efficiency of EPA Programs ........................................................................................ 6-3

6.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 6-4

Section 7. - Additional Analyses ............................................................................................................ 7-1

7.1 Executive Order 12866 ................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.2 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) ................................................................................................. 7-1

7.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) ................................................................................................ 7-2

7.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) .................................................................................. 7-3

7.5 Executive Order 13132 – Federalism ........................................................................................... 7-3

7.6 Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ....... 7-4

7.7 Executive Order 13045 – Children’s Health ................................................................................ 7-5

7.8 Executive Order 13211 – Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ................................................... 7-5

7.9 National Technology Transfer Advancement Act ........................................................................ 7-5

7.10 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice ......................................................................... 7-7

Appendix A – List of Data Elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 and System Required 

Data Elements not in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 ............................................................................... A-1

Appendix B – List of States by Data Entry Type .................................................................................. B-1

Appendix C – NPDES Program Management Information (PMI) Survey ....................................... C-1
vi 28 June 2013

Table of Tables 

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ ix

Table 1-1: Electronic Reporting Requirements by NPDES Subprogram ................................... 1-14

Table 2-1: NPDES Regulated Entities and NPDES Permit Types by Subprogram ..................... 2-2

Table 2-2: Electronic Reporting Requirements by NPDES Subprogram ..................................... 2-2

Table 2-3: Required Data Families and Entity Initiating Reporting/Submittal Activity .............. 2-5

Table 2-4: Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency Methods, by Subprogram ........... 2-6

Table 2-5: Standard Industrial Dischargers Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency . 2-9

Table 2-6: Biosolids Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency .................................. 2-11

Table 2-7: CAFOs Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency ..................................... 2-14

Table 2-8: CSS POTW Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency .............................. 2-16

Table 2-9: Pretreatment Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency ............................. 2-19

Table 2-10: SSS POTW Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency ............................ 2-21

Table 2-11: Stormwater Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency ............................. 2-26

Table 2-12: Significant Industrial User (SIU) Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency2-

27

Table 2-13: Universe Summary by Subprogram ........................................................................ 2-27

Table 2-14: Annual Reporting Frequency Summary by Data Family and Permit Type ............ 2-28

Table 3-1: Distribution of Savings and Costs of Proposed Rule .................................................. 3-1

Table 3-2: Electronic Reporting Requirements (by NPDES Subprogram) .................................. 3-6

Table 4-1: Distribution of Savings and Costs of Proposed Rule .................................................. 4-2

Table 4-2: Deriving Loaded Hourly Costs ................................................................................... 4-3

Table 4-3: EPA Headquarters Implementation Costs for Electronic Reporting Tools ................. 4-4

Table 4-4: State Authorized NPDES program Implementation Costs ......................................... 4-5

Table 4-5: Total Cost of Updating the Submission Process ......................................................... 4-6

Table 4-6: Incremental Electronic Reporting Data Element Requirements by NPDES Subprogram

 .................................................................................................................................... 4-8

Table 4-7: Surveyed States by User Type .................................................................................... 4-9

Table 4-8: Average Data Entry Time (in minutes) and Cost Per Data Element (2012 Dollars) .. 4-9

Table 4-9: Electronic Reporting to EPA Data Element Requirements by NPDES Subprogram 4-11

Table 4-10: Annual Cost of Data Entry and Operations for the Updated System after 

Implementation ........................................................................................................ 4-12

Table 4-12: Mailing Costs .......................................................................................................... 4-13

Table 4-13: Regulated Entity Per Submission Savings from Electronic DMRs and Program 

Reports ..................................................................................................................... 4-13

Table 4-14: Unit Savings from Eliminating Pre-populated DMRs ............................................ 4-14

Table 4-15: Total Annual Savings under Proposed Rule ........................................................... 4-15

Table 4-16: Total Annual Savings of Using the Updated System .............................................. 4-15

Table 4-17: Rule Implementation Timing .................................................................................. 4-16

Table 4-18: Schedule of Savings and Costs (3% Discount Rate) ............................................... 4-16

Table 4-19: Schedule of Savings and Costs (7% Discount Rate) ............................................... 4-17

Table 5-1: Compliance Costs Incurred under Proposed Rule ...................................................... 5-3

Table 5-2: Annualized Compliance Costs Incurred Under Proposed Rule .................................. 5-3

Table 5-3: Categorizing Sectors Affected by Proposed Rule ....................................................... 5-4

Table 5-4: Sectors with Information in SUSB ............................................................................. 5-6

Table 5-5: NPDES Facility Distribution by Employment Size Class .......................................... 5-8

Table 5-6: NPDES Facility Distribution by Revenue Size Class ................................................. 5-8

Table 5-7: NPDES Parent Entity Distribution by Employment Size Class .................................. 5-9
vii 28 June 2013

Table 5-8: NPDES Parent Entity Distribution by Revenue Size Class ........................................ 5-9

Table 5-9: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities in 

Sectors with Census Information, 3% Discount Rate .............................................. 5-11

Table 5-10: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities in 

Sectors with Census Information, 7% Discount Rate .............................................. 5-11

Table 5-11: POTWs Matched to Census Municipalities, Townships, and Counties .................. 5-13

Table 5-12: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Local Governments Operating 

POTWs, 3% Discount Rate ...................................................................................... 5-14

Table 5-13: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Local Governments Operating 

POTWs, 7% Discount Rate ...................................................................................... 5-14

Table 5-14: NPDES Utility Facility Universe ............................................................................ 5-16

Table 5-15: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Utility Parent Entities, 3% Discount 

Rate .......................................................................................................................... 5-17

Table 5-16: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Utility Parent Entities, 7% Discount 

Rate .......................................................................................................................... 5-17

Table 5-17: NPDES Facility Distribution by NAICS Code ....................................................... 5-19

Table 5-18: NPDES Facility Distribution by NAICS Code ....................................................... 5-20

Table 5-19: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Agricultural 

Facilities, 3% Discount Rate .................................................................................... 5-21

Table 5-20: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Agricultural 

Facilities, 7% Discount Rate .................................................................................... 5-21

Table 5-21: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities, 

3% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 5-22

Table 5-22: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities, 

7% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 5-22

Table 6-1: Total Annual Savings under Proposed Rule ............................................................... 6-2

Table 7-1: Projected Burden and Cost over the First Three Years of the Proposed Rule ............ 7-2

Table A-1: Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 ...................................................................................... A-1

Table A-2: System Required Data Elements not in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 ....................... A-9

Table B-1: States by Data Entry Type ......................................................................................... B-1

Table C-1: WENDB Facility Data Elements ............................................................................... C-2

Table C-2: New Facility Data Elements ...................................................................................... C-2

Table C-3: WENDB Permit Data Elements ................................................................................ C-3

Table C-4: New Permit Data Elements ....................................................................................... C-4

Table C-5: WENDB Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Elements ...................................... C-5

Table C-6: New Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Elements ............................................. C-6

Table C-7: WENDB DMR Data Elements .................................................................................. C-7

Table C-8: New DMR Data Elements ......................................................................................... C-7

Table C-9: WENDB Violation Data Elements ............................................................................ C-8

Table C-10: New Violation Data Elements ................................................................................. C-8

Table C-11: WENDB Program Reports Data Elements .............................................................. C-8

Table C-12: New Program Reports Data Elements ..................................................................... C-9

Table C-13: WENDB Enforcement Action Data Elements ...................................................... C-10

Table C-14: New Enforcement Action Data Elements ............................................................. C-10
viii 28 June 2013

Table of Figures 

Figure ES-1: Electronic Reporting Costs/Savings Analysis – 3% Discount Rate ......................... xii

Figure ES-2: Electronic Reporting Costs/Savings Analysis – 7% Discount Rate ......................... xii

Figure 1-1: Current Flow of NPDES Data ................................................................................... 1-2

Figure 1-2: Post Implementation Flow of NPDES Data ............................................................ 1-11

Figure 2-1: Inputs to Burden and Cost Estimates ......................................................................... 2-1

Figure 3-1: The Exchange Network ............................................................................................. 3-3

Figure 4-1: Estimating Data Entry Costs ...................................................................................... 4-8

Figure 4-2: Electronic Reporting Savings/Costs Analysis – 3% Discount Rate ........................ 4-17

Figure 4-3: Electronic Reporting Savings/Costs Analysis – 7% Discount Rate ........................ 4-18
 ix 28 June 2013

List of Acronyms 

The table below lists the acronyms used throughout this document. 

List of Acronyms 

Acronym Acronym Meaning 

AFS Air Facility System 

ANCR Annual Non-Compliance Report 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation 

CAMDBS Clean Air Markets Division Business System 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGP Construction General Permit 

CIU Categorical Industrial User 

CROMERR Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule 

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow 

CSS Combined Sewer System 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DMR Discharge Monitoring Report 

eDMR Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report 

ECHO Enforcement & Compliance History Online 

eGRID Emission & Generation Resource Integrated Database 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

eNOI Electronic Notice of Intent 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

eProgram Report Electronic Program Report 

EQ Exceptional Quality 

ESA Electronic Signature Agreement 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FR Federal Register 

FRS Facility Registry System 

GDP Gross Domestic Product 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

HQ Headquarters 

ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System 

ICIS-NPDES Integrated Compliance Information System-National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IDEA Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis 

IPI Industrial Production Index 

IPT Integrated Project Team 

IT Information Technology 

LEW Low Erosivity Waiver 

MGD Million Gallons per Day 

MGP Multi-Sector General Permit 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System 

MSW Municipal Solid Waste 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NASS National Agricultural Statistical Service 

NEC No Exposure Certification 

NetDMR Net-based Discharge Monitoring Report 

NMP Nutrient Management Plan 

NODI No Data Indicators 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOT Notice of Termination 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

OECA EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

OEI EPA’s Office of Environmental Information 

O&M Operations and Maintenance 
 x 28 June 2013

List of Acronyms 

Acronym Acronym Meaning 

OTIS Online Tracking and Information System 

OW EPA’s Office of Water 

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool 

PCS Permit Compliance System 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

PPI Producer Price Index 

QNCR Quarterly Non-Compliance Report 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIDE Requisite ICIS-NPDES Data Elements 

RNC Reportable Noncompliance (according to EPA Policy and Guidance) 

SASS Semi-Annual Statistical Summary 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

SIU Significant Industrial User 

SNC Significant Noncompliance (according to EPA Policy and Guidance) 

SSCS Sanitary Sewer Collection System 

SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow 

SSS Sanitary Sewer System 

SUSB Statistics of U.S. Businesses 

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

WENDB Water Enforcement National Data Base 

XML eXtensible Markup Language 
 xi 28 June 2013

Executive Summary 

ES.1 Purpose of the Proposed Rule 

The proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule will substitute electronic reporting for existing 

paper-based reports, saving time and resources for regulated entities and states, while improving 

compliance and better protecting the nation’s waters. The proposed rule will require regulated 

entities and state and federal regulators to use existing, available information technology to 

electronically report data currently required by the NPDES permit program in lieu of filing 

written paper reports. 

The proposed rule will require NPDES regulated entities to begin submitting certain data 

electronically one year after effective date of the rule, and will require authorized NPDES 

programs (states or EPA regions) to share with EPA a much larger percentage of the NPDES data 

they collect from regulated entities or generate during the course of administering the NPDES 

program locally. 

The proposed rule will reduce the reporting burden currently borne by the states, improve overall 

facility compliance, allow better allocation and use of limited compliance and enforcement 

resources, and enhance transparency and public accountability by providing the public with 

timely information on potential sources of water pollution. When the rule is fully implemented it 

will result in improved water quality and significant cost savings for regulated entities, states, 

territories, tribes, and EPA. 

This Economic Analysis (EA) quantifies the costs and savings of this proposed rule, while 

acknowledging many of the qualitative benefits that will result from its implementation. This 

proposed rule justifies itself on the basis of the savings/costs alone. 

Historically, EPA and authorized states have focused on the largest or “major” facilities as a way 

of prioritizing resources for permitting, enforcement, and data reporting to EPA. Over time, there 

has been a growing recognition that other sources also impact water quality. Stormwater 

discharges, concentrated animal feeding operations, mines, and raw sanitary sewage overflows 

are all significant contributors to water quality impairment but are not currently considered 

“major” facilities under the NPDES program. The proposed rule improves data quality and 

availability for these significant sources, thereby providing the states and EPA with more 

complete and comparable data on a substantial majority of NPDES regulated entities, and 

allowing targeted actions to address the biggest water quality problems. 

ES.2 Savings, Costs, and Benefits 

EPA anticipates that the proposed rule will save money for states, tribes, and territories as well as 

EPA and NPDES regulated entities, while resulting in a more complete, accurate, and nationallyconsistent set of data about the NPDES program. With full implementation, the anticipated 

annual net savings for states is $28.7 million, $1.2 million for regulated entities, and $0.5 million 

for EPA Regions; annual costs to EPA are $0.8 million1

. The State of Ohio’s electronic reporting 

program for Discharge Monitoring Reports proves the potential benefits of electronic reporting. 

 

1

 The stated savings numbers are discounted at 3%, which are first realized in full, four years after the 

effective date of the rule. Non-discounted values are $32.3 million for states, $1.4 million for regulated 

entities, and $0.6 million for EPA Regions; annual costs to EPA are $0.9 million. 
 xii 28 June 2013

Ohio’s program resulted in a 99.9% adoption rate by regulated entities, increased data quality and 

improved environmental protection, while saving significant time and resources. Prior to 

electronic reporting Ohio needed five full time staff to support the DMR program. With eDMR 

Ohio reduced DMR staffing to less than one full time staff member. 

Savings and Costs - Significant savings are anticipated once the final rule is fully implemented. 

There will, however, be initial investment costs associated with necessary changes to information 

technology and infrastructure. During the first 10 years after the rule is finalized it is expected to 

generate a net savings of roughly $220.3 million at a 3% discount rate, or $172.4 million at a 7% 

discount rate. Break-even should be achieved – i.e., cumulative savings will equal cumulative 

costs – approximately two years after the effective date of the final rule (See Figure ES-1 and 

Figure ES -2). 

Figure ES-1: Electronic Reporting Costs/Savings Analysis – 3% Discount Rate 

Figure ES-2: Electronic Reporting Costs/Savings Analysis – 7% Discount Rate 

$‐

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

$160,000,000

$180,000,000

$200,000,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Dollars (2012)

Year

Annual Costs

Annual Savings

Total Costs

Total Savings

$‐

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

$160,000,000

$180,000,000

$200,000,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Dollars (2012)

Year

Annual Costs

Annual Savings

Total Costs

Total Savings
 xiii 28 June 2013

The proposed rule will essentially eliminate the need for authorized NPDES programs to enter 

data submitted by regulated entities into information systems, which accounts for most of the 

savings. Those savings are partially offset by data entry associated with the modified universe of 

facilities for which authorized NPDES programs will be required to provide facility and 

permitting data. EPA estimates that the overall labor burden for the states will fall by 60%, while 

the number of facilities for which comparable information is available will rise by several orders 

of magnitude. 

The proposed rule will also reduce the need for paper and postage by authorized NPDES 

programs and regulated entities. In addition, the need for error checking of the data by authorized 

NPDES programs, and the need for regulated entities to revise and reenter data will be reduced. 

Qualitative Benefits - Other anticipated benefits of the proposed rule include improved quality 

and accuracy of the data available to regulatory agencies and the public; more timely and 

expanded use of the data to identify, target, and address problems; quicker availability of the data 

for use; and increased accessibility and transparency of the data to the public. These benefits 

should allow states to shift precious resources from data management activities to activities more 

useful in solving water quality and noncompliance issues. This in turn will contribute to increased 

compliance, improved water quality, and a level playing field for the regulated community. 

EPA will make this enhanced and improved data available to the public, as it does now with the 

existing data, to provide communities and citizens with the best available information on facility 

and government performance. Such data provides a powerful incentive to improve performance 

by giving government, regulated entities and the public ready access to complete compliance 

information. This incentive can serve to elevate the importance of compliance information and 

environmental performance within regulated entities, providing an opportunity for them to 

quickly address any noncompliance. More complete, accurate and timely data can provide the 

private sector and consumers with facility and company performance information. It provides 

regulators the ability to monitor and assess performance systematically and to quickly address 

significant issues that may be hidden in unmanageable paper reports, minimizing environmental 

and public health impacts. It creates an opportunity for two-way communication with regulated 

entities to immediately address data quality issues and to provide compliance assistance or take 

other action when potential problems are identified. Complete and accurate data also allows EPA 

to compare performance across authorized programs, leading to more effective national program 

management. 

The proposed rule will also lighten the reporting burden currently placed on the states. Upon 

successful implementation, the proposed rule will provide states with regulatory relief from 

reporting associated with the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR), the Annual NonCompliance Report (ANCR), the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report (SASS), and the 

biosolids information required to be submitted to EPA annually by states. 

Under the proposed rule, the resulting information flows will allow EPA and authorized NPDES 

programs to manage the NPDES program more efficiently. With electronic reporting, EPA and 

states will be able to use self-reported regulated entity data in near real time. Permitted facilities 

will have more control over how and when their data are added to the information systems, and 

will be able to use the data to identify and address issues before they become violations. 

Electronic reporting also improves data quality and allows for data sharing across federal and 

authorized NPDES program regulators using the Exchange Network – a network EPA built to 

foster data sharing between EPA and the states. Bringing the additional information about both 
 xiv 28 June 2013

major and nonmajor regulated entities into ICIS-NPDES will allow authorized NPDES programs 

and EPA to better monitor and report on the status of the NPDES programs they administer. 

Having data that are more current, comprehensive, and accurate will improve targeting of federal 

and state resources to the most serious water quality and compliance problems. Improved NPDES 

data can significantly improve EPA’s knowledge of the regulated community; and that 

knowledge is essential for problem identification and for developing sound regulations, guidance, 

and policy. Regulated entities will benefit by knowing that the compliance information in EPA’s 

data systems is timely and accurate, and by taking advantage of the on-line data quality tools to 

ensure that the data they submit is accurate. 

ES.3 Major Factors Taken into Consideration in Estimating Savings and 

Costs 

The following factors have the greatest impact on the savings and costs of the proposed rule: 

 Cost of necessary changes to existing EPA and state data systems; 

 States that have already begun developing electronic reporting (e.g., EPA estimates 

that 39 states are already using electronic DMR systems); 

 Estimated universe of regulated entities; 

 Number of regulated entities needing electronic signatures for electronic data entry; 

 Changes in who enters the data; 

 Frequency of various data reports; 

 Data to be collected; and, 

 Time required entering data into information systems. 

ES.4 Key Acts and Regulations that Must be Addressed by the EA 

Small Entity Analysis – As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the proposed rule’s likely 

impact on small entities was evaluated. For this analysis, a significant impact is defined as being 

equal to or greater than 1% of the revenue of small parent entities. The analysis concluded that 

the economic impact of the proposed rule will be less than 1% of revenue for all small parent 

entities. 

Regulatory Planning and Review (EO 12866) – This EO requires additional analyses for 

rulemakings with an economic impact of $100 million or more in any year. The Economic 

Analysis for this proposed rule indicates that the annual economic impact will be less than the 

$100 million annual threshold, so the additional requirements are not applicable. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) – This Act requires undertaking additional analyses 

for rulemakings that impose burdens of $100 million or more in any year. The Economic 

Analysis for this proposed rule indicates the annual implementation costs will be less than the 

$100 million threshold, so the additional requirements of the UMRA are not applicable. 

ES.5 Key Steps for Implementation 

Updating the NPDES information flow will allow states and EPA to each have a central 

repository of NPDES information and to readily share that information through the internet. The 

major activities necessary to update the way states share information with EPA are: 
 xv 28 June 2013

 State authorized NPDES program and EPA implementation of an electronic reporting 

system for submitting regulated entity and authorized NPDES program data; 

 State authorized NPDES program certifying compliance with EPA’s Cross-Media 

Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR); and, 

 State authorized NPDES program and EPA reconciling information submitted separately 

to state authorized NPDES program and EPA as required by CWA section 308 (will not 

be necessary three years after the effective date of the rule, after 308 reporting under this 

rule is suspended). 

 

Regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs will need to make changes in order to use the 

updated data bases and reporting tools. The major activities required in order to use the updated 

system are: 

 Regulated entity registration for user accounts CDX or state authorized NPDES program 

electronic system and submission of electronic signature agreements; 

 Regulated entity training; 

 Regulated entity submission of electronic notices of intent (NOIs), discharge monitoring 

reports (DMRs), and program reports; and, 

 Authorized NPDES program electronic submission of programmatic Appendix A data to 

EPA. 

Electronic reporting to EPA by regulated entities, separate from existing reporting to their 

respective authorized NPDES programs, will continue until the authorized NPDES program has 

an operational electronic reporting system. States will be able to adopt EPA’s electronic reporting 

system or develop their own system. 
1-1 28 June 2013

Section 1. – Background and Overview of the Economic 

Analysis of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

1.1 Introduction 

Through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic Reporting 

proposed rule, EPA proposes to convert current paper reporting requirements to electronic. In 

doing so, EPA will establish a nationally consistent set of required information for the full scope 

of the NPDES program, thereby establishing the NPDES data that must be submitted to, or 

entered into, EPA’s Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)-NPDES. EPA needs 

regulated entity-specific information in order to provide national program direction and oversight; 

to ensure that implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program, both nationally and 

locally, will effectively protect human health and the environment; and to facilitate public access 

to NPDES information. This proposed rule will also establish requirements that NPDES data be 

submitted to EPA electronically, either by regulated entities or authorized NPDES program, as 

appropriate, which will reduce the burden of data entry on states, tribes, and territories 

(hereinafter referred to as states) and EPA Regions. The rule does not require collection or 

reporting of any new data. 

This report analyzes the economic impact of the electronic reporting proposed rule and presents 

the methodology, information sources, and detailed results of the Economic Analysis (EA). To 

understand the effects of the proposed rule, however, this section documents how the NPDES 

program currently operates and the existing information resources used to support the NPDES 

program. Figure 1-1 illustrates the current flow of NPDES data from responsible party (regulated 

entity, authorized NPDES program, EPA) into the data system. It also identifies the activities 

undertaken by each responsible party, as well as the type of data entered. Section 1.2 provides a 

description of the statutory and regulatory history of the NPDES program followed by a summary 

of existing NPDES reporting requirements and how the data have been and are being used 

(Section 1.3). The section concludes with a description of the proposed rule (Section 1.4) and lays 

out the organization of the remaining sections of the report (Section 1.5).
1-2 28 June 2013

Figure 1-1: Current Flow of NPDES Data 

1.2 Statutory and Regulatory History of the NPDES Program 

1.2.1 Clean Water Act 

In 1972, the Clean Water Act was signed in to law to “restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). Among its core 

provisions, the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source to 

waters of the United States except as authorized by a NPDES permit. The Clean Water Act 

establishes the NPDES program’s authority to regulate the discharges of pollutants to waters of 

the United States. EPA has issued comprehensive regulations implementing the NPDES program 

at 40 CFR §122. 

States, may be authorized to administer the NPDES program through a process that is defined by 

the Clean Water Act §402 (b) and 40 CFR §123. The NPDES Program consists of various 

components, including: 1) NPDES Base Program for municipal and industrial facilities; 2) 

Federal Facilities; 3) General Permitting; 4) Pretreatment Program; and 5) Biosolids. States can 

adopt the NPDES Base Program and one or more of the other components as part of their 

authorization. States that want authorization to administer the NPDES program submit to EPA a 

letter from the Governor requesting review and approval, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), 

a program description, a statement of legal authority (also known as an “Attorney Generals 

Statement” or “AG Statement”), and supporting state laws and regulations. The process of 

authorization includes a public review and comment period, and a public hearing. If EPA 

disapproves the program, EPA remains the authorized NPDES program for that state. If EPA 

approves the program, the state assumes authorized NPDES program in lieu of EPA. A state may 

request and receive authorization to administer one or more of the NPDES Program components. 

After EPA approves the state’s proposed program(s), all new permit applications for the 
1-3 28 June 2013

program(s) would be submitted to the authorized states for NPDES permit issuance. 2 EPA, 

through its regional offices, retains authorized NPDES program for all programs not specifically 

authorized to the states. 

EPA regulations require NPDES authorized NPDES programs to keep records and submit to EPA 

such information as the Agency may reasonably require to ascertain whether the program as 

implemented complies with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and EPA's regulations (40 

CFR §123.43(d)). In addition, authorized NPDES programs are required to make available to 

EPA upon request any information authorized NPDES programs obtain or use in administering 

their NPDES programs (40 CFR §123.41(a)). Forty-six states and one territory have requested 

and received authority to administer one or more NPDES programs. As a result, EPA shares 

authorized NPDES program in varying degrees with 46 states and one territory and is the sole 

authorized NPDES program for four states, all of the tribes, and 15 territories. 

1.2.2 1985 PCS Policy 

Current regulations require state permit programs to “keep such records and submit to the 

Administrator such information as the Administrator may reasonably require.” See 40 CFR 

123.43(d). To implement this and other regulations, EPA has issued guidance on the information 

to be submitted electronically to a national database. In particular, the 1985 PCS Policy Statement 

(as amended in 2007) and the PCS Quality Assurance Manual identify the timeliness, accuracy, 

completeness, and consistency expectations for state data entry into ICIS-NPDES. Both 

guidances were originally developed by EPA for use with PCS but were subsequently adapted 

and are still in effect for ICIS-NPDES. 

The PCS Policy Statement supports sound management of the NPDES program nationally and 

ensures the program achieved the CWA’s environmental goals. The 1985 PCS Policy Statement 

specified that: 1) PCS would be the national data base of record for the NPDES program; 2) EPA 

Regions must use PCS directly; and 3) all NPDES authorized states, tribes and territories must 

either use PCS directly or develop and maintain and technology and protocols that transfer 

NPDES data to PCS. EPA also uses two mechanisms, a Memorandum of Agreement and CWA 

Section 106 Work Plan, for requiring data sharing between state NPDES programs and EPA. 

1.2.3 1987 Water Quality Act and 2000 Wet Weather Water Quality Act 

In response to growing concerns about stormwater issues, Congress passed the 1987 Water 

Quality Act which extended NPDES requirements to stormwater discharges. This action 

expanded the NPDES program to include stormwater discharges. In December 2000, Congress 

also amended the CWA with the “Wet Weather Water Quality Act.” These amendments added 

Section 402(q)(1) to require consistency with EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control 

Policy in permitting and enforcement activities, which effectively makes the CSO Control Policy 

law. 

1.3 Summary of the NPDES Program Reporting Requirements 

1.3.1 Current Status 

Three major groups are required to fulfill different reporting requirements under the NPDES 

program: 

 

2

 See the following EPA webpage for a current listing of NPDES program authorizations: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm?view=specific 
1-4 28 June 2013

 NPDES regulated entities: These are facilities that are regulated by one or more 

components of the NPDES program. Facilities that discharge pollutants to the waters of 

the United States and therefore are required: 1) to apply for permits under NPDES; and, 

2) to regularly report self-monitoring information (e.g., testing of pollutant concentrations 

in wastewater discharges, program reports). POTWs that generate biosolids are regulated 

by the Biosolids Program (40 CFR 503) and industrial facilities that discharge to POTWs 

are regulated by the Pretreatment Program (40 CFR 403). 

 NPDES Regulatory Authorities: These are the EPA Regions or authorized state, tribe, 

or territory responsible for administering the NPDES program within a given geopolitical 

unit (e.g., state). 

 U.S. EPA: The U.S. EPA mission is to protect human health and the environment and 

maintains oversight across all components of the NPDES program. EPA is also 

responsible for reporting progress on the NPDES program to the U.S. Congress and the 

public. 

This section describes the current roles and responsibilities of each group within the NPDES 

program. 

Regulated Entities 

EPA regulations, NPDES permits, and other control mechanisms normally include recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and a variety of standard conditions. Record-keeping and 

reporting requirements often include preparation and submission to the authorized NPDES 

program of monthly discharge monitoring reports, which were traditionally paper documents.3

Additional reporting may include program reports as required by specific NPDES subprograms 

[e.g., CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, sewer overflows, and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

System (MS4)]. 

Authorized NPDES Programs 

These are the EPA Regions or authorized state, tribe, or territory responsible for administering the 

NPDES program within a given geopolitical area. In some cases, a state may have been approved 

to administer certain NPDES programs, while the EPA regional office still manages the 

remaining subprograms or activities. The authorized NPDES program has several responsibilities, 

including: writing NPDES permits or control mechanisms; receiving reports from permitted 

facilities and entering their information into the data system; and performing the compliance and 

oversight activities prescribed in the NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy.4

EPA 

EPA has primary responsibility for effectively and consistently implementing the NPDES 

program across the country, thus ensuring that the public health and environmental protection 

goals of the CWA are met. EPA’s responsibilities include: 

 Enforce the requirements of the CWA and the NPDES program; 

 Identifying the universe of facilities covered by the NPDES program; 

 Developing sound regulations, guidance and policy; 

 

3

 Some regulated entities may test their own samples and mail DMRs directly to the state. Other regulated 

entities will send samples to an independent laboratory for testing. Contract laboratories may send the 

DMR back to the regulated entity for signature and submission or submit directly to the authorized NPDES 

program. 

4

 http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/policies/monitoring/cwa/npdescms.pdf 
1-5 28 June 2013

 Conducting oversight of authorized states; 

 Identifying the compliance status of facilities subject to NPDES regulations in a 

nationally consistent manner; 

 Monitoring and reporting the status of implementing the CWA in watersheds throughout 

the nation; 

 Identifying potential non-compliance problems and their associated environmental 

impacts to effectively target resources; 

 Demonstrating results achieved to meet NPDES program goals, including the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures reported to Congress, under 

Goal 2 (Clean and Safe Water) and Goal 5 (Compliance and Environmental 

Stewardship); 

 Responding to inquiries from Congressional members; 

 Administering the NPDES programs (policy setting, permitting, compliance monitoring, 

inspections and enforcement) in those states and subprograms where states have not 

assumed responsibility; and, 

 Informing the public about the permitting and compliance status of facilities in their 

communities. 

To accomplish these goals, EPA uses and maintains the Integrated Compliance Information 

System – National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES), a modernized system 

developed in 2005 to replace the legacy Permit Compliance System (PCS). 

1.3.2 Regulated Entity Types 

NPDES Permitted Facilities 

The NPDES program groups NPDES permitted facilities in terms of major and nonmajor sources 

and whether they have coverage under an individual or general permit. NPDES permitted 

facilities designated as a major includes a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) with 

designed discharge flows of greater than one million gallons per day (1 MGD) and active major 

industrial facilities scoring more than 80 for the six factors (toxicity, volume, conventional 

pollutants, public health impact, water quality, and proximity to coastal waters) on the “NPDES 

Permit Rating Work Sheet.”5

 NPDES permittees that are not designated as majors are classified 

as nonmajors. General permits authorize discharges and establish operating and reporting 

requirements under the CWA for specific categories of dischargers (e.g., stormwater discharges 

from construction activities). Nearly all of the approximately 6,700 NPDES facilities designated 

as majors have individual permits. There are many more NPDES facilities designated as 

nonmajors than majors and most nonmajors have coverage under general permits (e.g., 

construction stormwater permits). 

Under the proposed rule NPDES permittees would electronically submit their compliance 

monitoring data (e.g., DMRs, program reports). Some NPDES regulated entities have multiple 

NPDES compliance monitoring reporting requirements. For example, POTWs may submit the 

following compliance monitoring data to their authorized NPDES program: 

 DMRs [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)]; 

 Biosolids Annual Program Report [40 CFR 503]; 

 Pretreatment Program Annual Report [40 CFR 403.12(i)]; and 

 Sewer Overflow Event Reports [40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)]. 

 

5

 http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0116.pdf 
1-6 28 June 2013

The recipient of these compliance monitoring data depends on the NPDES authorization status of 

the state, tribe, or territory. For example, a POTW may send its DMRs to the state if it is 

authorized to implement the NPDES Base Program for municipal and industrial facilities and its 

Pretreatment Program Annual Report to an EPA Region if the state is not authorized to 

administer the pretreatment program. 

Biosolids Facilities 

Section 405 of the CWA sets the statutory framework for regulating sewage sludge (biosolids). 

EPA has established a protective regulatory framework to manage the use and disposal of 

biosolids at 40 CFR Part 503. Part 503 is a “self implementing” rule, which means that entities 

producing biosolids are regulated whether or not these requirements are included in a permit. 

Most facilities regulated by Part 503 also have an NPDES permit. Under the proposed rule 

NPDES regulated entities would electronically submit their Biosolids Annual Program Report [40 

CFR 503]. 

Significant Industrial Users 

POTWs receive wastewater from households (domestic waste), as well as from a wide variety of 

commercial and industrial facilities, referred to as industrial users (IUs). The types of IUs range 

widely, from small restaurants to hospitals to large and complex organic chemical manufacturers. 

EPA has further identified some IUs as categorical industrial users (CIUs), i.e., IUs subject to 

EPA’s pretreatment standards developed for particular industrial categories, and significant 

industrial users (SIUs), i.e., IUs that are either CIUs or discharge process wastewater above the 

thresholds set in 40 CFR 403.5. EPA has developed a comprehensive pretreatment program 

implemented through EPA Regions, state, tribes, territories, and POTWs to control IU discharges 

of pollutants that might pass through or interfere with POTW treatment processes or contaminate 

sewage sludge, thereby posing a threat to human health or the environment. Under the proposed 

rule the SIUs and CIUs in municipalities without an approved pretreatment program would 

electronically submit the following data: (1) Periodic reports on continued compliance for CIUs 

[40 CFR 403.12(e)]; and (2) Periodic reports on continued compliance for Non-CIUs [40 CFR 

403.12(h)]. 

1.3.3 Expected Data 

The 1985 PCS Policy defines the required data necessary to enable PCS to function as a useful 

operational and management tool for the NPDES program. The list of required data elements is 

called the Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB). The WENDB list of PCS data 

elements was extensively reviewed, underwent several additions based upon state participation, 

and currently contains 222 data elements. Values for many of the data elements are updated on 

the permit cycle (every five years). Values for other data elements are entered as an activity or 

event occurs (e.g., effluent monitoring, inspections, violations, enforcement actions). Each state’s 

data is now stored in ICIS-NPDES (all PCS data has been transferred to ICIS-NPDES, and PCS 

is no longer in operation). The list of WENDB data elements uses the major/nonmajor distinction 

to identify the data states are required to input into ICIS-NPDES. For example, states are required 

by the PCS Policy to input DMR data into ICIS-NPDES for majors but only encouraged to do so 

for nonmajors. 
1-7 28 June 2013

1.3.4 Regulated Entity Supplied Data 

EPA requires regulated entities to submit information as part of their permit applications, notices 

of intent (NOIs), Notice of Termination (NOT); No Exposure Certifications (NECs); Low 

Erosivity Waivers (LEWs), discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), and program reports (e.g., 

CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, sewer overflow event reports, MS4 program reports). Some 

authorized NPDES programs give regulated entities the option to file one or more of these 

documents electronically; however, the majority of these data are currently submitted to the 

authorized NPDES program in paper form. For a complete listing of these data see NPDES Data 

Group Number 2 through 9 in Table 1 to Appendix A to 40 CFR 127. 

Required Information for Facilities with Individual NPDES Permits and 

Significant Industrial Users 

Most facilities with individual NPDES permits (major and nonmajor) submit DMRs [40 CFR 

122.41(l)(4)] to their authorized NPDES program (often on a monthly frequency). Additionally, 

some individually permitted facilities are also required to submit programs reports which include: 

 Biosolids Annual Program Report [40 CFR 503] 

 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Annual Program Reports [40 CFR 

122.42(e)(4)] 

 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Report [40 CFR 122.34(g)(3) 

and 122.42(c)] 

 Pretreatment Program Annual Report [40 CFR 403.12(i)] 

 Sewer Overflow Event Reports [40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)] 

Significant industrial user in municipalities without approved pretreatment programs must also 

submit bi-annual compliance reports 40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)]. 

Required Information for Facilities with General NPDES Permits 

EPA and authorized states, tribes, and territories issue general permits to cover multiple similar 

facilities under a single permit. Where a large number of similar facilities require permits, a 

general permit allows the authorized NPDES program to allocate resources in a more efficient 

manner and provide timelier permit coverage than would occur if individual permits had to be 

issued to each similar facility. States, tribes, and territories must seek EPA approval to administer 

general permits. EPA’s regulations governing the General Permit Program are located at 40 CFR 

122.28. EPA and authorized programs have issued over 700 general permits nationwide. Nearly 

all general permit covered facilities are classified as nonmajors. 

After the final general permit has been issued, there are several general permit reports that 

facilities must submit to their authorized NPDES program, including: 

 Notice of Intent (NOI) to discharge: This is the initial submission seeking coverage under 

a general permit [40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i) and (ii)]; 

 Notice of Termination (NOT): A request by the permittee to terminate their coverage 

under an existing permit (40 CFR 124.5); 

 No Exposure Certification (NEC): A certification from a facility indicating that coverage 

under an existing stormwater general permit is not necessary due to certain facilityspecific conditions [40 CFR 122.26(g)(1) and (4)]; and 
1-8 28 June 2013

 Low Erosivity Waiver (LEW): A certification from a facility indicating that coverage 

under an existing construction stormwater general permit is not necessary due to certain 

facility-specific or climate conditions [40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)]. 

It is important to note that EPA general permit regulations (40 CFR 122.28) do not require all 

general permit covered facilities to submit NOIs for all general permits issued by EPA and 

authorized state NPDES programs. Some general permits provide for automatic coverage. 

This means that neither EPA nor the authorized state, tribe, or territory programs will have 

information regarding exactly which facilities are regulated under these general permits. 

General permits cover a wide range of facility types that range from the very large (e.g., offshore 

oil and gas facilities, seafood processors) to very small discharges. Discharges from facilities 

covered under general permits include a variety of pollutants, such as total suspended solids, 

biochemical oxygen demand, oil and grease, bacteria, nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, and toxics. 

Basic facility information for some facilities covered by general permits is currently required to 

be entered into ICIS-NPDES in accordance with the PCS Policy. Requirements to submit DMRs 

or program reports (e.g., Biosolids Annual Program Report, CAFO Annual Program Reports, 

MS4 Program Report, Pretreatment Program Annual Report) vary based on the type of general 

permit under which a facility is covered. 

1.3.5 Authorized NPDES Program Supplied Data 

NPDES permits are reviewed and potentially revised and reissued every five years. Basic facility 

data, basic permit data, and monitoring data are submitted by regulated entities to states on the 

NPDES application or renewal form. These are typically paper submissions. Authorized 

programs take these data and issue a new or revised permit (with permit limit sets6

) and enter a 

portion of these facility and permit data into ICIS-NPDES. There are differing data entry 

requirements for majors and nonmajor facilities. 

The authorized NPDES program is also responsible for tracking and logging compliance 

monitoring, violation, and enforcement action information into ICIS-NPDES. The authorized 

NPDES program is responsible for receiving and processing reporting information submitted by 

regulated entities (e.g., DMRs). When received in paper form, the authorized NPDES program 

must enter the required information into the NPDES system of record (ICIS-NPDES or a data 

system operated by the authorized NPDES program). There are differing ICIS-NPDES data entry 

requirements for major and nonmajor facilities. 

Inspection, violation, and enforcement action information must be entered by the authorized 

NPDES program for major facilities as they occur. EPA’s current goal is for 100% of major 

regulated entities to receive at least one Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Compliance Sampling 

Inspection, Performance Audit Inspection, Diagnostic Inspection, Compliance Bio-Monitoring 

Inspection, and/or Toxics Sampling Inspection every two fiscal years. EPA has set the goal that 

individual nonmajor permits be inspected at least once during the permit cycle. For a complete 

listing of these data see NPDES Data Group Number 1 in Table 1 to Appendix A to 40 CFR 127. 

 

6

 A limit set consists of the parameters against which a regulated entity’s effluent is measured in order to 

determine whether the facility is in compliance with its permit. 
1-9 28 June 2013

1.3.6 Electronic Reporting 

While electronic reporting is not currently required, there are tools regulated entities can use to 

file some reports electronically. For example, EPA’s electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) allows 

regulated entities in states where EPA is the authorized NPDES program to apply electronically 

for coverage under the Multi-Sector General Permit or the Construction General Permit.7

Similarly, EPA’s NetDMR tool allows regulated entities to submit their discharge monitoring 

reports electronically. EPA estimates that 42 state authorized NPDES programs have adopted 

some form of electronic reporting for one or more of the NPDES program areas (e.g., NetDMR, 

eDMR, or eNOI systems). EPA is also developing a new tool for NOIs and other general permit 

forms and program reports, the NPDES e-Reporting Tool (NeT). EPA deployed the use of this 

new electronic reporting tool for the EPA Region 6 Western Gulf of Mexico general permit for 

offshore oil and gas. EPA plans to make this tool available to the states as part of the 

implementation for this rule. 

1.4 Description of the Proposed Rule 

1.4.1 Statement of Need 

Through this proposed rule, EPA seeks to improve the accessibility, timeliness, consistency, and 

accuracy of data from all facilities regulated by the NPDES program. This effort will provide the 

public, EPA, states, and regulated entities with better access to more timely, complete, and 

accurate NPDES data. The needs of these user groups for NPDES data are described in more 

detail below. 

The Public 

At present, the public has limited information regarding a substantial portion of the NPDES 

regulated universe. One of EPA’s goals is to increase the transparency of its environmental 

programs and their results. This proposed rule supports that goal by improving the quality and 

availability of information regarding the compliance status of the nation’s water dischargers and 

the enforcement responses taken by authorized NPDES programs and EPA. Electronic reporting 

by NPDES regulated entities will increase the timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of NPDES 

information made available to the public. It is expected that with these changes in place, the 

public can more effectively monitor and address local and national concerns regarding the state of 

the waters of the United States. 

EPA 

EPA has primary responsibility for ensuring the CWA’s NPDES program is effectively and 

consistently implemented nationwide, thus ensuring that public health and environmental 

protection goals of the CWA are met. This proposed rule uses existing regulations to identity the 

information EPA needs to receive from NPDES regulated entities and authorized NPDES 

programs in order to effectively manage the national NPDES program, including permitting and 

enforcement. 

Authorized NPDES Programs 

Authorized NPDES programs are currently inundated with paper reports from regulated entities. 

They use valuable resources reviewing those submissions for errors, working with regulated 

entities to correct errors, and then entering the data into information systems. The time required 

 

7

 EPA is also the authorized NPDES program for other general permits, such as the Vessels General Permit 

and the Pesticides General Permit, that are not expected to be affected by the proposed rule. 
1-10 28 June 2013

for this effort delays the availability of the data, which can cause a violation to be reported, and 

makes it difficult for authorized NPDES programs to identify real violations and compliance 

issues in a timely manner. 

 Regulated Entities 

NPDES regulated entities have an interest in ensuring that the information used by their 

authorized NPDES program and EPA is as accurate and timely as possible. Through electronic 

reporting, regulated entities can be more confident that their reports are received on time by the 

authorities and that their compliance status is characterized correctly. 

1.4.2 Changes to the NPDES Program under the Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule will require regulated entities to submit certain information electronically to 

their respective authorized NPDES program.8

 The proposed rule will also formalize what has 

been a gradual transition for NPDES data systems. As described above, EPA originally set out to 

collect the WENDB data fields. However, the WENDB data are only part of what regulated 

entities are required to submit to their authorized NPDES program. This rule relies on the 

transition from a 1980’s data system limited to the WENDB data (PCS) to an modern database 

system (ICIS-NPDES) that will be able to manage a broader range of the data currently being 

reported by regulated entities. That larger data set is identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127. 

There are also 11 data elements that are currently system required that are not part of Appendix 

A. Both the Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 and additional system required data elements not in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 are presented in Appendix A of this document, and collectively 

referred to as “Appendix A” throughout this report. This proposed rule also requires the same 

data to be submitted by authorized NPDES programs to EPA for both major and nonmajor 

facilities. These requirements are discussed in more detail in the sections below. 

Figure 1-2 illustrates the flow of NPDES data from a responsible party (regulated entity, 

authorized NPDES program, or EPA) into the system of record following implementation of the 

proposed rule. It also identifies the activities undertaken by each responsible party as well as the 

type of data expected to be submitted to ICIS-NPDES when the requirement for electronic 

reporting is in place. 

 

8

A state may request and receive authorization to administer one or more of the NPDES Program 

components. Consequently, a state may be authorized to administer the core program but not the 

pretreatment program. In this example, DMRs would be electronically submitted to the authorized state and 

the Pretreatment Program Annual Report would be electronically submitted to EPA. The implementation 

schedule for the proposed rule also has NPDES regulated entities electronically sending their data directly 

to EPA in addition to any pre-existing paper-based reporting requirements until such time as electronic 

reporting is fully functional at the authorized NPDES program level. 
1-11 28 June 2013

Figure 1-2: Post Implementation Flow of NPDES Data 

Programmatic Data from the Authorized NPDES Program 

Between 2002 and 2007, EPA and the states worked to identify the data needed by authorized 

NPDES programs to successfully implement and manage the NPDES program. Critical data 

elements and their end-uses were discussed by: 

 The state and EPA members of the PCS Steering Committee; 

 The PCS Modernization Executive Council; and, 

 The expanded PCS Steering Committee, including the Environmental Council of States 

(ECOS) and the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA).9

 

These discussions led to the April 2007 issuance of a draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement that 

included the list of NPDES data authorized NPDES programs would report to EPA. EPA 

finalized a crosswalk from WENDB to ICIS-NPDES in December 2007. 

Following receipt of numerous comments on the draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement from the 

states, EPA initiated a rulemaking to support a federal regulation requiring specific NPDES 

information from authorized NPDES programs. 

Between 2008 and 2011, the focus of this rulemaking was expanded to consider how much of the 

NPDES information could reasonably be obtained electronically from authorized NPDES 

programs and NPDES regulated entities. EPA initiated an effort to carefully review data needs of 

various stakeholders, consider the types of information that would allow EPA to meet those 

needs, and then identify which reports should be submitted electronically. EPA also evaluated 

whether the information should be sought directly from the NPDES regulated entities or from the 

authorized NPDES program, acknowledging that for certain activities and responsibilities (such 

 

9

 Formerly Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Agencies (ASIWPCA). 
1-12 28 June 2013

as permit issuance, inspections, compliance determinations, and issuance of enforcement actions), 

the authorized NPDES program would be the logical source of the required NPDES information. 

In a series of technical analyses, EPA examined the feasibility of electronic reporting, existing 

regulatory data and reporting requirements, EPA priorities, and prepared preliminary estimates of 

savings and costs. These analyses informed the development of the proposed rule as well as the 

list of NPDES data elements required by the rule (identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127). The 

proposed rule requires that listed data elements, all of which are already required to be reported 

by regulated entities or authorized NPDES programs, be entered into ICIS-NPDES. The required 

data elements fall into the following data families:10

Facility and Permit Information: The Facility Data Family includes data such 

as name, street and mailing address of the regulated entity and a contact name. 

Several pieces of facility information will be required under the proposed rule to 

improve EPA’s management of regulated entities. Tribal Land data will allow 

EPA to identify effluents being discharged into waters in Tribal lands. Affiliation 

information (e.g. the name of the site engineer) is required to ensure reported 

data comes from the appropriate employee or representative. 

The Permit Data Family includes basic permit information, tracking of a permit’s 

issuance, narrative permit conditions such as permit schedules, and permitted features 

(outfalls). 

Data elements like DMR non-receipt tracking flags, RNC tracking flags, and applicable 

effluent guidelines have been added under the proposed rule to help EPA characterize 

and monitor a regulated entity’s compliance with their permit requirements. Data 

elements have also been added to address changes in standardized industrial classification 

taxonomies. The WENDB used the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes to 

designate a regulated entity’s industrial sector. Because the federal government has 

adopted the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS), EPA is now 

requiring use of NAICS codes. These changes will allow EPA to more effectively 

manage basic permit information for compliance and enforcement purposes. 

Other permit data elements reflect expansion of the NPDES program. Permit data 

elements associated with new program areas are needed in order to manage and measure 

the environmental impact of operations and facilities now covered under the NPDES 

program. Both the size of the permitted site and the sources of the discharge, such as the 

number of animals in a feeding operation, will be reported. Wet weather components are 

included to manage stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces. CSO data elements are 

included to monitor for possible discharges of untreated human and industrial waste. 

Other elements, such as Control Authority ID Number tie treatment facility permits to the 

approved local pretreatment programs, if applicable. 

The Facility and Permit Data Families are treated similarly throughout this 

analysis and are referred to as Facility Data Elements throughout this report. 

 

10 A full list of the data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127, as well as system required data elements 

not in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127, is provided in Appendix A of this document. 
1-13 28 June 2013

Discharge Monitoring Reports: The DMR Data Family includes effluent monitoring 

data provided by NPDES facilities. DMR information includes data elements regarding 

pollutant concentrations, wastewater flow, and other data about the effluent discharge. 

Limits and Limit Sets: These data characterize limits and limit sets. Months of 

duration for a limit set, stay end date, reason for stay, enforcement action ID, 

eligibility for a burden reduction, and months a limit applies can be used to 

characterize and evaluate the appropriateness of effluent limits or stays of such 

limits. 

Program Reports: The Program Reports Data Family includes program reports 

submitted for NPDES subprograms including: CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, 

sewer overflows, and MS4). Sewer overflows include sanitary sewer overflows, 

combine sewer overflows, and bypass events. 

Compliance Monitoring: The Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Family documents 

compliance monitoring activities at permitted facilities. This family of data generally 

includes information associated with inspections such as inspection type, and dates 

associated with the inspection. 

Compliance monitoring activity data allow EPA to track compliance monitoring 

of the regulated entity. Example data elements include: planned end dates, 

inspection methods, and improved locational information such as latitude and 

longitude associated with compliance monitoring activities. These compliance 

monitoring activity data elements improve the Agency’s understanding of where 

environmental impacts take place. 

Violations: The Violation Data Family includes data associated with violations such as 

single event, effluent, and compliance schedule violations. 

Enforcement Actions: The Enforcement Action Data Family includes data 

regarding the enforcement action itself (e.g., documenting reason for deleting an 

action) as well as associated compliance schedules and penalties. 

Existing CWA regulations define what data must be reported by regulated entities and authorized 

NPDES programs. The proposed rule does not change those requirements. Similarly, existing 

regulations define the universe of NPDES regulated entities, and the proposed rule does not 

change those definitions. 

The major changes resulting from the proposed rule are that authorized NPDES programs will 

provide electronically to EPA more of the data they already collect for nonmajor (individual and 

general) permits, and data submitted by regulated entities will be received electronically by EPA 

and authorized NPDES programs. 

Previously, most authorized NPDES programs provided EPA with comprehensive data on major 

regulated entities, but only basic facility information and compliance information was required 

for nonmajors. In addition, data from regulated entities was usually received in paper form and 

authorized NPDES programs were required to process those submissions and enter all of the data 

into their information systems. 
1-14 28 June 2013

Electronic Reporting and Data Flow 

The proposed rule does not change the reports any regulated entity is required to submit, but it 

does require certain reports to be submitted electronically. The proposed rule will require 

regulated entities to electronically the following reports: 

1. General Permit Reports

 Notice of Intent to discharge (NOI) 

 Notice of Termination (NOT) 

 No Exposure Certifications (NECs) 

 Low Erosivity Waivers (LEWs)] 

2. Discharge Monitoring Reports 

3. Program Reports

 Biosolids Annual Program Report 

 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Annual Program Reports 

 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Report 

 Pretreatment Program Annual Report 

 Significant Industrial User Compliance Reports in Municipalities Without Approved 

Pretreatment Programs 

 Sewer Overflow Event Reports 

These reporting requirements vary by permit type and subprogram, as presented in Table 1-1 

below. 

Table 1-1: Electronic Reporting Requirements by NPDES Subprogram 

NPDES Subprogram 

General 

Permit 

Reports 

DMR Program 

Reports 

Industrial and Stormwater

Standard Industrial Dischargers Yesa Yes No 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Yesa Yes Yes 

MS4 and other Stormwater (Industrial and Construction) Yesa Yesb Yes 

Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) – in municipalities with State 

or EPA as Control Authority No No Yes 

POTWs (may have one or more of these subprograms) 

Biosolids No Yes Yes 

Pretreatment Program No Yes Yes 

Sewer Overflows - Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs) c Yesa Yes Yes 

Sewer Overflows - Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) c Yesa Yes Yes a Only general permit covered facilities 

b Only individual major or general multi-sector permit covered facilities c These POTWs also have the potential for bypass events and the related noncompliance reporting, 

which will be done electronically under this proposed rule. 

EPA information systems will need to be modified to receive and send these electronic reports. In 

addition, authorized NPDES programs will need to modify their existing data processing 

technology and software, or adopt those provided by EPA, to receive these reports. Authorized 

NPDES programs operating their own NPDES data systems will also need to establish data flows 

to send all of the required data, regulated entity generated as well as authorized NPDES program 

generated, to ICIS-NPDES. 
1-15 28 June 2013

1.5 Organization of the Report 

This report examines the burden, costs, and savings to regulated entities, authorized NPDES 

programs, and EPA associated with the proposed rule. The remainder of this report is organized 

as follows: 

 Section 2: Characterizes the permitted facility universe and the frequency of reporting. 

 Section 3: Presents the regulated entity, authorized NPDES program and EPA activities 

that will be affected by the proposed rule. 

 Section 4: Estimates the total burden and savings associated with the proposed rule. 

 Section 5: Analyzes the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. 

 Section 6: Presents the benefits of the proposed rule. 

 Section 7: Presents additional analyses conducted for the proposed rule.
2-1 28 June 2013

Section 2. – Estimating the Permit Universe and Required Data 

Reporting/Submittal 

2.1 Introduction 

Estimating the burden and cost associated with the proposed rule requires knowledge of: 1) the 

universe of permit types affected by the proposed rule; as well as, 2) the required changes in the 

data flows between regulated entities and their authorized NPDES program and between 

authorized NPDES programs and EPA. These inputs are used to generate burden and cost 

estimates in Section 4, as shown in Figure 2-1. Rule requirements vary depending on the NPDES 

subprogram and type of permit. To estimate burden and cost, it is necessary to know: 

 The entity responsible for generating the required data or data transfer. Some required 

data will be reported directly to EPA by permitted facilities. Other required data will be 

submitted to EPA by the authorized NPDES program (Reporting/submittal 

responsibilities are discussed in more detail in Section 3). 

 How frequently the data are reported by the regulated entity or submitted by the 

authorized NPDES program. Facility reporting and the submittals of the authorized 

NPDES program are both referred to in terms of an annual reporting frequency. For 

instance, a report that is submitted every 5 years has an annual reporting frequency of 0.2, 

whereas a report that is submitted monthly has an annual reporting frequency of 12. 

It is important to note that the universe addressed in this economic analysis is somewhat different 

than the universe discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule. In the economic analysis the 

term “universe” essentially refers to permits, whereas the same term in the preamble refers to 

facilities. The distinction is significant because it is possible for individual facilities to have 

multiple permits. 

Figure 2-1: Inputs to Burden and Cost Estimates 

2.1.1 Types of NPDES Permits 

NPDES permits are issued to major and nonmajor facilities in the form of individual permits or 

general permits. Permit types are described in detail in Section 1. Permit types are summarized by 

subprogram in Table 2-1 (see Section 1.3.2 and 2.1.2 for a description of subprograms). Permit 

requirements may vary between individual and general permits, and between major and nonmajor 

facilities. For example, most individual major stormwater regulated entities are required to submit 

discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) on a monthly basis whereas individual nonmajor

stormwater regulated entities generally do not. The cost analysis accounting for the differences 

between major and nonmajor permits; and between individual and general permits is described in 

the Sections 2.3 through 2.9. 
2-2 28 June 2013

Table 2-1: NPDES Regulated Entities and NPDES Permit Types by Subprogram 

Subprogram 

NPDES 

Individual 

Majors 

NPDES 

Individual 

Nonmajors 

NPDES 

General 

Nonmajors 

Other 

Mechanism 

Industrial and Stormwater 

Standard Industrial Dischargers   

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 

(CAFOs) a  

MS4 and other Stormwater (Industrial and 

Construction)   

Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) – in 

municipalities with State or EPA as Control 

Authority 

 

POTWs (may have one or more of these subprograms) 

Biosolids b   

Pretreatment Program b   

Sewer Overflows - Combined Sewer Systems 

(CSSs) c   

Sewer Overflows - Sanitary Sewer Systems 

(SSSs) c   

a Most CAFOs are classified as nonmajors 

b

 Most POTWs regulated by the biosolids and pretreatment regulations have individual NPDES permits. c

 These POTWs also have the potential for bypass events and the related noncompliance reporting, which will 

be done electronically under this proposed rule. 

2.1.2 NPDES Subprograms 

Permit requirements vary according to which subprogram(s) are applicable to a facility’s 

operations. See Section 1.3.2 for a complete description of these facilities. These reporting 

requirements vary by permit type and subprogram, as presented in Table 2-2 below. 

Table 2-2: Electronic Reporting Requirements by NPDES Subprogram 

NPDES Subprogram 

General 

Permit 

Reports 

DMR Program 

Reports 

Industrial and Stormwater

Standard Industrial Dischargers Yesa Yes No 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Yesa Yes Yes 

MS4 and other Stormwater (Industrial and Construction) Yesa Yesb Yes 

Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) – in municipalities with State 

or EPA as Control Authority No No Yes 

POTWs (may have one or more of these subprograms) 

Biosolids No Yes Yes 

Pretreatment Program No Yes Yes 

Sewer Overflows - Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs) c Yesa Yes Yes 

Sewer Overflows - Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) c Yesa Yes Yes a Only general permit covered facilities 

b Only individual major or general multi-sector permit covered facilities c These POTWs also have the potential for bypass events and the related noncompliance reporting, 

which will be done electronically under this proposed rule. 

Industrial and Stormwater Facilities 

 Standard Industrial Dischargers: This group includes industrial facilities that discharge 

directly to a surface water and have an NPDES permit. These facilities can be classified 

as majors or nonmajors and may have coverage under individual or general NPDES 

permits. Facilities with coverage under a general permit will submit one or more general 
2-3 28 June 2013

permit reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs). Most of these facilities submit also DMRs on a 

regular frequency. 

 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs): This is the group of CAFOs that 

have an NPDES permit. Most of these facilities are classified as nonmajors and most 

have coverage under general NPDES permits. Facilities with coverage under a general 

permit will submit one or more general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs). A few but not 

many of these facilities submit also DMRs on an irregular frequency (e.g., unanticipated 

discharges due to large storm events). These facilities will also submit CAFO Annual 

Program Reports.

 MS4 and other Stormwater (Industrial and Construction): This group includes 

industrial facilities that discharge industrial or construction stormwater directly to a 

surface water and have an NPDES permit as well as municipalities that discharge urban 

stormwater under the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program. Facilities 

with coverage under a general permit will submit one or more general permit reports 

(e.g., NOIs, NOTs, NECs, and LEWs). Most of the facilities classified as majors and 

facilities regulated by EPA’s Multi-Sector General Permit submit DMRs on a regular 

frequency. Municipalities that discharge urban stormwater under the MS4 program also 

submit MS4 Program Report. Facilities classified as large and medium MS4 submit these 

reports on an annual basis and facilities classified as small MS4 submit these reports 

twice per five year permit term.

 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs): This group includes industrial facilities that 

discharge to POTWs without an approved pretreatment program. This means that EPA or 

the authorized state is the control authority. These facilities do not have NPDES permits 

but do have a control mechanism that is issued by the control authority (State or EPA). 

These facilities will submit periodic reports on continued compliance on a bi-annual 

frequency to their control authority {i.e., periodic reports on continued compliance for 

CIUs [40 CFR 403.12(e)] and periodic reports on continued compliance for non-CIUs 

[40 CFR 403.12(h)]}. 

POTWs 

POTWs have multiple reporting requirements and are broken out separately in this analysis. 

Additionally, this analysis separates POTWs by their collection system type: Combined Sewer 

Systems (CSSs) and Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs). This is done to help properly identify the 

burden associated with reporting sewer overflows (which include bypass events). POTWs that 

discharge directly to a surface water and have an NPDES permit. These facilities can be classified 

as majors or nonmajors and may have coverage under individual or general NPDES permits. 

Facilities with coverage under a general permit will submit one or more general permit reports 

(e.g., NOIs, NOTs). Most of these facilities submit also DMRs on a regular frequency. POTWs 

may submit the following compliance monitoring data to their authorized NPDES program. 

 Biosolids: EPA’s sewage sludge regulations (40 CFR 503) require certain POTWs to 

submit to the authorized state or EPA region an annual biosolids report. POTWs that 

must submit an annual report include POTWs with a design flow rate equal to or greater 

than one million gallons per day, POTWs that serve 10,000 people or more, and Class I 

sewage sludge management facilities. In general, Class I sewage sludge management 

facilities must report annually to the authorized NPDES program biosolids monitoring 
2-4 28 June 2013

data, quantity of biosolids managed, ultimate end use or disposal of the biosolids, end use 

or disposal location(s), and vector and pathogen reduction measures. 

 Pretreatment: EPA has developed a comprehensive pretreatment program implemented 

through EPA Regions, state, tribes, territories, and POTWs to control industrial 

discharges of pollutants that might pass through or interfere with POTW treatment 

processes or contaminate sewage sludge, thereby posing a threat to human health or the 

environment. POTWs with approved pretreatment programs are required to submit to 

their approval authority (State or EPA) an annual report summarizing basic program 

information and implementation activities. 

 Sewer Overflow Event Reports - Combined Sewer Systems: POTWs that have 

combines sewer systems (CSS) are designed to have combines sewer overflows (CSOs). 

CSO discharges from CSO permitted outfalls (dry or wet-weather) that constitute 

noncompliance are required to be reported under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7). CSO 

discharges from CSO permitted outfalls (wet-weather) that do not result in 

noncompliance can be reported on DMRs [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i)] at the frequency 

identified by the permit, and are subject to public notification requirements, one of the 

nine minimum measures under the CSO Control Policy. However, one of the nine 

minimum measures is to prohibit CSO discharges during dry weather. Therefore, EPA 

regulations require that these and other noncompliance events must be reported under 40 

CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7). For this analysis this sector also includes bypass events 

occurring at CSSs. 

 Sewer Overflow Event Reports - Sanitary Sewer Systems: POTWs with separate 

sanitary sewer systems, unlike combined sewer systems, are designed to carry only 

domestic sewage. Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) are generally unplanned and can 

occur anywhere in a collection system, although generally they are due to excessive 

infiltration and inflow during and following wet weather events. SSOs, including those 

that do not reach waters of the United States, may be indicative of improper operation 

and maintenance of the sewer system and thus may violate NPDES permit conditions 

requiring proper operation and maintenance [40 CFR 122.41(e)]. These noncompliance 

events are required to be reported to the NPDES authorized NPDES program in 

compliance with EPA’s standard permit conditions [40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)]. 

POTWs must provide an oral report within 24 hours for any overflow event that “may 

endanger health or the environment” and follow-up the oral report with a “written 

submission” within 5 days of the permittee’s discovery of the overflow event [see 40 

CFR 122.41(l)(6)]. All other overflows are required to be reported by the permittee with 

the next regularly scheduled monitoring report [40 CFR 122.41(l)(7)]. 

The recipient of these compliance monitoring data depends on the NPDES authorization status of 

the state, tribe, or territory. For example, a POTW may send its DMRs to the state if it is 

authorized to implement the NPDES Base Program for municipal and industrial facilities and its 

Pretreatment Program Annual Report to an EPA Region if the state is not authorized to 

administer the pretreatment program. 

2.1.3 Required Data 

As noted in Section 1, data that regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs are required 

to submit is defined in existing CWA regulations. To facilitate understanding of the proposed 

rule, all of those existing data requirements are consolidated in Appendix A. These data are 

categorized into the data families listed in Table 2-3, which are defined in Section 1. Table 2-3 

also indicates whether it is the regulated entity or authorized NPDES program that initiates the 

data flow that is ultimately entered into ICIS-NPDES. For example, a regulated entity currently 
2-5 28 June 2013

“initiates” a data flow by reporting their DMR information to the authorized NPDES program, 

which then submits the required data to ICIS-NPDES. 

Table 2-3: Required Data Families and Entity Initiating 

Reporting/Submittal Activity 

Regulated Entity 

Initiates Activity 

Authorized NPDES 

program Initiates 

Activity 

Permits 

Limits 

Limit Sets 

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) 

Program Reports 

Compliance Monitoring 

Violations 

Enforcement Actions 

Note that only data elements associated with a related permit type and subprogram will be entered 

in any particular submission. For example, DMR data elements will not be entered for CAFO 

permits because CAFO facilities are not required to send DMRs. Additionally, some data 

elements are specific to only one subprogram, such as data elements required to be entered for 

CAFO program reports. 

2.1.4 Organization of this Section 

Section 2.2 summarizes the number of permits covered by each of the NPDES programs, and the 

analytical methods used to estimate the annual reporting frequency for each data family. Sections 

2.3 – 2.9 present details regarding permit universe, permit type (e.g., major individual), as well as 

the annual reporting frequency for each data family in each subprogram’s data flow. For each 

subprogram, the number of permits by permit type is based on information available in EPA data 

systems or other relevant sources. The annual reporting frequency estimation methods and 

information sources for each data family are presented as well. Section 2.11 provides a summary 

of the permit universe and annual frequencies across all subprograms and permit types. 

2.2 Summary of Permit Universe and Methods Used to Estimate Annual 

Frequencies for Required Reporting 

The proposed rule potentially affects the data flows of most of the NPDES universe. The purpose 

of this section is to summarize the size of the potential universe and illustrate how the annual 

reporting frequencies were estimated (see Table 2-4). Detailed descriptions of how the estimated 

universe and annual reporting frequencies were calculated are presented by subprogram in 

Section 2.3– 2.9. 

 
2-6 28 June 2013

Table 2-4: Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency Methods, by Subprogram 

Data Family Permit Type 

Industrial and Stormwater POTWs (may have one or more subprogram) 

Standard 

Industrial 

Dischargers 

CAFOs MS4s and 

Stormwater SIUs Biosolids Pretreatment CSS POTWs 

SSS 

POTWs 

Individual Majors 3,727 0 297 0 4,209 1,390 591 3,682

Individual Nonmajors 38,926 2,782 6,300 20,630a 694 109 199 9,955

General Nonmajors 31,805 11,624 322,137 0 0 0 38 1,945

Annual Reporting 

Frequency Based on: 

Permits 

Permit Cycle   b

    

Accounted for by 

Another Subprogram   

Other Method c 

Limits and Limit 

Sets 

Required DMR  c

    

No DMR  e 

Other Method f 

DMRs 

Required DMR  d

    

No DMR  e 

Other Method f 

Program 

Reports 

Required Program 

Report  d     

No Program Report  c 

Other Method  

Compliance 

Monitoring 

Compliance Monitoring 

Strategy    

Inspection Data in 

ICIS-NPDES   

Other Method  

Violations 

Annual NonCompliance Report  

Violation Data in ICISNPDES      

Enforcement 

Actions 

Enforcement Action 

Data in ICIS-NPDES       

a Not NPDES permitted 

b Major and nonmajor individual stormwater only 

b General construction and multi-sector stormwater only 

c Major individual stormwater only 

d Nonmajor individual stormwater and general construction stormwater only e General multi-sector stormwater only 

2.3 Standard Industrial Direct Dischargers 

Standard industrial direct dischargers include industrial facilities that discharge to a surface water. 

These facilities have been regulated since the inception of the NPDES Program. 

2.3.1 Permit Universe 

Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits 

The number of major and nonmajor facilities operating under individual permits was estimated by 

querying ICIS-NPDES and PCS (the Office of Water’s system of record) for active major and 

nonmajor standard industrial dischargers. 
2-7 28 June 2013

Cooling Water Intakes and Thermal Variances 

Under the proposed rule, EPA will require that certain permit data elements relating to cooling 

water intakes and thermal variances be reported to ICIS-NPDES for major regulated entities. 

Affected facilities are typically industrial facilities or power plants that use large volumes of 

cooling water from lakes, rivers, estuaries, or oceans (U.S. EPA, 2010c). Because information 

about these facilities will need to be reported, it was necessary to separately characterize the 

universe of NPDES regulated entities with cooling water intakes or thermal variances. It was 

assumed that this permit universe is a subset of the universe of standard industrial dischargers 

with a subprogram. 

The NPDES Amendment of Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for 

New Facilities Federal Register Notice (67 FR 78947, December 26, 2002) provides a list of SIC 

and NAICS codes of entities likely to use cooling water intake structures to withdraw water from 

waters of the U.S. and that have or require a NPDES permit. To construct the universe of major 

permits for which cooling water intake data elements will need to be reported, ICIS-NPDES and 

PCS were queried for active major permits within these SIC and NAICS codes (U.S. EPA, 2011). 

The number of active major permits obtained from ICIS-NPDES and PCS was used as the count 

of regulated entities for which cooling water intake data elements must be reported. The number 

of regulated entities for which thermal variance data elements must be reported was provided by 

EPA’s Office of Water, using national estimates from the EPA’s 316b proposed rule.11 The 

distribution of thermal variances was estimated at the state level using this distribution of cooling 

water intake facilities. 

Nonmajor General Permits 

EPA and state authorized NPDES programs may issue general permits for standard industrial 

direct dischargers. The number of facilities covered under general permits is based on the Office 

of Water’s system of record, in August 2011. General permits with no reporting requirements 

(such as residential septic systems) were excluded from the analysis because they are not affected 

by the rule; this category also excluded general permits covered under other subprogram analyses 

(e.g., CAFOs) to avoid double counting costs and cost savings. 

2.3.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family 

Except where stated otherwise, the annual reporting frequencies described in this section apply to 

individual major, individual nonmajor and general nonmajor standard industrial dischargers. 

Permits 

Permit data must be entered into ICIS-NPDES for standard industrial dischargers. Permit data are 

entered with the permit cycle, once every five years, which translates to an annual reporting 

frequency of 0.2. The same annual reporting frequency is used for cooling water intake and 

thermal variances. 

Limits and Limit Sets for Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits 

All individual standard industrial dischargers must have limits and limit sets data entered into 

ICIS-NPDES. Limits and limit sets change according to the permit cycle, and therefore have an 

annual reporting frequency of 0.2. 

 

11 http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/qa_proposed.pdf 
2-8 28 June 2013

Limits and Limit Sets for Nonmajor General Permits 

Limits and limit sets for nonmajor general standard industrial dischargers are set in the master 

permit, such that these data elements need not be entered for each regulated entity. Therefore, 

limit and limit sets data element have an annual reporting frequency of 0 for nonmajor general 

facilities.

DMRs 

Most permits with DMR requirements must submit DMRs on a monthly basis. Therefore, DMRs 

have an annual reporting frequency of 12. 

Program Reports 

Program reports are only required for permits issued under one of the defined subprograms. By 

definition, this group of facilities is not related to a subprogram, so the “program report” 

requirement does not apply, which means the frequency for submitting the program report data is 

zero for this group of facilities. 

Compliance Monitoring 

Information was not available from ICIS-NPDES regarding the frequency of compliance 

monitoring reports for standard industrial dischargers. Therefore, the annual reporting frequency 

of inspections (0.2) established by the Compliance Monitoring Strategy was used (U.S. EPA, 

2007a), resulting in an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. 

Violations 

Information was not available from ICIS-NPDES regarding the frequency of violations for 

standard industrial dischargers. For the purposes of estimating the frequency of authorized 

NPDES program data entry for violations it was assumed that the rate of violations among 

nonmajor individual permits (0.4), as documented in the Draft 2009 Annual Non-Compliance 

Report, would apply, resulting in an annual reporting frequency of 0.4. 

Enforcement Actions 

The estimated annual reporting frequency of enforcement actions is 0.11, which was estimated 

by: 

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES12 for the number of standard industrial dischargers. 

2. Of the facilities returned in #1, querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of formal and 

informal enforcement actions in the past five years. 

3. Dividing the number of formal and informal enforcement actions in the past five 

years by five to estimate the average number of formal and informal enforcement 

actions in a one-year period. 

4. Dividing the average number of formal and informal enforcement actions by the 

number of permits to estimate the annual reporting frequency.

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for enforcement 

action data. 

2.3.3 Summary 

 

12 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit component search capability, it was used to gather 

violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It was assumed that the violation rate in ICIS-NPDES was 

representative of the universe as a whole. 
2-9 28 June 2013

Table 2-5 summarizes the number of standard industrial dischargers and the annual frequencies 

for each required data family. 

Table 2-5: Standard Industrial Dischargers Permit 

Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency 

Individual 

Majors 

Individual 

Nonmajors 

General 

Nonmajors 

# Permits 3,727a 38,926 31,805 

# Permits – Cooling 

Water Intakes and 

Thermal Variances 

1,725 n/a n/a 

Data Family 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Permits 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Limits 0.2 0.2 0 

Limit Sets 0.2 0.2 0 

DMRs 12 12 12 

Program Reports 0 0 0 

Compliance Monitoring 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Violations 0.4 0.4 0.4 

Enforcement Actions 0.11 0.11 0.11 

a This number represents a subset of the 6,700 major permits. The 

remaining majors are POTWs accounted for under the SSS and CSS 

universe. 

2.4 Biosolids 

The biosolids NPDES subprogram applies to those facilities that use or dispose of treated sewage 

sludge, also referred to as “biosolids.” Biosolids reporting criteria mostly apply to POTWs that 

ship their biosolids offsite for use as fertilizer, with the addition of some non-POTW facilities that 

produce and distribute biosolids. Furthermore, while some facilities generate biosolids, they are 

not required to report to EPA unless they ship the biosolids offsite. Therefore, the biosolids 

universe used in the analysis only represents those facilities that annually transfer biosolids 

offsite, which accounts for most biosolids reporting activity. 

2.4.1 Permit Universe 

Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits 

It was necessary to estimate the universe of major biosolids facilities because EPA’s data systems 

do not contain permit information for all states. Eight states have approved biosolids programs, 

four of which have data in ICIS-NPDES (the Office of Water’s system of record). The universe 

of major and nonmajor biosolids facilities was estimated by: 

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of biosolids facilities for the four approved 

states with data in the system. 

2. Querying the same four states for the number of POTWs in each. 

3. Determining the percent of POTWs with biosolids permit components (92%) in the 

four states. 
2-10 28 June 2013

4. Estimating the number of non-POTW biosolids programs in the nation. This number 

equals 2.5% of the biosolids-POTW universe.13

5. Querying ICIS-NPDES and PCS for the total number of POTWs in each state. 

6. Applying the percentage of POTWs with biosolids approval to the number of 

POTWs for each state in the overall NPDES universe. 

7. Calculating the number of non-POTW biosolids permits from previously calculated 

2.5% and adding to the count of POTWs with biosolids requirements in their permit. 

The number of major and nonmajor biosolids permits were calculated separately using the 

method described above. 

Nonmajor General Permits 

While nonmajor general biosolids permits exist, it was not possible to determine the exact 

number based on available data. Because the costs would not differ based on the individual versus 

general permit classification, it was assumed that all biosolids facilities are regulated under 

individual permits. Therefore, for the purpose of estimating potential costs, the universe of 

nonmajor general biosolids permits is zero. 

2.4.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family 

Except where stated otherwise, the annual reporting frequencies described in this section apply to 

both major and nonmajor biosolids facilities. 

Permits 

As biosolids facilities are a subset of POTWs, the annual reporting frequency for permit 

information is included in the analysis of the CSS and SSS subprograms. Therefore, the annual 

reporting frequencies for permit data elements for both major and nonmajor individual permits 

were set to 0. However, those permit data elements specific to the biosolids program were 

assumed to have an annual reporting frequency of 0.2, because they are assumed to be generated 

on the permit cycle. 

Limits and Limit Sets 

Biosolids facilities are POTWs or standard industrial dischargers regulated under other NPDES 

programs, such as SSSs. These facilities do submit DMRs with corresponding limits and limit 

sets, but the data entry and processing associated with those limits and limit sets are accounted for 

under the SSS, CSS or Standard Industrial Discharger universes. Therefore, biosolids facilities 

have no biosolids specific discharges, which means the frequency for submitting limit and limit 

set data is zero for this group of facilities. 

DMRs 

As stated above, biosolids facilities are SSSs, CSSs, or Standard Industrial Dischargers. These 

facilities do submit DMRs, but the data entry and processing associated with those reports are 

accounted for under the SSS, CSS or Standard Industrial Discharger universes. Biosolids facilities 

have no biosolids specific discharges, which means the frequency for submitting DMRs is zero 

for this group of facilities. 

 

13 Based on an ICIS-NPDES query of biosolids facilities showed that 1,464 of 1,501 (97.5%) facilities were 

POTWs. Therefore, it was assumed that another 2.5% of the POTW-biosolids universe (37/1,464) were not 

POTWs. 
2-11 28 June 2013

Program Reports 

Biosolids permits have an annual program report requirement, therefore the annual reporting 

frequency for program reports data is 1. 

Compliance Monitoring 

As stated above, all biosolids facilities are covered under SSS, CSS or Standard Industrial 

Discharger permits. Therefore the violation information associated with these facilities is 

accounted for under the SSS, CSS or Standard Industrial Discharger permit universes and, to 

prevent double counting, the reporting frequency for compliance monitoring is zero. 

Violations 

As stated above, all biosolids facilities are covered under SSS, CSS or Standard Industrial 

Discharger permits. Therefore the violation information associated with these facilities is 

accounted for under the SSS, CSS or Standard Industrial Discharger permit universes and, to 

prevent double counting, the reporting frequency for violations is zero. 

Enforcement Actions 

As stated above, all biosolids facilities are covered under SSS, CSS or Standard Industrial 

Discharger permits. Therefore the violation information associated with these facilities is 

accounted for under the SSS, CSS or Standard Industrial Discharger permit universes and, to 

prevent double counting, the reporting frequency for enforcement actions is zero. 

2.4.3 Summary 

Table 2-6 summarizes the number of biosolids regulated entities and the annual frequencies for 

each required data family. 

Table 2-6: Biosolids Permit Universe and Annual 

Reporting Frequency 

Individual 

Majors 

Individual 

Nonmajors 

General 

Nonmajors 

# Permits 4,209 694 0 

Data Family 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Permits 0.2a 0.2a n/a 

Limits 0 0 n/a 

Limit Sets 0 0 n/a 

DMRs 0 0 n/a 

Program Reports 1 1 n/a 

Compliance Monitoring 0 0 n/a 

Violations 0 0 n/a 

Enforcement Actions 0 0 n/a 

a Annual reporting frequency applies only to those permit data elements 

specific to the biosolids program. All other permit data elements are 

captured by CSSs and SSSs and have an annual reporting frequency of 

0. 

2.5 CAFOs 

A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is an agricultural operation where a large 

number of animals are kept and raised in confined situations, and is defined based on the number 
2-12 28 June 2013

of animals at the facility. Animal waste and wastewater from CAFOs can enter water bodies from 

spills or breaks of waste storage structures. CAFOs are classified as point sources and are 

regulated under NPDES. 

2.5.1 Permit Universe 

Major Individual Permits 

By definition, there are no major CAFO permits. 

Nonmajor Individual and General Permits 

Estimates of the number of CAFOs were provided by the Office of Water (OW), based on EPA’s 

CAFO Proposed rule.14 The proposed rule states there are approximately 19,200 CAFOs 

nationwide, with as many as 75% intending to discharge and therefore needing a NPDES permit 

to operate. Estimates of the number of CAFOs per state were provided by OW; however the 

distribution between nonmajor individuals and nonmajor generals was unknown. A query of ICIS 

revealed 386 individual permit covered CAFO facilities and 1,613 general permit covered CAFO 

facilities. This ratio (386/1,613) was used to apportion OW’s state-level estimates between 

individual and general permits. 

2.5.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family 

Except where stated otherwise, the annual reporting frequencies described in this section apply to 

both individual and general permit covered CAFO facilities. 

Permits 

Permit data elements will be entered with the permit cycle, once every five years, which 

translates to an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. 

Limits and Limit Sets 

Limits and limit sets are required for facilities that submit DMRs. CAFOs are generally not 

required to submit DMRs and so are not required to have the limits and limit sets data families 

entered into ICIS-NPDES. The annual reporting frequency for limits and limit sets is therefore 0. 

DMRs 

DMRs are generally not required for CAFOs; therefore the annual reporting frequency is zero. 

Program Reports 

CAFOs have an annual program report requirement, therefore the annual reporting frequency for 

program reports data is 1. 

Compliance Monitoring 

Information was not available from ICIS-NPDES regarding the frequency of compliance 

monitoring reports for CAFO permits. Therefore, the annual reporting frequency of inspections 

for such regulated entities (0.2) was taken from the Compliance Monitoring Strategy (U.S. EPA, 

2007a), resulting in an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. 

 

14 http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_implementationstatus_9302010.pdf 
2-13 28 June 2013

Violations 

The annual reporting frequency of violations is estimated to be 0.01 for both nonmajor individual 

and general CAFO permits, and was estimated by: 

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES15 for the number of facilities with CAFO components in their 

NPDES permit. 

2. Of the facilities returned in #1, querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of notices of 

violation in the past five years. 

3. Dividing the number of notices of violation in the past five years by five to estimate 

the average number of notices of violation in a one-year period. 

4. Dividing the average number of notices of violation by the total number of facilities 

with CAFO components to estimate the annual reporting frequency. 

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for violations data. 

 Enforcement Actions 

The estimated annual reporting frequency of enforcement actions is 0.02 for both nonmajor 

individual and general CAFO permits, which was estimated by: 

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES16 for the number of facilities with CAFO components in their 

NPDES permit. 

2. Of the facilities returned in #1, querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of formal and 

informal enforcement actions in the past five years. 

3. Dividing the number of formal and informal enforcement actions in the past five 

years by five to estimate the average number of formal and informal enforcement 

actions in a one-year period. 

4. Dividing the average number of formal and informal enforcement actions by the 

number of permits with CAFO components to estimate the annual reporting 

frequency.

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for enforcement 

action data. 

2.5.3 Summary 

Table 2-7 summarizes the number of CAFO regulated entities and the annual frequencies for each 

required data family. 

 

15 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit component search capability, it was used to gather 

violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It was assumed that the violation rate in ICIS-NPDES was 

representative of the universe as a whole. 

16 ibid 
2-14 28 June 2013

Table 2-7: CAFOs Permit Universe and Annual 

Reporting Frequency 

Individual 

Majors 

Individual 

Nonmajors 

General 

Nonmajors 

# Permits 0 2,782 11,624 

Data Family 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Permits n/a 0.2 0.2 

Limits n/a 0 0 

Limit Sets n/a 0 0 

DMRs n/a 0 0 

Program Reports n/a 1 1 

Compliance Monitoring n/a 0.2 0.2 

Violations n/a 0.01 0.01 

Enforcement Actions n/a 0.02 0.02 

2.6 CSSs 

Combined sewer systems (CSSs) are sewers that are designed to collect rainwater runoff, 

domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same collection system. Typically, CSSs 

transport all of their wastewater to a sewage treatment plant where it is treated and then 

discharged to a water body. During periods of heavy rainfall or snowmelt the wastewater volume 

in a combined sewer system can exceed the capacity of the sewer system or treatment plant(s). 

For this reason, combined sewer systems may be designed to overflow during peak inflow events 

and discharge excess combined wastewater directly to nearby streams, rivers, or other water 

bodies. These combined sewer overflows (CSOs) contain not only stormwater but also untreated 

human and industrial wastes, toxic materials, and debris. It is assumed that all states with NPDES 

authorized NPDES program will administer their CSS program. EPA administers the CSS 

program in the remaining states. POTWs that operate CSS can also have bypass events [40 CFR 

122.41(m)] and are also required to report such events when sewage bypasses any portion of a 

treatment facility. 

2.6.1 Permit Universe 

Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits 

In 2004, EPA submitted a Report to Congress that inventoried the Combined Sanitary Sewers and 

Sanitary Sewer Systems throughout the United States and characterized overflow events.17 The 

2004 Report to Congress includes the number of combined sewer overflow events annually by 

state. In the proposed rule, the CSS permit universe is assumed to be equal to the number of CSSs 

in the 2004 report because program reports capturing CSO events and inspections are required at 

the CSS level. The distinction between major and nonmajor permit holders is not available in the 

2004 Report to Congress. Data available in ICIS-NPDES suggests that 24% of CSSs are majors 

and the remaining 76% are nonmajors. 

Note that one state, Pennsylvania, issues permits to CSSs under a general permit. In this analysis, 

it is assumed that all CSS permits in Pennsylvania are nonmajor general permits (Weiss, 2011). 

All nonmajor general CSS permits are assumed to have the same annual reporting frequencies as 

nonmajor individual permits. 

 

17 http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/demo.cfm?program_id=5 
2-15 28 June 2013

2.6.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family 

Except where stated otherwise, the annual frequencies described in this section apply to both 

major and nonmajor CSS permits. 

Permits 

CSS permit data must be entered into ICIS-NPDES. Permit data are entered with the permit 

cycle, once every five years, which translates to an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. 

Limits and Limit Sets 

All CSS permits must have limits and limit sets data entered into ICIS-NPDES. Limits and limit 

sets change according to the permit cycle, and therefore have an annual reporting frequency of 

0.2. 

DMRs 

Annual reporting frequencies are linked to the requirement that DMRs must be sent on a monthly 

basis. Therefore, DMRs have an annual reporting frequency of 12. 

Program Reports 

CSSs must submit a program report for every overflow and bypass event. Therefore, the 

estimated annual reporting frequency for program report data for CSOs was set as the number of 

overflow and bypass events divided by the number of CSS POTWs. Based on this calculation, the 

estimated annual reporting frequency is 12.57 for majors and nonmajors. 

Compliance Monitoring 

Compliance monitoring information must be entered for every CSO event, according to EPA 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy. Therefore, the estimated annual reporting frequency for 

compliance monitoring data for CSOs was set as the number of CSOs divided by the number of 

CSSs. Based on this calculation; the estimated annual reporting frequency is 11.22 for majors and 

nonmajors. 

Violations 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for violation data for major CSS facilities is 0.23. The 

estimated annual reporting frequency for violation data for nonmajor CSS facilities is 0.11. These 

annual reporting frequencies were estimated by: 

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES18 for the number of facilities with CSS components. 

2. Of the facilities returned in #1, querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of notices of 

violation in the past five years. 

3. Dividing the number of notices of violation in the past five years by five to estimate 

the average number of notices of violation in a one-year period. 

4. Dividing the average number of notices of violation by the total number of facilities 

with CSS components to estimate the annual reporting frequency. 

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for violations data 

elements. Annual reporting frequencies were calculated separately for majors and nonmajors. 

 

18 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit component search capability, it was used to gather 

violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It was assumed that the violation rate in ICIS-NPDES was 

representative of the universe as a whole. 
2-16 28 June 2013

Enforcement Actions 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for enforcement action data for major CSS facilities is 

0.36. The estimated annual reporting frequency for enforcement action data for nonmajor CSS 

facilities is 0.14. These annual reporting frequencies were estimated by: 

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES19 for the number of facilities with CSS components. 

2. Of the facilities returned in #1, querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of formal and 

informal enforcement actions in the past five years. 

3. Dividing the number of formal and informal enforcement actions in the past five 

years by five to estimate the average number formal and informal enforcement 

actions in a one-year period. 

4. Dividing the average number of formal and informal enforcement actions by the 

number of permits with CSS components to estimate the annual reporting frequency.

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for enforcement 

action data. Annual reporting frequencies were calculated separately for majors and nonmajors. 

2.6.3 Summary 

Table 2-8 summarizes the number of CSS regulated entities and the annual frequencies for each 

required data family. 

Table 2-8: CSS POTW Permit Universe and Annual 

Reporting Frequency 

Individual 

Majors 

Individual 

Nonmajors 

General 

Nonmajors 

# Permits 591 199 38 

Data Family 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Permits 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Limits 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Limit Sets 0.2 0.2 0.2 

DMRs 12 12 12 

Program Reports 11.22 11.22 11.22 

Compliance Monitoring 11.22 11.22 11.22 

Violations 0.23 0.11 0.11 

Enforcement Actions 0.36 0.14 0.14 

2.7 Pretreatment 

Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) collect wastewater from homes, commercial buildings, 

and industrial facilities and transport it via a sewer collection system, to the treatment plant. At 

the treatment plant, the POTW removes harmful organisms and other contaminants from the 

sewage so it can be discharged safely into the receiving stream. Generally, POTWs are designed 

to treat domestic sewage; however, most POTWs also receive wastewater from industrial users. 

The General Pretreatment Regulations establish responsibilities of the POTW to develop and 

implement local limits for industrial users (IUs)/dischargers to the sewer system to control 

 

19 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit component search capability, it was used to gather 

violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It was assumed that the violation rate in ICIS-NPDES was 

representative of the universe as a whole. 
2-17 28 June 2013

pollutants that may pass through or interfere with POTW treatment processes or that may 

contaminate sewage sludge. States may issue IU permits even though the IU discharges to the 

sewer collection system for further treatment at the POTW. POTWs with Approved Pretreatment 

Programs must administer a local program covering IUs and report to their authorized NPDES 

program about administering their pretreatment program. 

2.7.1 Permit Universe 

Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits 

The current number of major and nonmajor POTWs with Approved Pretreatment Programs in 

each state was estimated by querying ICIS-NPDES and PCS (the Office of Water’s system of 

record) for active major and nonmajor pretreatment facilities. 

Nonmajor General Permits 

There are no general permits for nonmajor POTWs with Approved Pretreatment Programs. 

Therefore, the universe for this category is zero.

2.7.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family 

Except where stated otherwise, the annual frequencies described in this section apply to both 

major and nonmajor pretreatment permits. 

Permits 

As pretreatment facilities are a subset of POTWs, the annual reporting frequency for permit data 

is captured by the CSS and SSS subprograms. Therefore, the annual frequencies for both major 

and nonmajor individual pretreatment facilities were set to 0. However, those permit data 

elements specific to the pretreatment program were assumed to have an annual reporting 

frequency of 0.2, because they are assumed to be generated on the permit cycle. 

Limits and Limit Sets 

All pretreatment permits must have limits and limit sets data entered into ICIS-NPDES. Limits 

and limit sets change according to the permit cycle, and therefore have an annual reporting 

frequency of 0.2. 

DMRs 

Annual reporting frequencies are linked to the requirement that DMRs must be sent on a monthly 

basis. Therefore, DMRs have an annual reporting frequency of 12. 

Program Reports 

Pretreatment programs have an annual program report requirement; therefore the annual reporting 

frequency for program reports is 1. 

Compliance Monitoring 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for compliance monitoring data for major pretreatment 

facilities is 0.2. The estimated annual reporting frequency for compliance monitoring data for 

nonmajor pretreatment facilities is 0.17. These annual reporting frequencies were estimated by: 
2-18 28 June 2013

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES20 for the number of facilities with pretreatment program 

components. 

2. Of the facilities returned in #1, querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of inspections 

in the past five years. 

3. Dividing the number inspections in the past five years by five to estimate the average 

number of inspections in a one-year period. 

4. Dividing the average number of inspections by the total number of facilities with 

pretreatment program components to estimate the annual reporting frequency. 

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for compliance 

monitoring data. Annual reporting frequencies were calculated separately for majors and 

nonmajors. 

Violations 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for violations data for major pretreatment facilities is 

0.23. The estimated annual reporting frequency for violations data for nonmajor pretreatment 

facilities is 0.14. These annual reporting frequencies were estimated by: 

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES21 for the number of facilities with pretreatment program 

components. 

2. Of the facilities returned in #1, querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of notices of 

violation in the past five years. 

3. Dividing the number of notices of violation in the past five years by five to estimate 

the average number of notices of violation in a one-year period. 

4. Dividing the average number of notices of violation by the total number of facilities 

with pretreatment program components to estimate the annual reporting frequency. 

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for violations data. 

Annual reporting frequencies were calculated separately for majors and nonmajors. 

Enforcement Actions 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for enforcement action data for major pretreatment 

facilities is 0.39. The estimated annual reporting frequency for enforcement action data for 

nonmajor pretreatment facilities is 0.22. These annual reporting frequencies were estimated by: 

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES22 for the number of facilities with pretreatment information. 

2. Of the facilities returned in #1, querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of formal and 

informal enforcement actions in the past five years. 

3. Dividing the number of formal and informal enforcement actions in the past five 

years by five to estimate the average number of formal and informal enforcement 

actions in a one-year period. 

 

20 ibid 

21 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit component search capability, it was used to gather 

violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It was assumed that the violation rate in ICIS-NPDES was 

representative of the universe as a whole. 

22 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit component search capability, it was used to gather 

violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It was assumed that the violation rate in ICIS-NPDES was 

representative of the universe as a whole. 
2-19 28 June 2013

4. Dividing the average number of formal and informal enforcement actions by the 

number of permits with pretreatment components to estimate the annual reporting 

frequency.

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for enforcement 

action data. Annual reporting frequencies were calculated separately for majors and nonmajors. 

2.7.3 Summary 

Table 2-9 summarizes the number of pretreatment regulated entities and the annual frequencies 

for each required data family. 

Table 2-9: Pretreatment Permit Universe and Annual 

Reporting Frequency 

Individual 

Majors 

Individual 

Nonmajors 

General 

Nonmajors 

# Permits 1,390 109 0 

Data Family 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Permits 0.2a 0.2a n/a 

Limits 0.2 0.2 n/a 

Limit Sets 0.2 0.2 n/a 

DMRs 12 12 n/a 

Program Reports 1 1 n/a 

Compliance Monitoring 0.2 0.17 n/a 

Violations 0.23 0.14 n/a 

Enforcement Actions 0.39 0.22 n/a 

a Annual reporting frequency applies only to those permit data elements 

specific to the pretreatment program. All other permit data elements are 

captured by CSSs and SSSs and have an annual reporting frequency of 

0. 

2.8 SSSs 

Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) are sewers designed to collect and transport all domestic sewage 

that flows into them to a POTW. Properly designed, operated, and maintained SSSs are designed 

to prevent overflows. However, occasional unintentional discharges of raw sewage from 

municipal sanitary sewers occur in almost every system. These types of discharges are called 

sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and they contain untreated human and industrial wastes. It is 

assumed that all states with NPDES authorized NPDES program will administer their SSS 

program, and that EPA administers the SSS program in the remaining states. POTWs that operate 

SSS can also have bypass events [40 CFR 122.41(m)] and are also required to report such events 

when sewage bypasses any portion of a treatment facility. 

2.8.1 Permit Universe 

Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits 

In 2004, EPA submitted a Report to Congress that inventoried the Combined Sanitary Sewers and 

Sanitary Sewer Systems throughout the United States and characterized overflow events.23 The 

2004 Report to Congress includes the number of sanitary sewer overflow events annually by 

 

23 http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/demo.cfm?program_id=5 
2-20 28 June 2013

state. In the proposed rule, the number of POTWs that have SSOs is assumed to be equal to the 

number of SSSs in the 2004 report because program reports capturing SSO events and inspections 

are required at the SSO level. The distinction between major and nonmajor permit holders is not 

available in the 2004 Report to Congress. Data available in ICIS-NPDES suggests that 24% of 

SSSs are majors and the remaining 76% are nonmajors. 

2.8.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family 

Except where stated otherwise, the annual frequencies described in this section apply to both 

major and nonmajor POTWs with SSOs. 

Permits 

SSS POTW permit data must be entered into ICIS-NPDES. Permit data are entered with the 

permit cycle, once every five years, which translates to an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. 

Limits and Limit Sets 

All SSS POTW permits must have limits and limit sets data entered into ICIS-NPDES. Limits 

and limit sets change according to the permit cycle, and therefore have an annual reporting 

frequency of 0.2. 

DMRs 

All SSS POTWs must submit DMRs for their permitted dischargers to surface waters. Annual 

reporting frequencies are linked to the requirement that DMRs must be sent on a monthly basis. 

Therefore, DMRs have an annual reporting frequency of 12. 

Program Reports 

SSS POTWs must submit a program report for every overflow and bypass event. Therefore, the 

estimated annual reporting frequency for program report data elements for these POTWs was set 

as the number of overflow and bypass events divided by the number of SSS POTWs. Based on 

this calculation; the estimated annual reporting frequency is 2.70 for majors and nonmajors. 

Compliance Monitoring 

Compliance monitoring information must be entered for every SSO event, according to the EPA 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy. The 2004 Report to Congress characterizing CSSs and SSSs 

stated that there were 40,000 SSO events annually from a total of 15,582 SSS POTWs. Therefore, 

the annual reporting frequency for compliance monitoring data elements for SSSs was estimated 

as 40,000 SSO events annually divided by 15,582 SSS systems, or 2.57 annual reporting 

frequency. 

Violations 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for violation data for major SSS POTWs is 0.23. The 

estimated annual reporting frequency for violation data for nonmajor SSS POTWs is 0.11. These 

annual reporting frequencies were estimated by: 

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES24 for the number of facilities with SSS components. 

 

24 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit component search capability, it was used to gather 

violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It was assumed that the violation rate estimated from ICISNPDES was representative of the universe as a whole. 
2-21 28 June 2013

2. Of the facilities returned in #1, querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of notices of 

violation in the past five years. 

3. Dividing the number of notices of violation in the past five years by five to estimate 

the average number of notices of violation in a one-year period. 

4. Dividing the average number of notices of violation by the total number of facilities 

with SSS components to estimate the annual reporting frequency. 

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for violations data. 

Annual reporting frequencies were calculated separately for majors and nonmajors. 

Enforcement Actions 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for enforcement action data for major SSS facilities is 

0.36. The estimated annual reporting frequency for enforcement action data for nonmajor SSS 

facilities is 0.14. These annual reporting frequencies were estimated by: 

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES25 for the number of facilities with SSS components. 

2. Of the facilities returned in #1, querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of formal and 

informal enforcement actions in the past five years. 

3. Dividing the number of formal and informal enforcement actions in the past five 

years by five to estimate the average number of formal and informal enforcement 

actions in a one-year period. 

4. Dividing the average number of formal and informal enforcement by the number of 

SSS permits to estimate the annual reporting frequency.

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for enforcement 

action data. Annual reporting frequencies were calculated separately for majors and nonmajors. 

2.8.3 Summary 

Table 2-10 summarizes the number of SSS regulated entities and the annual frequencies for each 

required data family. 

Table 2-10: SSS POTW Permit Universe and Annual 

Reporting Frequency 

Individual 

Majors 

Individual 

Nonmajors 

General 

Nonmajors 

# Permits 3,682 9,955 1,945 

Data Family 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Permits 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Limits 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Limit Sets 0.2 0.2 0.2 

DMRs 12 12 12 

Program Reports 2.57 2.57 2.57 

Compliance Monitoring 2.57 2.57 2.57 

Violations 0.23 0.11 0.11 

Enforcement Actions 0.36 0.14 0.14 

 

25 ibid 
2-22 28 June 2013

2.9 Stormwater 

The stormwater subprogram regulates stormwater discharges from three potential sources: 

municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s); construction activities; and industrial activities. 

MS4s collect stormwater runoff and are designated as Phase I and Phase II MS4s. The Phase I 

rule, issued in 1990, requires medium and large cities or certain counties with populations of 

100,000 or more to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. The Phase II 

rule, issued in 1999, requires regulated small MS4s in urbanized areas, as well as small MS4s 

outside the urbanized areas that are designated by the authorized NPDES program, to obtain 

NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. Construction activity permits are for 

building sites that disturb more than 1 acre of land and therefore could have significant runoff 

from the site. Multi-sector General (a.k.a. Industrial) stormwater permits are for discharges from 

sites where material is stored or handled outside and therefore can pollute stormwater runoff. It is 

assumed that all States with NPDES authorized NPDES program will administer their stormwater 

program. 

2.9.1 Permit Universe 

Major MS4 Permits 

By definition, the Phase 1 MS4s, which include large and medium cities, are the only major 

facilities in the stormwater program. The number of Phase 1 MS4s was obtained from EPA’s 

Office of Water (Clark, 2011; Faulk, 2008). 

Nonmajor MS4 Permits 

For the purpose of estimating costs, it was assumed that all Phase 2 MS4s are nonmajor facilities. 

The number of Phase 2 MS4s was obtained from EPA’s Office of Water (Clark, 2011; Faulk, 

2008). 

Nonmajor General Permits – Construction General Permit (CGP) 

Operators of construction sites that are one acre or larger (including smaller sites that are part of a 

larger common plan of development) may be required to obtain authorization to discharge 

stormwater under a NPDES construction stormwater permit. The number of facilities covered by 

construction general permits was obtained from EPA’s Office of Water (Clark, 2011; Faulk, 

2008). Note that small construction facilities may file low erosivity waiver certifications in place 

of NOIs if the site has a low predicted rainfall and the rainfall erosivity factor (R factor) is less 

than 5 during the period of construction activity. 

Nonmajor General Permits – Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) 

Industrial sectors may require authorization under a NPDES industrial stormwater permit for 

stormwater discharges. The number of facilities covered by construction general permits was 

obtained from EPA’s Office of Water (Clark, 2011; Faulk, 2008). As with the CGP, facilities 

conducting certain categories of industrial activity may file no exposure certifications in place of 

NOIs if their industrial materials and operations are not exposed to stormwater. 

2.9.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family 

Except where stated otherwise, the annual frequencies described in this section apply to major 

individual, nonmajor individual, and nonmajor general stormwater permits. 
2-23 28 June 2013

Permit Data for Major and Nonmajor MS4 Permits 

MS4s permit data must be entered into ICIS-NPDES. Permit data are entered with the permit 

cycle, once every five years, which translates to an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. 

Permit Data for Construction General Permits (CGP) 

Permit data elements are entered both for construction facilities filing NOIs and for construction 

facilities filing low erosivity waivers. Data from EPA’s NOI search tool from states with wellpopulated data was used to determine the number of NOIs received annually. The annual 

reporting frequency for permit data elements was estimated by combining the percentages of the 

CGP universe filing NOIs and low erosivity waivers annually, as follows: 

1. Querying EPA NOI search tool for all CGP NOIs filed by year over the past five 

years by state. 

2. Limiting data to just those states that are well populated with NOIs. 

3. Estimating the average number of NOIs annually. 

4. Summing #3 across states. 

5. Dividing the result of #4 by the estimate of the total universe (4%). 

6. Querying EPA NOI search tool for all low erosivity waivers filed in 2009. 

7. Dividing number of low erosivity waivers filed in 2009 by the number of CGP NOIs 

to obtain the percentage of the CGP universe filing low erosivity waivers in one year 

(1%). 

8. Summing the percentage of the total universe of construction sites filing NOIs in one 

year (4%) and the percentage of the total universe filing low erosivity waivers in one 

year (1%) to obtain the percentage of the total universe for which permit data 

elements must be entered in one year (5%). 

The percentage calculated in step #8 represents the annual reporting frequency for permit data. 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for permit data elements for facilities covered under the 

CGP is 0.17. 

EPA also accounted for facilities that terminate operations and need to submit a NOT by 

assuming that approximately 20% of all facilities with NOIs and LEWs would terminate 

operations per year. Thus, to account for NOTs, EPA increased permit data costs by 20%. 

Permit Data for Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGP) 

Permit data elements are entered both for industrial facilities applying for NOIs and for industrial 

facilities filing no exposure waivers. Data from EPA’s NOI search tool from states with wellpopulated data was used to estimate the number of new multi-sector general permit NOIs filed 

each year. The annual reporting frequency for permit data elements was estimated by combining 

the percentages of the MSGP universe filing those documents annually, as follows: 

1. Querying EPA NOI search tool for all MSGP NOIs filed by year over the past five 

years by state. 

2. Limiting data to just those states that are well populated with NOIs. 

3. Estimating average number of NOIs for each state. 

4. Summing #3 across states. 

5. Dividing the result of #4 by the estimate of the total universe (9%). 

6. Querying EPA NOI search tool for all no exposure certifications filed in 2009. 
2-24 28 June 2013

7. Dividing number of no exposure certifications filed in 2009 by the number of MSGP 

NOIs to obtain the percentage of the total universe filing no exposure certifications in 

one year (9%). 

8. Summing the percentage of the total universe filing NOIs in one year (9%) and the 

percentage of the total universe filing no exposure certifications in one year (9%) to 

obtain the percentage of the total universe for which permit data elements must be 

entered in one year (18%). 

The percentage calculated in step #8 represents the annual reporting frequency for permit data. 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for permit data elements for facilities covered under the 

MSGP is 0.18. 

EPA also accounted for facilities that terminate operations and need to submit a NOT by 

assuming that approximately 5% of all facilities with NOIs and NECs would terminate operations 

per year. Thus, to account for NOTs, EPA increased permit data costs by 5%. 

Limits and Limit Sets for Major MS4 Permits 

Limits and limit sets, where applicable, must be entered in ICIS-NPDES for major MS4 

stormwater permits. Limits and limit sets change according to the permit cycle, and therefore 

have an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. 

Limits and Limit Sets for Nonmajor MS4 Permits 

Limits and limit sets are only required for facilities that submit DMRs. Nonmajor MS4 

stormwater permits are not required to submit DMRs and so are not required to have the limits 

and limit sets data families entered into ICIS-NPDES, and therefore have an annual reporting 

frequency of 0. 

Limits and Limit Sets for Construction General Permits (CGP) 

Limits and limit sets are required for facilities that submit DMRs. CGPs are not required to 

submit DMRs and so are not required to have the limits and limit sets data families entered into 

ICIS-NPDES, and therefore have an annual reporting frequency of 0. 

Limits and Limit Sets for Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGP) 

Limits and limit sets for MSGPs are set in the master permit, such that these data elements need 

not be entered for each regulated entity. Therefore, limit and limit sets data element have an 

annual reporting frequency of 0 for MSGPs. 

DMRs for Major MS4 Permits 

Annual reporting frequencies are linked to the requirement that DMRs must be sent on a monthly 

basis. Therefore, DMRs have an annual reporting frequency of 12. 

DMRs for Nonmajor MS4 Permits 

DMRs are not required for nonmajor MS4s; therefore the annual reporting frequency is zero. 

DMRs for Construction General Permits (CGP) 

DMRs are not required for facilities covered under EPA CGPs. Although state reporting 

requirements could potentially be different, it is assumed that the annual reporting frequency is 

zero. 
2-25 28 June 2013

DMRs for Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGP) 

DMRs are required for some facilities covered under the EPA-issued MGPs three times a year. 

Although state reporting requirements could potentially be different, it is assumed that the DMR 

annual reporting frequency is 3. 

Program Reports for Major MS4 Permits 

Major MS4 programs have an annual program report requirement, and therefore the annual 

reporting frequency is 1. 

Program Reports for Nonmajor MS4 Permits 

Nonmajor MS4s are required to send program reports in the second and fourth year of the permit 

cycle, and therefore the annual reporting frequency is 0.4. 

Program Reports for General Permits (CGP and MSGP) 

Program reports are not required for CGPs and MSGPs under the proposed rule, and therefore the 

annual reporting frequency is zero. Note, certain permits may require program reports but such 

requirements are permit-specific and not associated with requirements under the rule. 

Compliance Monitoring 

Information was not available from ICIS-NPDES regarding the frequency of compliance 

monitoring reports for stormwater permits. Therefore, the annual reporting frequency of 

inspections from the Compliance Monitoring Strategy was used (U.S. EPA, 2007a). The 

estimated annual reporting frequency for major and nonmajor individual permits is 0.2. The 

estimated annual reporting frequency for general construction and multi-sector permits is 0.05 

Violations 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for violation data elements for major facilities is 0.06. 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for violation data elements for nonmajor facilities is 

0.01. The estimated annual reporting frequency for violation data elements for general facilities is 

0.02. These annual reporting frequencies were estimated by: 

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES26 for the number of facilities with stormwater components. 

2. Of the facilities returned in #1, querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of notices of 

violation in the past five years. 

3. Dividing the number of notices of violation in the past five years by five to estimate 

the average number of notices of violation in a one-year period. 

4. Dividing the average notices of violation per year by the total number of facilities 

with stormwater components to estimate the annual reporting frequency. 

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for violations data. 

Annual reporting frequencies were calculated separately for major, nonmajor, and general 

permits. 

Enforcement Actions 

The estimated annual reporting frequency for enforcement data elements for major individual 

permits is 0.12. The estimated annual reporting frequency for enforcement data elements for 

 

26 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit component search capability, it was used to gather 

violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It was assumed that the violation rate in ICIS-NPDES was 

representative of the universe as a whole. 
2-26 28 June 2013

nonmajor individual permits is 0.01. The estimated annual reporting frequency for enforcement 

data elements for CGP and MSGP general permits is 0.02. These annual reporting frequencies 

were estimated by: 

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES27 for the number of facilities with stormwater components. 

2. Of the facilities returned in #1, querying ICIS-NPDES for the number of formal and 

informal enforcement actions in the past five years. 

3. Dividing the number of formal and informal enforcement actions in the past five 

years by five to estimate the average number of formal and informal enforcement 

actions in a one-year period. 

4. Dividing the average formal and informal enforcement actions/year by the number of 

permits to estimate the annual reporting frequency.

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for enforcement 

action data. Annual reporting frequencies were calculated separately for major, nonmajor, and 

general permits. 

2.9.3 Summary 

Table 2-11 summarizes the number of stormwater regulated entities and the annual frequencies 

for each required data family. 

Table 2-11: Stormwater Permit Universe and Annual Reporting 

Frequency 

MS4 

Majors 

MS4 

Nonmajors 

General 

Nonmajors 

(CGP) 

General 

Nonmajors 

(MSGP) 

# Permits 297 6, 300 100,000 222,137 

Data Family 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Permits 0.2 0.2 0.17 0.18 

Limits 0.2 0 0 0 

Limit Sets 0.2 0 0 0 

DMRs 12 0 0 3 

Program Reports 1 0.4 0 0 

Compliance Monitoring 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.05 

Violations 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 

Enforcement Actions 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.02 

2.10 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) 

As discussed above for the pretreatment program, most POTWs receive wastewater from 

industrial users. For POTWs without an Approved Pretreatment Program, states or EPA regulate 

SIUs to POTWs. 

2.10.1 Permit Universe 

The current number of SIUs not covered under an Approved Pretreatment Program in each state 

was estimated by EPA based on available data from permitting authorities. 

 

27 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit component search capability, it was used to gather 

violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It was assumed that the violation rate in ICIS-NPDES was 

representative of the universe as a whole. 
2-27 28 June 2013

2.10.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family 

SIUs only have to submit program reports to the applicable authorized NPDES programs. This 

report is annual; therefore the annual reporting frequency for program reports is 1. 

2.10.3 Summary 

Table 2-12 summarizes the number of pretreatment and SIU regulated entities and the annual 

frequencies for each required data family. 

Table 2-12: Significant Industrial User (SIU) Permit 

Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency 

Individual 

Majors 

Individual 

Nonmajorsa 

General 

Nonmajors 

# Permits 0 20,630 0 

Data Family 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Annual 

Reporting 

Frequency 

Permits n/a n/a n/a 

Limits n/a n/a n/a 

Limit Sets n/a n/a n/a 

DMRs n/a n/a n/a 

Program Reports n/a 1 n/a 

Compliance Monitoring n/a n/a n/a 

Violations n/a n/a n/a 

Enforcement Actions n/a n/a n/a 

a Not NPDES-permitted facilities. 

2.11 Summary 

Table 2-13 shows the number of individual major, individual nonmajor, and general nonmajor 

permits under each subprogram. 

Table 2-13: Universe Summary by Subprogram 

Subprogram 

Number of Permits 

Individual 

Majorsa

Individual 

Nonmajors 

General 

Nonmajors 

Industrial and Stormwater 

Standard Industrial Dischargers 3,727 38,926 31,805 

CAFOs 0 2,782 11,624 

Stormwaterb 297 6,300 322,137 

SIUs 0 20,630c 0 

POTWs (may have more than one subprogram) 

Biosolids 4,209 694 0 

Pretreatment 1,390 109 0 

CSSs 591 199 38 

SSSs 3,682 9,955 1,945 

a Note that there are approximately 6,700 major facilities, which often have 

more than one NPDES component. 

b

 Phase 1 and 2 MS4 permits are included in the count of individual majors 

and individual nonmajors, respectively. c

 Not NPDES-permitted facilities. 

As described in Figure 2-1, the universe numbers presented above are a major input into the cost 

analysis. Combining the frequencies and universes with the data entry and report processing costs 

(discussed in Section 4) determines the total savings and cost associated with the proposed rule. 
2-28 28 June 2013

Table 2-14 presents the annual frequencies by data family for each permit type under each 

subprogram. As the high frequency of DMR submission suggests, the majority of the savings 

come from electronic reporting of DMRs, as will be discussed in Section 4. 

Table 2-14: Annual Reporting Frequency Summary by Data Family and Permit Type 

Subprogram Permit Type 

Annual Reporting Frequency 

Permits Limits Limit 

Sets DMRs Program Reports 

Compliance 

Monitoring Violations Enforcement Actions 

Industrial and Stormwater

Standard 

Industrial 

Dischargers 

Individual Major 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 0 0.2 0.4 0.11 

Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 0 0.2 0.4 0.11 

General Nonmajor 0.2 0 0 12 0 0.2 0.4 0.11 

CAFOs Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0 0 0 1 0.2 0.01 0.02 

General Nonmajor 0.2 0 0 0 1 0.2 0.01 0.02 

Stormwater 

MS4 Major 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 1 0.2 0.06 0.12 

MS4 Nonmajor 0.2 0 0 0 0.4 0.2 0.01 0.01 

General Nonmajor (CGP) 0.17 0 0 0b 0 0.05 0.02 0.02 

General Nonmajor (MSGP) 0.18 0 0 3 0 0.05 0.02 0.02 

SIUs Nonmajors n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 

POTWs 

Biosolids Individual Major 0.2a

 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Pretreatment Individual Major 0.2a

 0.2 0.2 12 1 0.20 0.23 0.39 

Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 1 0.17 0.14 0.22 

CSSs 

Individual Major 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 11.22 11.22 0.23 0.36 

Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 11.22 11.22 0.11 0.14 

General Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 11.22 11.22 0.11 0.14 

SSSs 

Individual Major 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 2.57 2.57 0.23 0.36 

Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 2.57 2.57 0.11 0.14 

General Nonmajor 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 2.57 2.57 0.11 0.14 a Annual reporting frequency applies only to those permit data elements specific to the pretreatment or biosolids program. All other permit data 

elements are captured by CSSs and SSSs and have an annual reporting frequency of 0.

b 1% of Stormwater Construction regulated entities have DMR requirements due to an enforcement action. These facilities need to submit DMRs 

to show they have returned to compliance and are assigned a frequency of 1. 
2-29 28 June 2013

References 

Clark, Jackie. 2011. Office of Water, U.S. EPA. 

Hudock, Andrew. 2010. Office of Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. EPA. 

Faulk, Jack. 2008. Office of Water, U.S. EPA. 

U.S. EPA. Water Permitting 101. Accessed September 20, 2010. 

<http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/101pape.pdf> 

U.S. EPA. 1990. New NPDES Non-Municipal Permit Rating System. 

<http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0116.pdf> 

U.S. EPA. 2000. Stormwater Phase II Final Rule: Permitting and Reporting: The Process and 

Requirements. <http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/fact2-9.pdf> 

U.S. EPA, 2003. Specific State Program Status. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm?program_id=45&view=specific> 

U.S. EPA, 2004. Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy_report2004.cfm> 

U.S. EPA. 2007a. Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance 

Monitoring Strategy for the Core Program and Wet Weather Sources. 

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/cwa/npdescms.pdf> 

U.S. EPA. 2007b. EPA’s Interim Significant Noncompliance Strategy for Clean Water Act 

Violations Associated with CSOs, SSOs, CAFOs, and Storm Water Point Sources (“Interim Wet 

Weather SNC Policy”). 

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/cwa/wetweathernoncomplianceattach1.pdf> 

U.S. EPA. 2008a. CAFO Rule Implementation Status – National Summary, Second Quarter 

2008. Received from Nina Bonnelyke, U.S. EPA. 

U.S. EPA. 2008b. Conditional No Exposure Exclusion. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/exposure.cfm> 

U.S. EPA. 2008c. Small Construction Activity Waivers. 

<http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/waiver.cfm> 

U.S. EPA. 2008d. Stormwater Basic Information. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swbasicinfo.cfm> 

U.S. EPA. 2010a. Animal Feeding Operations. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7> 

U.S. EPA. 2010b. Combined Sewer Overflows. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=5> 
2-30 28 June 2013

U.S. EPA. 2010c. Cooling Water Intakes (316b). 

<http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/basic.cfm> 

U.S. EPA. 2010d. EPA’s Electronic Stormwater Notice of Intent (eNOI) Home Page. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/enoi.cfm> 

U.S. EPA. 2010e. NPDES CAFO Rule Implementation Status – National Summary, Second 

Quarter 2010. <http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/tracksum2Q10_publ.pdf> 

U.S. EPA. 2010f. Pretreatment Program. <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=3> 

U.S. EPA. 2010g. Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Peak Flows. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=4> 

U.S. EPA. 2011. Online Tracking Information System (OTIS). <http://www.epa-otis.gov/otis/> 

Weiss, Kevin. 2011. Office of Water, U.S. EPA.
3-1 28 June 2013

Section 3. – Activities Affected by the Proposed NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule 

3.1 Introduction 

The proposed rule will update the way regulated entities, authorized NPDES programs, and EPA 

provide and share NPDES information. EPA and state authorized NPDES programs will update 

their IT systems so that regulated entities can electronically submit NPDES information, and EPA 

and the states can share the information. When the proposed rule is fully implemented, regulated 

entities will submit their information to their authorized NPDES program electronically. 

Authorized NPDES programs will share that data with EPA, and will also share with EPA the 

data they generate. During the initial implementation period (within three years after the effective 

date of the rule), regulated entities in states where an electronic reporting system is not 

operational will be required to submit NOIs, DMRs, and program reports electronically to EPA, 

in addition to the reporting requirements set out in their permits. 

After implementation, the proposed rule will produce significant annual savings. During 

implementation, the costs will exceed the savings, as described below. Table 3-1 identifies which 

entities incur costs and cost savings associated with the implementation phase and ongoing 

administration of the NPDES program under the proposed rule.

Table 3-1: Distribution of Savings and Costs of Proposed Rule 

Regulated 

entity 

Authorized 

NPDES 

program 

EPA 

Updating IT systems to share information Cost Cost 

Electronic reporting to EPA during transition Cost Cost Cost 

Switching to electronic reporting systems Savings/Cost Savings/Cost 

Sharing NPDES information electronically Savings Savings 

The activities necessary to update how regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs 

submit information to and share information with EPA are: 

 State authorized NPDES program and EPA implementation of an electronic reporting 

system for submitting regulated entity data; 

 State authorized NPDES program and EPA implementation of an electronic reporting 

system for submitting authorized NPDES program data to EPA; 

 State authorized NPDES program demonstrating their attorneys general accept electronic 

signatures in lieu of physical signature, thereby certifying compliance with EPA’s Cross 

Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR); 

 State authorized NPDES program and EPA training webinars and reconciling information 

submitted separately to state authorized NPDES programs and EPA as required by CWA 

section 308; 

 Authorized NPDES program entering newly shared data for all regulated entities; and, 

 Modifying permits by authorized NPDES program (to require electronic submissions). 

Regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs will need to make changes in order to use the 

updated data bases and reporting tools. The activities required to use the updated systems are: 
3-2 28 June 2013

 Electronic reporting to EPA by regulated entities whose authorized NPDES program does 

not have an adequate system for receiving NOIs, DMRs, and annual reports in electronic 

format; 

 Regulated entity registration for user accounts in CDX or the state authorized NPDES 

program electronic system and submission of electronic signature agreements; 

 Regulated entity training; 

 Regulated entity submission of electronic NOIs, DMRs, and program reports; and, 

 Authorized NPDES program electronic submission of programmatic Appendix A data to 

EPA. 

When electronic submission is operational, regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs 

will experience ongoing savings from operational efficiencies. During the first two years (2014-

2015), there will be costs associated with the initial development and implementation of 

electronic reporting for regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs, as well as submittal 

of programmatic data elements to ICIS-NPDES by the authorized NPDES program. This section 

outlines: 1) the activities required to establish electronic reporting systems, 2) the requirements of 

electronic reporting to EPA during the implementation period, and 3) ongoing savings and costs 

associated with preparing and sharing all required NPDES data. 

3.2 Updating the Reporting Process 

Updating the NPDES information flow will allow state authorized NPDES programs and EPA to 

share information through the internet and have a central repository of NPDES information. 

Currently, NPDES information is managed in ICIS-NPDES.28 Authorized NPDES programs use 

three methods to submit data to ICIS-NPDES: 

 Direct Entry: Authorized NPDES programs using direct entry enter data into EPA data 

systems directly. 

 Batch Upload: Authorized NPDES programs using batch upload employ their state 

system to track regulated entities and their own activities under the NPDES program. 

This NPDES information is periodically uploaded to EPA data systems. 

 Hybrid: Authorized NPDES programs using hybrid approaches enter most data over the 

web, with the DMR component of the NPDES permit batch uploaded to EPA data 

systems periodically. 

The proposed rule will require EPA and state authorized NPDES programs to capture all required 

data, establish electronic reporting systems, and for states to certify that their systems are 

CROMERR-compliant. The proposed rule does not preclude authorized NPDES programs from 

maintaining their own information systems. EPA expects that authorized NPDES programs will 

move all regulated entities to electronic reporting within three years of the effective date of the 

rule. This section discusses the changes required by the rule. 

 

28 EPA completed the migration of data from PCS to ICIS-NPDES for all states in 2013. 
3-3 28 June 2013

3.2.1 State Authorized NPDES program and EPA Implementation of a Data 

Exchange 

To implement electronic reporting,29 EPA and the state authorized NPDES programs will need to 

establish and operate an IT system organized so that state authorized NPDES program data 

systems and EPA’s ICIS-NPDES operate as a coordinated CWA program management system 

that can work together. The system will use existing technology and standards from the National 

Environmental Information Exchange Network as a basis for the new data exchange. The 

Exchange Network allows network members to share environmental information over the internet 

in two directions. Figure 3-1 shows how states and EPA can access each other’s information 

through the network. 

Figure 3-1: The Exchange Network

Each state currently has a network node allowing states and EPA to access and share information 

over the internet. The proposed rule will leverage this capability to reduce the costs associated 

with data entry and transfer, ultimately improving access to NPDES information for program 

management. 

State system modification costs depend on whether the state NPDES system already uses the 

Exchange Network. States that have a preexisting data flow with EPA only need to map the data 

elements to the appropriate fields in their own systems. EPA currently provides a downloadable 

tool that assists authorized NPDES programs in the mapping process. Authorized NPDES 

programs that do not use the Exchange Network will need to configure a full data flow. To 

facilitate these processes, EPA will offer webinars outlining the changes required by the rule and 

providing solutions for common problems. 

Although regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs are both responsible for generating 

NPDES data, EPA is responsible for creating and maintaining electronic reporting tools, such as 

NetDMR, and the central repository of NPDES information – ICIS-NPDES. NetDMR and the 

electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) systems already exist, but will need enhancement to 

 

29 This analysis defines IT implementation as the deployment and development of an electronic reporting 

system for submission of data from regulated entities to their authorized NPDES program and exchanges 

between authorized NPDES programs and EPA. 
3-4 28 June 2013

accommodate the all of the data defined in Appendix A, and to accommodate the higher 

submission volumes that will result from the proposed rule. EPA will also create a new electronic 

tool allowing regulated entities to submit their program reports online. Once these tools are 

implemented, EPA will incur operating and maintenance costs into the future. 

State authorized NPDES programs may develop and operate their own reporting tools to meet 

rule requirements. Because EPA will offer national tools supporting each of the regulated entity 

submissions to permit authorities, state system changes are not required and therefore not 

considered a cost of the proposed rule. 

3.2.2 Compliance with the Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule 

Authorized NPDES programs need to assure that the newly required electronic documents are 

legally equivalent to hardcopy documents by meeting the requirements of EPA’s Cross Media 

Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR).30 CROMERR requires authorized NPDES program 

Attorneys General to certify that their laws provide sufficient legal authority to implement 

electronic document receiving systems and enforce the affected programs using those documents 

in lieu of the hardcopy reports physically signed by the regulated entity. In addition, CROMERR 

requires documenting how the receiving system meets CROMERR criteria and any other 

documentation requested by the EPA Administrator that must be provided before the state 

authorized NPDES program can use electronic systems to receive regulated entities’ information 

and to manage its own NPDES information. 

3.2.3 Supplying Facility, Limit and Limit Set data 

In order for the electronic system to properly route regulated entity information between state 

authorized NPDES programs and EPA, and to automate the comparison of DMR data to the 

limits and limit sets in the permit, authorized NPDES programs will need to share their facility 

information, limits and limit sets with EPA. Currently, much of the monitoring information for 

nonmajor permits is maintained on paper files or electronically in state computer systems and is 

not being passed to ICIS-NPDES. EPA does not have detailed information regarding the 

authorized NPDES program information systems, and whether or not they conform to the 

requirements of the proposed rule. For that reason, EPA assumes each authorized NPDES 

program will manually enter appropriately formatted limit and limit set information into the new 

system within one year of the effective date of the rule so that regulated entities will be able to 

use the system when the proposed rule requires them to sign up for electronic accounts during 

that time. In reality, many states may have already automated much of this data, in which case 

their costs will be less than estimated in this analysis. 

3.3 Electronic Reporting to EPA during Transition 

EPA has concluded that electronic reporting will be beneficial and encourages state authorized 

NPDES programs to adopt electronic reporting. EPA expects all state authorized NPDES 

programs to establish electronic systems or adopt EPA’s systems two years after the effective 

date of the rule. During the two-year implementation period, EPA is requiring that regulated 

entities whose state authorized NPDES program does not have an electronic reporting system 

submit their NOIs, DMRs, and program reports electronically to EPA, and to the authorized 

NPDES program as provided in its permit. This will ensure that EPA has all data necessary to 

fulfill its obligations under the Clean Water Act while state authorized NPDES programs 

 

30 http://www.epa.gov/cromerr/pdf/guide.pdf 
3-5 28 June 2013

establish their own electronic systems, at which point electronic reporting to EPA ceases. This 

section describes the assumptions and cost sources associated with electronic reporting to EPA. 

3.3.1 Regulated Entity Electronic Reporting to EPA 

In states with authorized NPDES program but no electronic reporting system, regulated entities 

will be required to continue their current reporting to the state authorized NPDES program and, in 

addition, to electronically report to EPA. This requirement will stay in effect until the state 

authorized NPDES program implements an electronic reporting system meeting certain 

requirements. Therefore regulated entities will incur the costs of electronic reporting, but will not 

realize the savings from paper and postage reductions associated with electronic reporting, until 

the reporting to EPA is suspended.

3.3.2 EPA and State Authorized NPDES Programs’ Reconciling Regulated entity 

Reports 

Once electronic reporting to EPA is initiated, EPA and state authorized NPDES programs will 

need to confirm that the same information is received by both entities. Under the proposed rule, 

EPA and the state authorized NPDES programs will meet monthly to compare submissions and 

identify and resolve discrepancies. State authorized NPDES programs will begin realizing the 

savings from electronic reporting when they have adequate electronic systems in place. 

3.4 Using the Updated System 

The updated system will change the way information is shared by regulated entities, authorized 

NPDES programs, and EPA. These changes will increase the operational efficiency of the 

NPDES program by eliminating the need for authorized NPDES programs to transcribe paper 

reporting documents into the system of record and the manual comparison of facility DMRs to 

the limits and limit sets established in the permit. Furthermore, these changes will reduce the 

amount of coordination needed between state authorized NPDES programs and EPA to produce 

the annual NPDES reports required by 40 CFR 123.45(c). This section describes the assumptions 

and sources of savings and costs associated with using the updated systems. 

3.4.1 Regulated Entity Registration and Notice of Intent 

To use the electronic reporting system for eDMRs and eProgram Reports, individual regulated 

entities will need to set up accounts, either on the Central Data Exchange (CDX), EPA’s node on 

the Exchange Network, or a similar data portal provided by their authorized NPDES program. To 

set up the account, regulated entities mail their authorized NPDES program an electronic 

signature agreement (ESA) stating that their electronic PIN number is the legal equivalent of their 

written signature. Facilities covered by a master general permit will continue using the existing 

eNOI reporting software. Table 3-2 shows the regulated entities’ reporting tools used for each 

subprogram. 
3-6 28 June 2013

Table 3-2: Electronic Reporting Requirements (by NPDES 

Subprogram) 

NPDES Subprogram eNOI eDMR eProgram 

Reports 

Industrial and Stormwater 

Standard Industrial Dischargers No Yes No 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Yesa No Yes 

Stormwater Yesa Yesb Yesc

SIUs n/a n/a Yesd

POTWs 

Biosolids No Yes Yes 

Pretreatment No Yes Yes 

Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs) No Yes Yes 

Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) No Yes Yes 

a Only general permit covered facilities 

b Only individual major or general multi-sector permit covered facilities c Only individual permit covered facilities 

d

 Not NPDES-permitted 

3.4.2 Regulated Entity Training 

NetDMR or authorized NPDES program eDMR systems are sufficiently complex that many 

regulated entities will need training to effectively use them. EPA currently offers an online 

training session explaining how to submit DMRs through the NetDMR tool. The training informs 

regulated entities about login procedures, uploading their DMR information, and how their 

designated testing laboratory can upload their DMR monitoring information directly into the 

NetDMR system. Experience with currently operating systems has shown that training is not 

necessary for submitting NOIs or program reports electronically, as these tools are less 

complicated. 

3.4.3 Regulated Entity Discharge Monitoring and Program Report Submission 

Currently, regulated entities submit most of their DMRs and program reports in hard copy 

through the mail. The authorized NPDES program receives these reports and, for major regulated 

entities, manually transcribes the DMRs and some data elements from the program reports into 

ICIS-NPDES or authorized NPDES program’s system. The authorized NPDES program then 

archives the paper files.31 The proposed rule will require regulated entities to submit these reports 

electronically. Electronic reporting by regulated entities will eliminate paper and postage costs as 

well as the time required to physically transfer paper forms from regulated entities to the 

authorized NPDES program and then enter the required data into authorized NPDES program 

systems or ICIS-NPDES. Some EPA Regions and other authorized NPDES programs send prepopulated DMR forms to regulated entities. Under the proposed rule this activity will also be 

unnecessary and the associated paper and postage costs will be eliminated. 

3.4.4 Additional Required Data from the Authorized NPDES Program 

As discussed in Section 1, the proposed rule will increase the amount of data authorized NPDES 

programs are required to share electronically with EPA. The proposed rule requires authorized 

NPDES programs to enter into an electronic information system any of the data elements listed in 

Appendix A that are not submitted electronically by their regulated entities. This requirement will 

apply to major, nonmajor, and general permits. Some of this information was previously available 

 

31 Currently, EPA requires program reports and DMRs to be collected, however there is no requirement for 

that information to be entered into an electronic data system. A number of states are maintaining paper 

filing systems for these reports. 
3-7 28 June 2013

from the regulated entity and was manually entered into ICIS-NPDES. Other information was 

previously submitted by the regulated entity in hardcopy form and stored at the authorized 

NPDES program until needed for compliance oversight or annual reporting to EPA. With 

electronic reporting, regulated entity information will electronically flow into the authorized 

NPDES program’s data system, eliminating the need for manual data entry and resulting in 

savings to the authorized NPDES program. These savings might be partially offset by the need 

for authorized NPDES programs to enter programmatic information, such as: 1) regulated entity 

data previously stored in hardcopy form; or 2) compliance monitoring, inspection, or enforcement 

information that was not previously entered into ICIS-NPDES. The cost of submitting these data 

to ICIS-NPDES is partially mitigated by auto-populating specific fields, such as the date an 

electronic report is received. 

For example, in order to compare DMRs to their permits’ required limits, the authorized NPDES 

program will need to enter all limits and limit sets into ICIS-NPDES. Currently this information 

is only required for major permits. Under the proposed rule, this information will be required for 

all permit types. Individual permits will need their specific limits and parameters entered by the 

authorized NPDES program permit writer. For general permits, the task is simplified by bundled 

limit sets that permit writers can apply to all facilities covered by the same general permit. For 

example, offshore drilling general permits will be able to use all limit sets pertaining to that 

activity by selecting the bundled offshore drilling limit sets from a dropdown menu. 

3.4.5 Replacing the Annual Non-Compliance Report, Quarterly Non-Compliance 

Report, and Semi-Annual Statistical Summaries with the New National NonCompliance Report 

Existing CWA regulations (40 CFR 123.45) require that authorized NPDES programs submit to 

EPA annual, quarterly, and semi-annual reports regarding the compliance status of regulated 

entities in their jurisdiction. To meet this requirement, state authorized NPDES programs submit 

their non-compliance information to the Regional Administrator, who submits them to EPA 

headquarters. Under the proposed rule, this information will be readily available to EPA directly 

from ICIS-NPDES, obviating the need for state authorized NPDES programs to compile and 

submit the information. Therefore, the proposed rule will eliminate this reporting requirement, 

resulting in savings for state authorized NPDES programs and EPA Regions. The proposed rule 

will also replace the annual, quarterly, and semi-annual reports with a National Non-Compliance 

Report that EPA headquarters will develop, resulting in savings for states, EPA Regions and EPA 

headquarters. EPA savings will be partially offset by the headquarters effort required to program 

and produce the new National Non-Compliance Report. 

3.5 Summary 

Following implementation, the rule will result in ongoing savings for both regulated entities and 

authorized NPDES programs due to the operational efficiencies of electronic reporting, reduced 

data errors, and eliminating postage and paper costs. Once authorized NPDES programs establish 

electronic reporting systems, there will be net savings driven by eliminating DMR and program 

report data entry, in addition to operational efficiencies from improved data quality and no longer 

having to mail, receive, or process paper reports.32 ICIS-NPDES and authorized NPDES program 

systems will be able to automatically compare all DMR monitoring information to the limits of 

the respective NPDES permits and flag non-compliance, thus simplifying EPA and authorized 

 

32 Authorized NPDES programs will incur costs associated with additional compliance and enforcement 

data entry. 
3-8 28 June 2013

NPDES program compliance oversight and rapidly identifying noncompliance that may threaten 

the health of receiving waters. Establishing a single, authoritative repository of NPDES 

information, will eliminate the need for the recurring effort and cost of developing and publishing 

periodic non-compliance reports from authorized NPDES programs. EPA headquarters will incur 

ongoing costs of implementing and maintaining the IT infrastructure necessary for electronic 

reporting, as well as publishing the new National Non-Compliance Report. The methodology 

used to estimate these savings and costs is discussed in Section 4. The benefits of improved ICISNPDES information associated with this rule are presented in Section 6. 
4-1 28 June 2013

Section 4. – Estimating the Economic Impacts of the Proposed 

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

4.1 Introduction 

This section describes how the savings and costs of the proposed rule were estimated. These 

savings and costs are experienced by regulated entities, authorized NPDES programs, and EPA 

headquarters. The estimates are used to calculate the total net savings of the proposed rule and to 

determine the impact of the rule on small businesses in Section 5. Estimates of the cost of the rule 

are developed for four categories: 1) implementation; 2) data entry; 3) submission processing; 

and 4) submission. To determine the impacts on each category, EPA solicited states, Regions, and 

program experts to identify the burden associated with the current data flow and reporting 

processes, and identify how these processes would change. The following sections discuss how 

the changes were monetized and the total savings and costs associated with the proposed rule. 

Estimating the incremental savings and costs involved the following steps: 

 Determine EPA and authorized NPDES program costs associated with updating the way 

NPDES information is shared; 

 Determine authorized NPDES program savings and costs associated with changes in data 

entry of NPDES information; 

 Determine authorized NPDES program savings associated with changes in processing of 

NPDES information; 

 Determine regulated entity savings and costs associated with electronic submission of 

NPDES information; and, 

 Determine other implementation costs for regulated entities and authorized NPDES 

programs required by or resulting from compliance with the proposed rule. 

Section 4.2 shows the labor costs used in the analysis. Section 4.3 provides a description of costs 

associated with updating information sharing among authorized NPDES programs and EPA. 

Section 4.4 discusses the savings and costs associated with using the updated systems. Section 4.5 

discusses EPA’s planned implementation phase-in approach, as well as the savings/cost schedules 

and return on investment for the proposed rule. 

The costs and savings associated with the proposed rule include: 

 Updating the IT systems; 

 Data processing needed for authorized NPDES programs to accept electronic reporting 

from NPDES regulated entities; 

 Data entry for regulated entity electronic reporting to EPA until state authorized NPDES 

programs update their IT systems; 

 Data processing needed to ensure the transfer of all required NPDES data from 

authorized NPDES programs into ICIS-NPDES; 

 Reduced data entry for authorized NPDES programs once regulated entities enter data 

directly into the electronic systems; 

 Elimination of paper mailing and processing of DMRs and permits; and 

 Elimination of ANCR, QNCR, and SASS reports. 
4-2 28 June 2013

As shown in Table 4-1, savings and costs are incurred by regulated entities, authorized NPDES 

programs, and EPA. 

Table 4-1: Distribution of Savings and Costs of Proposed Rule 

Regulated Entity Authorized 

NPDES program EPA 

Updating IT systems to share information Cost Cost 

Electronic reporting to EPA during transition Cost Cost Cost 

Switching to electronic reporting systems Savings/Costs Savings/Costs 

Sharing NPDES information electronically Savings Savings 

Two significant baseline assumptions are made for the savings and cost analysis. The first is that 

there is currently full compliance with existing data requirements. Although some authorized 

NPDES programs may already be submitting information beyond those requirements, it is not 

possible to accurately account for that additional information at this time. The second major 

assumption is to disregard the impact of existing state authorized NPDES program electronic 

reporting systems. EPA acknowledges that some states are currently using electronic reporting 

systems. However, those systems were developed prior to this proposed rule, so the development 

costs of those systems are not considered in the baseline conditions or analysis of the rule. These 

two baseline assumptions have the following effect on this analysis: 

 Where authorized NPDES programs are reporting to ICIS-NPDES more data than is 

currently required, the analysis may overestimate incremental costs; and, 

 Where regulated entities are already submitting electronically through state systems, the 

analysis may overestimate savings and implementation costs for both the regulated entity 

and authorized NPDES program. 

4.2 Labor Costs 

To estimate the cost associated with data entry, processing, and submission activities (Section 3), 

the analysis uses 2012 hourly wage rates for three job categories: managerial, programmer, and 

data clerk; each of which include fringe benefits and overhead. Average wage data for these 

categories are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation in December 2012, which has separate wage estimates for government and private 

sector workers.33 

The managerial labor rate is defined as the average hourly wages for staff who plan, direct, or 

coordinate electronic data processing, information systems, systems analysis, and computer 

programming. The programmer labor rate is defined as the average hourly wages for staff who 

convert project specifications and statements of problems and procedures to detailed logical flow 

charts for coding into computer language; develop and write computer programs to store, locate, 

and retrieve specific documents, data, and information; and may program web sites. The data 

clerk labor rate is defined as the average hourly wages for staff who compute, classify, and record 

numerical data to keep financial records complete; perform any combination of routine 

calculating, posting, and verifying duties to obtain primary financial data for use in maintaining 

accounting records; and may also check the accuracy of figures, calculations, and postings 

pertaining to business transactions recorded by other workers. 

 

33 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm 
4-3 28 June 2013

The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides hourly wage and benefit rates (e.g., paid leave and 

insurance). Based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical industry trade 

associations, an additional loading factor of 17% is applied to hourly wages and benefits for 

general overhead. (See Table 4-2).34 

Table 4-2: Deriving Loaded Hourly Costs 

Cost Components, by Job Category 

2012 BLS 

Government Hourly 

Wage Rate 

2012 BLS 

Industry Hourly 

Wage Rate 

Managerial 

Hourly Wage $34.46 $40.77 

Benefits $16.55 $17.95 

Overhead $5.86 $6.93 

Managerial Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour $56.87 $65.65 

Programmer 

Hourly Wage $34.09 $33.18 

Benefits $16.03 $13.68 

Overhead $5.80 $5.64 

Programmer Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour $55.92 $52.50 

Data Clerk 

Hourly Wage $17.52 $16.24 

Benefits $11.45 $7.20 

Overhead $2.98 $2.76 

Data Clerk Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour $31.95 $26.20 

4.3 Cost of Updated Information Sharing among Authorized NPDES 

Programs and EPA 

As described in Section 3, implementing the proposed rule will require state authorized NPDES 

programs and EPA to establish an electronic reporting system. As shown in the data flow diagram 

in Section 1 (Figure 1-2), the data capture process begins with regulated entities submitting their 

data into the electronic system provided by their authorized NPDES program or EPA. Several 

state authorized NPDES programs 35 receive DMR information through state-operated eDMR 

systems that are different from EPA’s NetDMR in that they only send regulated entity data to the 

state authorized NPDES program, whereas NetDMR sends regulated entity data to both the state 

authorized NPDES program and EPA. 

As discussed in Section 3, authorized NPDES programs enter data into ICIS-NPDES using direct, 

hybrid, and batch methods. Direct users manage their programmatic information in ICIS-NPDES 

and use EPA’s eNOI, NetDMR and eProgram Report electronic reporting tools to capture 

regulated entity submissions. Hybrid authorized NPDES programs use ICIS-NPDES for some 

information and batch upload their DMR information. Batch authorized NPDES programs 

manage their information in state systems, and batch upload all of their information to EPA. For 

these systems to accept electronic data from the regulated entities and transfer that information 

between EPA and authorized NPDES programs, alterations to both state and EPA IT systems are 

necessary. EPA will provide optional electronic reporting tools for regulated entities and 

 

34 Heiden Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs Under the Final Comprehensive 

Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989. 35 State authorized NPDES programs are the subset of all authorized NPDES programs where the state 

administers the NPDES program, as opposed to the EPA Region. Each state authorized NPDES program 

will have to update its system, whereas those states were the NPDES program is administered by the EPA 

Region will use the updated ICIS-NPDES. 
4-4 28 June 2013

authorized NPDES programs to use, and will provide a central repository housing all nationally 

required NPDES information. This section details the estimated implementation costs for 

authorized NPDES programs and EPA to set up this system. 

4.3.1 Electronic Reporting Tool Implementation Costs 

Before regulated entities can use the electronic reporting system, authorized NPDES programs 

and EPA will need to provide the necessary reporting tools. This section discusses the steps EPA 

will take to provide tools that can be adopted by each authorized NPDES program. This section 

does not discuss existing or possible alterations to individual authorized NPDES program ereporting systems. The tools EPA will develop include augmented versions of the current eNOI 

and NetDMR systems, plus a new tool for submitting program reports electronically. Cost 

estimates for IT system modifications were derived by comparing the architecture of the current 

system against the requirements of the rule. Rule requirements involving capabilities not 

currently in place were identified and rough orders of magnitude (defined as the true value being 

within -25% and +75% of the estimated value) of the level of effort required to meet those 

requirements were developed. Table 4-3 presents EPA’s estimated cost of implementation and 

operation and maintenance (discussed further in Section 4.3.2) of the new tools.36 

Table 4-3: EPA Headquarters Implementation Costs 

for Electronic Reporting Tools 

Electronic Tool Implementation Annual Operations 

and Maintenance 

eNOI $2,108,000 $433,000 

NetDMR $1,259,000 $105,000 

eProgram Reports $1,068,000 $433,000 

Total $4,435,000 $971,000 

Implementation costs for authorized NPDES programs will vary depending on whether the state 

is a batch user, whether the state has CROMERR approved systems, and what electronic tools the 

state currently uses. Batch system databases will need to be expanded to store all Appendix A 

data. Based on the ICIS-NPDES upgrade, EPA estimates that each additional data element will 

require approximately $1,550 to add to the database and update the user interface screens for data 

entry. With 21 states adding approximately 208 data elements, the per state implementation cost 

is $321,900 for a total of $6.8 million dollars. This estimate is conservative as several states 

already manage some of the 208 data elements. 

State implementation costs also vary based on whether the state has a CROMERR certified data 

system already in place. Certifying that the state system is CROMERR compliant requires the 

state Attorney General to review the applicable state laws to ensure that the electronic documents 

required under the rule are the legal equivalent to the hardcopy documents currently collected. 

The CROMERR Information Collection Request (ICR) estimates that cost to be approximately 

$15,000 per state.37 The total cost of CROMERR certification is $150,000 dollars. 

 

36 Estimates taken from EPA’s DRAFT Clean Water Act Action Plan: Electronic Reporting Technical 

Evaluations, Prepared by Booz Allen, July 2010; escalated to 2012 dollars using the BLS Employment Cost 

Index for government workers 

37http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=09000064800b0ee6&disposition=atta

chment&contentType=pdf. This cost, which is based on labor, has been converted to 2012 dollars using the 

Employment Cost Index. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/eci.ecicois.txt
4-5 28 June 2013

After implementation, EPA envisions that regulated entities will use EPA or third party provided 

software (such as fillable PDFs) to simultaneously submit NOIs, DMRs, or program reports to 

both EPA and state authorized NPDES programs. Therefore, once data standards38 are established 

for each data element, state authorized NPDES programs will need to reconfigure their exchange 

templates (a piece of computer software that matches fields in the state database to fields in ICISNPDES) to allow the new NPDES data to flow between the state system and ICIS-NPDES. EPA 

technical experts expect data element mapping to require 120 hours for reports over 40 data 

elements and 60 hours for reports under 40 data elements. Furthermore, for states already using 

NetDMR, EPA expects the data mapping to require only 40 hours as these state already have the 

basic data structure mapped. Note that states are not already using the federal eNOI and electronic 

program report systems, so there would not be similar reduced burdens. States will need to create 

one exchange template capable of handling all DMR data elements and a separate exchange 

template for NOIs and program reports for each subprogram for which the state is the authorized 

NPDES program. Therefore, individual state costs vary. The total cost to create all exchange 

templates is $1.4 million dollars. 

To ensure that state authorized NPDES programs are properly informed of the changes to the 

ICIS-NPDES system and the new data standards, EPA will develop and offer a 90-minute online 

training webinar for each phase of the implementation. The two webinars will require 100 hours 

total of EPA technical time to develop, at a total cost of $5,000. State authorized NPDES 

programs will incur a cost of $8,400 for the time required to attend the webinars (Phase 1 webinar 

attended by one clerk and one programmer and Phase 2 webinar attended by one clerk). As 

shown in Table 4-4, the total cost of state implementation is $8.3 million dollars. 

Table 4-4: State Authorized NPDES program Implementation Costs 

Cost Categories Number of 

States Unit Cost ($) Total Cost ($) 

Batch System States 21 $321,900 $6,760,000 

CROMERR Certification 10 $15,000 $150,000 

Data Mapping $1,373,000 

System Update Costs Subtotal $8,284,000 

Training Webinar $8,400 

Total $8,292,000 

4.3.2 Operations and Maintenance of the Updated System 

As shown in Table 4-3, EPA will have ongoing annual costs to operate and maintain the 

necessary changes in the ICIS-NPDES system. Operations include accepting data from regulated 

entities, receiving data from authorized NPDES programs, and sending EPA data to the state 

authorized NPDES programs. Maintenance includes routine database refreshes, updates, and 

licensing. The annual cost of EPA activities newly required to support the rule are estimated at 

$971,000. 

4.3.3 Total Costs 

The total state and EPA costs of updating the submission process, including implementation and 

operations and management are presented in Table 4-4. Specifically, state authorized NPDES 

 

38 Data standards ensure that reports collected by one system are in a format that every other system can 

recognize, shown in the diagram as the data exchange template. Once the standards are complete, state 

authorized NPDES programs and EPA will modify their IT systems to collect and share (send and receive) 

all of the required data through the exchange. 
4-6 28 June 2013

programs will incur approximately $8.0 million dollars in implementation costs while EPA will 

incur $4.4 million dollars for implementation. After implementation, EPA will spend $971,000 

annually to operate and maintain the electronic system. States currently operating their own 

systems will not have any operations or maintenance costs that are relevant to the rule. 

Table 4-5: Total Cost of Updating the 

Submission Process 

Implementation Annual Operations 

and Maintenance 

States $8,292,000 $0 

EPA $4,435,000 $971,000 

Total $12, 727,000 $971,000 

4.4 Regulated Entity and Authorized NPDES Program Savings and Costs 

Associated with Using the Updated Systems 

Implementing the updated submittal process will change regulated entity and authorized NPDES 

program activities resulting in both savings and costs. Authorized NPDES programs will make 

minor permit modifications39, which will require the regulated entity to report electronically. 

Regulated entities will check an EPA website to determine if they are required to report to both 

EPA and the state authorized NPDES program. 

Authorized NPDES programs will be required to electronically submit to EPA all data elements 

identified in Appendix A, including forwarding to EPA data the authorized NPDES programs 

receive electronically from regulated entities. As each authorized NPDES program implements ereporting systems meeting the minimum requirements, the updated data system will change the 

flow of NPDES data from the regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs to EPA such 

that duplicate data entry is eliminated. This section presents the derivation of the costs of 

generating and transferring the required data in electronic format from regulated entities to 

authorized NPDES programs and from authorized NPDES programs to EPA. 

4.4.1 Regulated Entity Registration and Training Costs 

As described in Section 3, regulated entities will be required to submit electronic reports. 

Regulated entities will check an EPA website to determine if they need to report both to EPA and 

to the state authorized NPDES program, which depends on whether the state authorized NPDES 

program already has an electronic system in place that meets certain minimum requirements. 

Regulated entity managers will need five minutes to find the EPA website and review instructions 

on electronic reporting to EPA in their state. The regulated entity cost associated with checking 

the website is estimated at $1.6 million dollars, based on the number of regulated entities and the 

industry managerial wage rate. 

It is estimated that regulated entities using eNOI will spend 20 minutes (0.333 hours) registering 

for an electronic account in CDX. Regulated entities using eProgram Reports will spend 20 

minutes registering for an electronic account in CDX and another 11 minutes (0.18 hours) to mail 

EPA an electronic signature agreement (ESA) to the authorized NPDES program. The estimated 

time required to complete the CDX registration and ESA application, as well as the cost to mail 

the ESA application, is based on estimates from the Electronic Pre-Manufacturing Notice 

 

39 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title40-vol21/xml/CFR-2009-title40-vol21-sec122-63.xml 
4-7 28 June 2013

Proposed rule.40 In addition to CDX and ESA activities, it is assumed that regulated entities using 

NetDMR or state eDMR systems will engage in 1.7 hours of online training to familiarize 

themselves with the electronic reporting process for DMRs. This estimate is based on the length 

of EPA’s NetDMR training, which is an online tutorial accessible on demand.41 As the CDX 

account and ESA cover all regulated entity reporting, regulated entities using NetDMR would be 

able to use eProgram Reports without additional CDX or ESA costs. 

It was assumed that one managerial staff member and one technical staff member would complete 

CDX registration, an Electronic Signature Agreement, or NetDMR training based on the 

reporting requirements of the permitted facility. Each permitted facility is estimated to spend: 

 0.33 hours at a cost of $39.38 to set up a CDX account for regulated entities who only use 

eNOI (manager and technical staff); 

 0.18 hours at a cost of 11.82 to submit an ESA (manager only) for regulated entities who 

use eProgram Reports; and, 

 1.7 hours at a cost of $200.86 to take the NetDMR training for regulated entities that use 

NetDMR. 

The possible electronic reporting requirements for each subprogram were presented in Table 1-1. 

Note that some subprograms have more than one requirement as permits in the same subprogram 

may have different reporting requirements (e.g. major vs. nonmajor). 

The total cost of regulated entity registration and training is estimated by summing the number of 

regulated entities undertaking each activity multiplied by the cost of that activity. In addition, 

while single accounts could be used for multiple permits, this analysis conservatively assumes 

there will be one technical and one managerial account for each permit. Biosolids and 

pretreatment regulated entity implementation costs are an exception to this assumption for the 

following reasons. As described in Section 2, biosolids and pretreatment permits are issued to 

publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) for monitoring sewage sludge or for accepting 

industrial waste along with domestic sewage, respectively. All POTWs are either combined or 

sanitary systems for which implementation electronic submission cost estimates are made for all 

permit components. Therefore, the analysis does not assign separate implementation costs to 

biosolids and pretreatment and SIU subprograms. 

It is not possible to simply multiply the per regulated entity cost by the subprogram universe to 

estimate total regulated entity registration and training costs due to the fact that reporting 

requirements differ within and across subprograms. For example, firm level data is available for 

construction stormwater facilities while other subprograms are conservatively assumed to have 

separate owners for each permit. Taking these factors into account, the total cost of regulated 

entity implementation is estimated at $18.1 million dollars. 

4.4.2 Data Entry Costs 

The proposed rule will increase the amount of information authorized NPDES programs must 

share with EPA. As noted elsewhere, regulated entities are currently submitting all of their 

required data (WENDB and Appendix A to 40 CFR 127) to their respective authorized NPDES 

programs. Under the rule, more data will be shared with EPA through use of ICIS-NPDES. The 

increase in data flowing to ICIS-NPDES, coupled with electronic reporting, has the effect of 

 

40 Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Proposed Rule (U.S. EPA, 

2008). 

41 http://www.epa.gov/netdmr/about/training.html 
4-8 28 June 2013

decreasing the number of data elements authorized NPDES programs are required to enter into 

ICIS-NPDES from paper DMRs and program reports, while increasing the number of regulated 

entities for which compliance and enforcement data will be required. As shown in Figure 4-1, 

estimating data entry costs relies on combining the number of permits with the number of data 

elements, the frequency at which those elements are reported, data entry time per data element, 

and wage rates for authorized NPDES program staff entering the data elements. The number of 

permits and activity frequency are described in Section 2 and the incremental change in data 

elements for each permit type are in Table 4-6. Estimated data entry times were developed by 

surveying nine states with regard to the time requirements associated with entering various data 

elements. The following sections describe the state survey and the data crosswalk used to 

estimate the per data element time to each subprogram. 

Figure 4-1: Estimating Data Entry Costs 

Table 4-6: Incremental Electronic Reporting Data Element Requirements by NPDES 

Subprogram 

NPDES Subprogram Major Nonmajor Nonmajor 

General 

Multi-Sector 

General 

Industrial and Stormwater 

Standard Industrial Dischargers 22 63 35 

Cooling Water Intakes 28 28 

Thermal Variances 5 5 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) 83 83 

Stormwater 42 65 -18a -10a

POTWs 

Biosolids 5 10 

Pretreatment and Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) 32 80 

Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs) 47 101 73 

Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) 35 89 61 

a Data element requirements for stormwater general permits are negative because eNOI will allow data to flow directly 

into ICIS-NPDES, as opposed to being entered by hand. 

State Survey 

To characterize the cost of data entry, EPA surveyed nine states: four batch user states; two 

hybrid user states; and three direct user states. The states, listed in Table 4-7, were selected to 

provide a distribution across modes of submission (batch, hybrid, and direct) and size (based on 

numbers of NPDES permits). It is assumed that the unit burden estimates reported by these states 

are representative of what will be experienced by all states, territories, tribes, and EPA Regions to 

comply with the rule. 
4-9 28 June 2013

Table 4-7: Surveyed 

States by User Type 

State User Type 

Maine Batch

Minnesota* Batch

Florida Batch

Kentucky Batch

Arkansas Hybrid

Tennessee* Hybrid

Hawaii Direct

South Dakota Direct

New York Direct

*Represents user type at time of 

survey; user type has changed 

since the original survey. 

The survey asked state representatives for the time required for the state to enter the information 

currently required for each data family described in Section 1 for the “typical” permit. The survey 

then presented the required data for each data family and asked how long it took to enter each of 

the data, again for the “typical” permit. 

Data Entry Crosswalk 

The time estimates collected in the state survey were first divided by the number of data elements 

in each data family to determine an average time per data family for each mode of ICIS-NPDES 

submission (batch, hybrid, and direct) and subprogram. These times were then averaged to 

determine the average data entry time per data element for each submission mode and 

subprogram. Finally, the average times were multiplied by state data clerk wage rates to 

determine the average state costs of data entry per data element. Table 4-8 displays the average 

data entry cost per data element by submission mode and subprogram. 

Table 4-8: Average Data Entry Time (in minutes) and Cost Per Data Element (2012 Dollars)

NPDES 

User 

Type 

Industrials and Stormwater POTWs 

Standard 

Industrial CAFO Stormwater Biosolids Pretreatmentb CSS SSS 

Min. Cost Min. Cost Min. Cost Min. Cost Min. Cost Min. Cost Min. Cost 

Batch 5.45 $2.90 2.99 $1.59 5.45 $2.90 2.61 $1.39 5.42 $2.89 5.27 $2.81 5.47 $2.91 

Direct 2.49 $1.32 2.34 $1.24 2.57 $1.37 2.61 $1.39 2.55 $1.36 2.45 $1.30 2.50 $1.33 

Hybrid 1.62 $0.86 1.73 $0.92 1.62 $0.86 2.61 $1.39 1.59 $0.85 1.53 $0.82 1.62 $0.86 a

 Only one surveyed state, South Dakota, is authorized to administer the Biosolids program. Therefore, their time 

estimates are used for all states. 

b Cost and burden for SIUs is the same as those for Pretreatment program. 

Initial Data Entry 

In order for the electronic system to route regulated entity DMRs and program reports correctly, 

authorized NPDES programs will have to populate ICIS-NPDES with all of the required facility 

identification information, limits, and limit sets. While much of this information is already 

available electronically through ICIS-NPDES, states will have to provide the data elements 

already required to be reported by permittees but not already in ICIS-NPDES in electronic 

format. Some states may already have the additional data elements available electronically. 

However, for the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumed that states would incur costs associated 

with entering the data into ICIS-NPDES electronically to ensure the data meets the new data 

standards. This assumption results in a conservative estimate, and actual costs will be less for 
4-10 28 June 2013

those authorized NPDES programs that have already entered this data into electronic systems. 

The cost of manual data entry is $13.6 million dollars for state authorized NPDES programs and 

$222,000 for EPA Regions. 

Authorized NPDES Program Data Entry Costs 

In this analysis, authorized NPDES program data entry costs are estimated by multiplying the 

number of programmatic data elements in each permit subprogram and permit type (major vs. 

nonmajor, individual vs. nonmajor general) by the average data entry cost for each mode of 

submission and subprogram. The total cost for each permit is then multiplied by the number of 

permits in that state. Next, total state costs are aggregated by authorized NPDES program to 

distinguish between state and EPA Region authorized NPDES programs. The annual costs 

associated with state authorized NPDES programs and EPA Regions entering the programmatic 

data is $2.1 million dollars and $314,000, respectively (Table 4-8). This estimate does not include 

the savings to authorized NPDES programs due to electronic reporting of NOIs, DMRs, and 

program reports received from the regulated universe. 

Regulated Entity Costs for Electronic Reporting to EPA 

EPA is proposing to phase in the electronic collection of NPDES program data on the following 

schedule. 

Phase 1: EPA will electronically receive the basic facility and permit information from the 

authorized NPDES program, DMR information from all facilities, and NOIs from general permit 

covered facilities for Federally-issued general permits. EPA will also begin to electronically 

receive information from authorized NPDES programs regarding inspections, violation 

determinations, and enforcement actions. 

Phase 2: EPA will electronically receive information from general permit covered facilities for 

state authorized NPDES program-issued general permits and program reports from all facilities. 

Regulated entity electronic reporting to EPA involves copying information from paper forms into 

an online web form provided by EPA. The copy and paste process is expected to take ten seconds 

per data element. The total time per report is calculated by multiplying the total number of 

Appendix A data elements on each report by ten seconds. Table 4-9 shows the total number of 

data elements per report by subprogram. The time estimate per report is multiplied by a private 

sector data clerk wage rate to determine the cost per report, which is then multiplied by the 

number of regulated entities affected and the frequency of submission. This calculation is made 

for DMRs and program reports for each subprogram. In the first year after the effective date of 

the rule, the cost of electronic reporting to EPA will be limited to Phase 1 information and is 

estimated at $125,000 for regulated entities. The volume of electronic reporting to EPA will be at 

its highest two years after the effective date of the rule as all Phase 1 and Phase 2 information will 

be required electronically. The total cost of electronic reporting to EPA incurred by regulated 

entities is estimated to be $400,000 during the second year after the effective date of the rule 

based on the assumption that 50% of state authorized NPDES programs that did not have 

electronic systems are expected to have implemented one after the first year of reporting Phase 1 

data. Once the rule is fully implemented, all states will have electronic reporting systems and 

electronic reporting to EPA will cease. The total cost of electronic reporting to EPA by regulated 

entities is estimated at $524,000. 
4-11 28 June 2013

Table 4-9: Electronic Reporting to EPA Data Element Requirements by NPDES 

Subprogram 

# Data 

Elements 

Industrial and Stormwater POTWs 

Standard 

Industrial CAFO Stormwater SIUs Biosolid Pretreatment CSS SSS 

DMR 11 n/a 11 n/a n/a 11 11 11 

Program 

Report n/a 31 13 47 20 47 13 13 

4.4.3 Reconciling Electronic Reporting to EPA 

As stated above, some regulated entities will report electronically to EPA and as required by their 

permit to their authorized NPDES program for part of the time. Until all states have implemented 

electronic reporting systems meeting the proposed rule’s requirements, to ensure the same 

information is reported to both EPA and the state authorized NPDES program during the 

implementation period, monthly hour-long reconciliation meetings will be held between each 

state authorized NPDES program and an EPA manager to review potential discrepancies. 

Therefore, EPA will need to meet with 24 state authorized NPDES programs in the first year after 

rule promulgation, at a cost of $16,400 to EPA and $16,400 to the states. In the second year after 

rule promulgation, half of the states that did not initially have electronic systems will have 

adopted them, decreasing the number of state meetings and therefore the cost by half. 

4.4.4 National Non-Compliance Report 

One reason EPA is moving forward with the proposed rule is to improve reporting on the efforts 

and efficacy of the NDPES program to the public and Congress. EPA will use the programmatic 

information from authorized NPDES programs to develop a National Non-Compliance Report 

that will replace the Annual and Quarterly Non-Compliance Reports and the Semi-Annual 

Statistical Summary. The National Non-Compliance Report will require 36 hours of EPA 

technical time and 4 hours of managerial time, for an annual cost of $2,200.

4.4.5 Total Annual Processing, Submission and Data Entry Costs of Using the 

Updated System 

This section outlines the cost of the rule after the implementation period. All IT modification 

costs have been accounted for and all regulated entities have completed their registration and 

training requirements. The costs shown in Table 4-10 include EPA headquarters’ cost of 

operating and maintaining the updated system, and the recurring data entry cost incurred by 

authorized NPDES programs due to the programmatic data elements (the shift from WENDB to 

Appendix A and to having to enter information for nonmajor regulated entities). There are no 

ongoing data entry costs to regulated entities. 

Data entry costs associated with programmatic data elements in eNOI and Program Reports data 

families are included in the eNOI and eProgram Reports costs. Data entry savings due to 

electronic reporting are discussed in the Section 4.4.7. As shown in Table 4-10, the annual data 

entry and operating costs of the updated system is $3,236,000. 
4-12 28 June 2013

Table 4-10: Annual Cost of Data Entry and Operations for the Updated System after 

Implementation 

Rule Components EPA HQ O&M EPA Regional 

Data Entry 

State Data 

Entry Total 

eNOI $433,000 $433,000 

NetDMR $105,000 $105,000 

eProgram Reports $433,000 $433,000 

Required Programmatic Data $314,000 $2,061,000 $2,376,000 

National Non-Compliance Report $2,200 $2,200 

Total for All Components $973,000 $314,000 $2,061,000 $3,349,000 

4.4.6 Total Costs of the Proposed Rule 

As shown in Table 4-11, the cost of rule implementation to regulated entities is $18.7 million, and 

costs to EPA and state authorized NPDES programs to implement electronic reporting are $6.0 

million and $23.1 million, respectively. Note that these costs are phased and do not all occur at 

the same time (see Section 4.5). 

Table 4-11: Implementation Costs of the Rule 

Rule Components EPA HQ EPA Regional State Regulated entity Total 

eNOI Enhancements* $2,541,000 $2,216,000 $4,757,000 

NetDMR Enhancements* $1,364,000 $1,938,000 $3,302,000 

Permit Modifications\ 

Registration $33,000 $891,000 $16,525,000 $17,449,000 

Program Reports 

Enhancements* $1,501,000 $2,417,000 $3,918,000 

Entering Permit Limits and 

Facility Data** $536,000 $15,616,000 $562,000 $16,714,000 

New National NonCompliance Report $2,000 $2,000 

State and EPA Coordination $30,000 $33,000 $1,578,000 $1,641,000 

Total for All Components $5,438,000 $569,000 $23,111,000 $18,665,000 $47,783,000 

*Includes upfront IT development and annual operation and maintenance. 

**Includes initial data entry as well as ongoing data entry. 

4.4.7 Submission and Processing Savings from Electronic Reporting 

Regulated Entity Submission Savings 

Once regulated entities establish their electronic accounts, they will experience savings due to the 

fact that they no longer have to mail their DMRs or program reports to the authorized NPDES 

program. Table 4-12 lists the components of mailing costs for regulated entities. Because the 

electronic reporting tools will include the ability to check for certain types of errors, the regulated 

entities will also see savings related to improved data quality and less need to revise and reenter 

their submissions. However, savings associated with improved data quality were not quantified in 

this analysis. 
4-13 28 June 2013

Table 4-12: Mailing Costs 

Cost Category Cost 

Page of Papera $0.01 

Envelope – Smallb $0.05 

Envelope – Largec $0.19 

Postage – Smalld $0.45 

Postage - Large Envelope with 60 Pages insided $2.12 

Postage - Flat Rate Enveloped $5.15 

a. Source: Office Depot brand standard white paper (May 2013)

b. Source: Approximate average price of #10 Standard Security small 

envelopes from Office Depot (May 2013)

c. Source: Approximate average price of large white 9" x 12" catalog 

envelopes from Office Depot (May 2013)

d. Source: usps.com (as of end of year 2012) 

Specifically, regulated entities submitting program reports electronically will save on paper and 

postage. According to EPA program experts, the most expensive program reports, pretreatment 

program reports, average 100 pages. Pretreatment regulated entities will save $6.15 annually due 

to electronic submission. At the other end of the spectrum, CAFO program reports average 1.5 

pages, and require one standard size envelope and postage. CAFO regulated entities will save 

$0.52 annually from electronic reporting. Standard industrial dischargers are not required to 

submit program reports and therefore will not experience any savings related to program reports. 

The total annual savings for all regulated entities submitting program reports electronically is 

$38,000. 

DMR submission savings are similar to program report savings except that the frequency of DMR 

submission is higher than that of program reports. According to EPA program experts, the 

average DMR is five pages long. DMRs are filled out by the regulated entity, sent to an 

independent laboratory, and then sent to the authorized NPDES program. Therefore, electronic 

DMR submission will save two standard envelopes, two first class stamps and five pages of 

paper, saving a total of $1.05 per submission. Table 4-13 shows the cost associated with each 

submission for DMRs and program reports. As noted in Section 2, DMR submission rates vary 

from annual to monthly according to the subprogram and permit type. 

Table 4-13: Regulated Entity Per Submission Savings from 

Electronic DMRs and Program Reports 

NPDES Subprogram DMR eProgram 

Reports 

Industrial and Stormwater 

Standard Industrial Dischargers $1.05 n/a 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) n/a $0.52 

Stormwater $1.05 $0.52 

SIUs n/a $6.15 

POTWs 

Biosolids $1.05 $0.52 

Pretreatment and Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) $1.05 $6.15 

Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs) $1.05 $0.52 

Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) $1.05 $0.52 

Note that it is not possible to simply multiply the per regulated entity savings by the sub program 

universe to estimate total regulated entity submission costs savings due to the fact that reporting 

frequencies are different within and across subprograms. For example, major stormwater 

regulated entities submit DMRs monthly, multi-sector generals submit DMRs three times per 

year, and construction stormwater covered facilities do not have DMR reporting requirements. 
4-14 28 June 2013

Taking these factors into account, the total annual regulated entity savings from electronic DMR 

submission is $713,000 for eNOIs and $614,000 for eDMRs, totaling $1,327,000 per year. 

Authorized NPDES Program Processing Savings 

Electronic submission will also create savings for authorized NPDES programs by eliminating the 

cost of processing incoming DMRs and program reports, mailing out pre-populated DMRs and by 

reducing data entry. Currently, authorized NPDES programs receive these reports in the mail, 

staff open and inspect them to ensure they are filled out correctly, enter their information into the 

state or EPA data system, and usually store them in a physical filing system. Excluding data 

entry, which is addressed in the next section, this process is estimated to take a data entry clerk 20 

minutes per DMR42 and 7.5 minutes per program report.43 Following rule implementation, those 

processing activities will be automated. As a result, authorized NPDES programs will save 

$10.65 for every DMR and $3.99 for every program report received electronically. The total 

savings from electronic processing of DMRs and program reports is $13.8 million and $503,000 

for authorized NPDES programs and EPA, respectively. 

EPA Regions and state authorized NPDES programs will also experience savings by no longer 

sending pre-populated DMR forms to regulated entities. Currently, EPA Regions and authorized 

NPDES programs mail DMR forms with regulated entity-specific limits to an estimated 50% of 

all NPDES regulated entities. Post proposed rule, electronic copies of DMR forms will be 

available to all regulated entities, making them universally available and eliminating the need to 

mail the forms out. Table 4-14 details the per permit savings from eliminating the preparation and 

mailing of pre-populated DMR forms. 

 

Finally, authorized NPDES programs will have reduced data entry requirements for DMRs and 

program reports due to the rule. As noted above, the authorized NPDES program enters 

information from the paper NOIs, DMRs, and program reports into the system. Following 

implementation of the rule, authorized NPDES programs will receive electronic NOIs, DMRs, 

and program reports from the regulated entities, eliminating the need for data entry. The annual 

savings is $19.8 million dollars and $344,000 for authorized NPDES programs and EPA, 

respectively. 

Total Annual Savings after Full Implementation 

Table 4-15 shows the aggregated annual savings estimated for regulated entities, states, and EPA 

Regions.44 Regulated entities will save $1.4 million dollars due to eliminating paper and mailing 

 

42 No DMR processing savings are associated with the CAFO subprogram as CAFOs are not required to 

submit DMRs. 

43 Estimates provided by EPA Office of Compliance. 

44 Due to the complexity of the NPDES program, the total annual savings are not the sum of the unit 

savings multiplied by the total universe. Confounding elements include but are not limited to permit 

Table 4-14: Unit Savings from Eliminating Prepopulated DMRs 

Type of 

Savings 

Annual 

Frequency 

Number of 

Pages Cost Annual Savings per Permit 

Paper 12 5 $0.01 $0.60

Envelopes 1 1 $0.19 $0.19

Postage 1 1 $2.12 $2.12

Total $2.91
4-15 28 June 2013

costs for DMRs and program reports. State authorized NPDES programs will save $19.8 million 

dollars on data entry and $13.8 million dollars on DMR and program report processing. EPA 

Regions will save $503,000 associated with no longer processing incoming DMRs and program 

reports or mailing out pre-populated DMRs. Annual savings associated with eliminating the 

Annual Non-Compliance Report and Quarterly Non-Compliance Reports as well as the SemiAnnual Statistical Summary (SASS) for state authorized NPDES programs and EPA are 

$825,000 and $36,000, respectively. Across all changes called for in the proposed rule, annual 

savings total $865,000 for EPA, $34,412,000 for states, and $1,365,000 for regulated entities with 

a total annual savings of $36,660,000. 

Table 4-15: Total Annual Savings under Proposed Rule 

Type of Savings EPA States Regulated 

Entities Total 

Data Entry Savingsa $344,000 $19,760,000 $0 $20,104,000 

Processing Savings $503,000 $13,827,000 $1,365,000 $15,695,000 

Eliminating the ANCR, 

QNCR, and SASS $36,000 $825,000 $0 $861,000 

Total $883,000 $34,412,000 $1,365,000 $36,660,000 a Data entry costs associated with eDMR, eProgram Reports, and eNOI are presented in Table 4-16.

Table 4-16 presents the annual savings associated with each electronic reporting tool. Through 

the use of eNOI, EPA Regions, states and regulated entities will save $375,000, $16.8 million 

dollars, and $713,000, respectively. NetDMR will save these groups $447,000, $16.5 million 

dollars, and $614,000, respectively. eProgram Reports will save $25,000, $278,000, and $38,000, 

respectively. The elimination of the ANCR, QNCR, and SASS will save EPA and the states 

$36,000 and $825,000, respectively. 

Table 4-16: Total Annual Savings of Using the Updated System 

Rule Components EPA States Regulated 

Entity Total 

eNOI $375,000 $16,831,000 $713,000 $17,919,000 

NetDMR $447,000 $16,478,000 $614,000 $17,539,000 

eProgram Reports $25,000 $278,000 $38,000 $341,000 

Eliminating the ANCR, QNCR, and SASS $36,000 $825,000 $0 $861,000 

Total Savings $883,000 $34,412,000 $1,365,000 $36,660,000 

4.5 Summary: Implementation and Return on Investment 

This section presents EPA’s planned phase in approach and return on investment. EPA will need 

to have upgraded its electronic tools before the effective date of the rule to allow for authorized 

NPDES programs to begin rule implementation and meet the rule implementation deadlines. 

Regulated entities will be required to register for electronic reporting one year after the effective 

date of the rule. Electronic reporting requirements for Phase 1 information for NPDES regulated 

entities will also be required one year after the effective date of the rule. Phase 2 information 

reporting is required two years after the effective date of the rule. Other activities supporting 

these activities (e.g., monthly conference calls with EPA and States, attending webinar trainings, 

concurrent data reporting to EPA and State for regulated entities) are summarized in Table 4-17. 

 universe overlap, varying reporting requirements based on the permit type, and the frequency of reporting. 

Supporting spreadsheets provide details on how these costs are aggregated. 
4-16 28 June 2013

Table 4-17: Rule Implementation Timing 

State Costs EPA Costs Regulated entity Costs 

 Implementation of Electronic Tools 

 Attend Webinars by EPA 

 Monthly Conference Calls with EPA 

 Phase 1 Data Entry, Initial Data Entry 

 Implementation of Electronic Tools 

 Develop and Attend Webinars by EPA 

 Monthly Conference Calls with EPA 

 Phase 1 Data Entry, Initial Data Entry 

 Registration 

 Checking EPA Website 

 Permit Modifications 

 Monthly Conference Calls with EPA 

 Phase 2 Data Entry 

 Permit Modifications 

 Monthly Conference Calls with EPA 

 Phase 2 Data Entry 

 Phase 1 Dual Reporting to EPA 

 None  Incorporate the New National NonCompliance Report  Phase 2 Dual Reporting to EPA 

 

To estimate the discounted value of future costs, EPA guidance states that discount rates of 3% 

and 7% should be used for economic analyses. Table 4-18 and Table 4-19 show the flow of 

savings and costs over time using each discount rate. As can be seen in Table 4-18 and Table 

4-19, the annual savings exceed annual costs two years after the effective date of the rule, with 

cumulative savings exceeding cumulative costs three years after the effective date of the rule, 

under both the 3% and 7% discount rates. As shown in Table 4-18, when using a 3% discount 

rate, the total annual savings four years after the effective date of the rule is $32.6 million dollars 

and total annual cost is $2.9 million dollars, yielding a net annual savings of $29.6 million. As 

shown in Table 4-19, when using a 7% discount rate, the total annual savings of the rule is 

estimated at $28.0 million, the total annual cost of the rule is $2.5 million, yielding a net annual 

savings of $25.5 million four years after the effective date of the rule. 

Three years after the effective date of the rule, the rule will be fully implemented, and the annual 

cost of the rule only includes ongoing EPA operations and maintenance and the authorized 

NPDES programs’ data entry for programmatic data elements. Table 4-19 and Table 4-19 display 

the full schedule of savings, costs, and net savings over a ten-year period using a 3% and a 7% 

discount rate, respectively. As shown in Table 4-18 using the 3% discount rate, the net savings 

over ten years is $220.3 million dollars. In Table 4-19, which uses a 7% discount rate, the net 

savings over ten years is $172.4 million dollars. 

Table 4-18: Schedule of Savings and Costs (3% Discount Rate) 

Year1 Annual Costs Annual Savings Cumulative Costs Cumulative Savings Net Savings 

0 $4,440,000 $0 $4,440,000 $0 ($4,440,000) 

1 $39,070,000 $13,890,000 $43,510,000 $13,890,000 ($29,620,000) 

2 $4,120,000 $33,740,000 $47,620,000 $47,630,000 $10,000 

3 $3,420,000 $33,550,000 $51,050,000 $81,180,000 $30,140,000 

4 $2,930,000 $32,570,000 $53,980,000 $113,760,000 $59,780,000 

5 $2,850,000 $31,620,000 $56,830,000 $145,380,000 $88,550,000 

6 $2,770,000 $30,700,000 $59,600,000 $176,080,000 $116,490,000 

7 $2,690,000 $29,810,000 $62,280,000 $205,890,000 $143,610,000 

8 $2,610,000 $28,940,000 $64,890,000 $234,830,000 $169,940,000 

9 $2,530,000 $28,100,000 $67,420,000 $262,930,000 $195,510,000 

10 $2,460,000 $27,280,000 $69,880,000 $290,210,000 $220,330,000 

Note that numbers in table have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand. 

1. Years after the effective date of the rule. 
4-17 28 June 2013

Table 4-19: Schedule of Savings and Costs (7% Discount Rate) 

Year1 Annual Costs Annual Savings Cumulative Costs Cumulative Savings Net Savings 

0 $4,440,000 $0 $4,440,000 $0 ($4,440,000) 

1 $37,610,000 $13,370,000 $42,050,000 $13,370,000 ($28,680,000) 

2 $3,810,000 $31,270,000 $45,860,000 $44,640,000 ($1,220,000) 

3 $3,100,000 $29,930,000 $48,960,000 $74,570,000 $25,610,000 

4 $2,520,000 $27,970,000 $51,480,000 $102,530,000 $51,060,000 

5 $2,360,000 $26,140,000 $53,830,000 $128,670,000 $74,840,000 

6 $2,200,000 $24,430,000 $56,030,000 $153,100,000 $97,070,000 

7 $2,060,000 $22,830,000 $58,090,000 $175,930,000 $117,840,000 

8 $1,920,000 $21,340,000 $60,010,000 $197,270,000 $137,260,000 

9 $1,800,000 $19,940,000 $61,810,000 $217,210,000 $155,400,000 

10 $1,680,000 $18,640,000 $63,490,000 $235,850,000 $172,360,000 

Note that numbers in table have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand. 

1. Years after the effective date of the rule. 

Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-2 show the return on investment over a ten year period using 3% and 7% 

discount rates, respectively. Dollar values are reported on the y-axis and the number of years after 

the effective date of the rule on the x-axis. Annual costs are represented as red bars and annual 

savings as blue bars. The cumulative savings/costs are the sum of current and all prior year 

savings/costs. As shown on both graphs, the cumulative savings begin to outweigh the cumulative 

costs less than three years after the effective date of the rule. Using a 3% discount rate, the return 

on investment over the ten year period is 315%. Using a 7% discount rate, the return on 

investment over the same period is 271%. 

Figure 4-2: Electronic Reporting Savings/Costs Analysis – 3% Discount Rate 

$‐

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

$160,000,000

$180,000,000

$200,000,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Dollars (2012)

Year

Annual Costs

Annual Savings

Total Costs

Total Savings
4-18 28 June 2013

Figure 4-3: Electronic Reporting Savings/Costs Analysis – 7% Discount Rate 

$‐

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

$160,000,000

$180,000,000

$200,000,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Dollars (2012)

Year

Annual Costs

Annual Savings

Total Costs

Total Savings
5-1 28 June 2013

Section 5. – Small Entity Analysis 

5.1 Introduction 

This section addresses the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, which are 

limited by definition to NPDES regulated entities.45 As described in previous sections, affected 

regulated entities will experience both savings and costs due to the proposed rule. Specifically, 

they will incur costs to: 1) check the EPA website to determine whether they are subject to 

Section 308 reporting; 2) register with CDX or a similar data portal in order to transmit required 

data directly to ICIS-NPDES; 3) establish an electronic signature agreement in order to use the 

data portal; 4) participate in training on how to electronically report DMRs; and 5) electronically 

report NOIs, DMRs, and program reports to EPA until their authorized NPDES program has an 

electronic reporting system in place. Following rule implementation, regulated entities will 

realize savings through eliminating mailing paper documents, such as DMRs and other required 

reports, to the authorized NPDES program. Because the electronic reporting tools will include the 

ability to check for certain types of errors, the regulated entities will also see savings related to 

improved data quality and less need to revise and reenter their submissions. However, savings 

associated with improved data quality were not quantified in this analysis. 

The small entity analysis considers the extent to which the total costs associated with the 

proposed rule represent a disproportionate burden on small entities. Section 5.2 outlines the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requirement for undertaking this analysis. Section 5.3 discusses 

the definitions of small entities used in this analysis. Section 5.4 describes the general 

methodology used to determine if the proposed rule results in significant economic impacts to a 

substantial number of small entities. Sections 5.5 through 5.8 calculate these impacts for different 

categories of NPDES regulated entities. Section 5.9 summarizes the results of the small entity 

analysis. 

5.2 Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq.) requires Federal agencies 

to assess the effects of regulations on small entities (including businesses, nonprofit agencies, and 

governments), and, in some instances, to examine alternatives to the regulations that may reduce 

adverse economic effects on significantly impacted small entities. Section 604 of the RFA, as 

amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 

requires an agency to perform an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule unless 

the Agency certifies under section 605(b) that the regulatory action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA does not specifically define 

“a significant economic impact on a substantial number” of small entities. 

5.3 Definitions of Small Entities 

The RFA uses the definition of “small business” found in the Small Business Act, which 

authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by regulation. 

 

45 While the proposed rule results in costs for regulated entities, states, and EPA, the small entity analysis 

addresses regulated entities only. By definition, states and EPA do not qualify as small entities. See section 

5.3 for the definition of small entities. 
5-2 28 June 2013

SBA's definitions of “small business” vary by industry. This analysis uses the SBA’s definitions 

of small businesses for each industry which will likely be affected by the proposed rule.46 

To establish what constitutes a small business, SBA considers a number of economic and market 

characteristics that may allow a business of concern to exercise dominance in an industry. Size 

standards are based on criteria such as annual receipts or number of employees that represent a 

measure of these characteristics. These standards represent the largest size that a for-profit 

enterprise (together with its affiliates) may be and still qualify as a small business. In this 

analysis, the enterprise, together with its affiliates corresponds to the highest level domestic 

company in an individual entity’s corporate hierarchy, otherwise known as parent company. 

The SBA small business size standards are expansive, classifying most businesses as “small.” For 

example, the default SBA size standard for manufacturing industries is 500 employees. 

According to information compiled for SBA by the Bureau of the Census, 277,572 of 281,644 

manufacturing firms have fewer than 500 employees (USSBA, 2011). Therefore, at least 98.5 

percent of manufacturing firms would be classified as small businesses according to the SBA 

definition. 

The RFA defines “small governmental jurisdictions” as governments of cities, counties, towns, 

school districts, or special districts with a population of fewer than 50,000 people. Many small 

governmental jurisdictions operate publicly-owned treatments works (POTWs), which would be 

impacted by the requirements of the proposed rule. The POTW’s “parent” is typically considered 

to be the municipality operating the POTW. In this analysis, both small businesses and small 

government jurisdictions are referred to as small entities and the highest level of ownership is 

referred to as the parent entity. 

5.4 Methodology Overview 

As mentioned above, the RFA considers whether a rule will have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities. This analysis uses annual cost impact percentages to 

measure potential impacts on small entities. The cost impact percentage is defined as annual 

compliance costs resulting from the proposed rule as a percentage of annual revenues or sales. 

For the purposes of determining small entity impacts, comparing annual compliance costs to 

annual revenue provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden 

relative to a commonly available and objective measure of a parent entity’s income. Where 

regulatory costs are less than 1% of a typical parent entity’s revenue the impacts of the regulation 

are likely to be minimal. 

The compliance costs associated with the proposed rule include the one-time costs of checking 

the EPA website, registering with the Central Data Exchange (CDX), submitting an electronic 

signature agreement (ESA), and training of staff to electronically report DMRs. Additionally, 

compliance costs include electronic reporting to EPA and regular reporting to the authorized 

NPDES program for a period of up to two years while authorized NPDES programs establish 

their own electronic reporting systems. Table 5-1 summarizes these costs.47 The specific costs a 

 

46 SBA's size standards can be found at: 

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf

47 Regulated entities in states that already have electronic reporting systems in place or where EPA is the 

authorized NPDES program will not be subject to electronic reporting to EPA. In addition, regulated 

entities in states that develop electronic reporting systems in the first year will only be subject to electronic 

reporting to EPA for one year. 
5-3 28 June 2013

facility incurs will vary depending on the applicable permit requirements and type of permit 

under which a facility is covered. 

Table 5-1: Compliance Costs Incurred under 

Proposed Rule 

Compliance Cost Type Cost 

Check EPA Website $5.47 

CDX Registration $39.38 

Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA) $11.82 

Web Training for Electronically Reporting DMRs $200.86 

Electronic reporting to EPA (per year) $0 - $104.64 

The proposed rule affects thousands of industry sectors (i.e., NAICS codes) including industrial, 

agricultural, commercial, and service sectors as well as local governments. The compliance 

activities and costs will vary among sectors depending on the permit requirements of individual 

facilities. It was not possible to conduct a detailed analysis for each sector individually. As a 

result, certain simplifying assumptions were made in the analysis of all sectors. For example, 

because EPA does not have information on each regulated entity, it was conservatively assumed 

that all facilities would incur the highest possible estimated compliance cost. A distinction is 

made, however, between POTWs and non-POTWs because the costs incurred by pretreatment 

facilities to submit program reports electronically to EPA are an order of magnitude higher than 

those incurred by the rest of the universe. While regulated entities are also expected to incur 

savings under the proposed rule from no longer mailing paper DMRs and program reports, these 

savings vary by subprogram and permit type (as opposed to by sector) and are small compared to 

the costs. Therefore, no savings were accounted for in the small entity analysis, although some 

regulated entities will likely receive some savings. 

The per-facility compliance costs were annualized over ten years at 3% and 7% discount rates. 

This analysis estimates cost impact ratios in 2012 dollars and assumes the relationship between 

compliance costs and annual revenue in 2012 will be the same in future years. The annualized 

per-facility costs for each discount rate and phase-in scenario are presented in Table 5-2. 

Table 5-2: Annualized Compliance Costs 

Incurred Under Proposed Rule 

Permit Type 

Total Annualized Compliance Cost 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

POTWs $40.39 $44.51 

Non-POTWs $30.49 $34.19 

This small entity analysis considers facilities in all of the industry sectors included in the NPDES 

permit universe. Based on querying EPA’s Facility Registry System (FRS) for the 6-digit NAICS 

codes of NPDES facilities, a total of 1,109 sectors were identified (U.S. EPA, 2010a).48 The 

Online Tracking and Information System (OTIS) was then queried to count the number of 

facilities in ICIS-NPDES and PCS in each of these NAICS codes. 

 

48 FRS was also queried for SIC codes of NPDES facilities. SIC codes were converted to their 

corresponding NAICS codes based on the U.S. Census concordances file. Where a SIC code corresponded 

to more than one NAICS code, all applicable NAICS codes were included. 
5-4 28 June 2013

Employment and revenue data (necessary for the small entity analysis) available for each of these 

sectors varies; but fall into the general categories presented in Table 5-3 below. The categories 

were developed based on the small business definition and data sources used. Sector Category #1 

includes all NAICS codes for which employment and revenue data are readily available from the 

U.S. Census Statistics of U.S Businesses - the applicable small business threshold is based on 

either revenue or employment. Sector Category #2 includes municipalities - the small business 

threshold is defined in terms of population. Data from the U.S. Census of Governments was used 

to identify revenue. Sector Category #3 includes utilities - the definition of what constitutes a 

small business is based on the amount of electricity generated. Data from the Energy Information 

Administration data and annual electricity prices were used to estimate small entity impacts. 

Agricultural sectors, for which U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Census of Agriculture data are 

used, are grouped together in Sector Category #4. Finally, Sector Category #5 includes 

miscellaneous sectors for which it was not possible to identify a source of revenue and 

employment data. Note that facilities falling into Sector Category #5 were not considered in this 

analysis because employment and revenue data are not readily available. However, these sectors, 

which include financial institutions, public administration (excluding municipalities), and 

telecommunications, contain very few NPDES regulated entities.49 

Table 5-3: Categorizing Sectors Affected by Proposed Rule 

Sector 

Category 

# 

Category Description 

# NAICS 

Codes in 

Category 

# Facilities 

in Category 

1 Sectors covered by U.S. Census dataa 1,012 116,959 

2 Municipalities operating POTWs 1 17,412 

3 Utility sectors with small business definitions based on electricity 

generation 6 1,038 

4 Agricultural sectors not covered by U.S. Census data 42 12,061 

5 Miscellaneous Sectors with no usable data in U.S. Census (e.g., nonutility non-agricultural sectors with no data available from U.S. Census) 48 3,311 

n/a Facilities with no industry sector identified in OTISb n/a 13,312 

Total Number of NPDES Sectors 1,109 164,093 a

 See Table 5-4 for more information about the types of industries included in Sector Category 1. 

b

 See further discussion in Section 5.5.1. 

For each Sector Category listed in Table 5-3, different data sources were used to estimate relevant 

economic sizes, and then the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. Although the data 

sources varied, the general methodology used to estimate the impacts on small entities across all 

sectors consisted of the following steps: 

Step 1: Identify the universe of affected NPDES facilities. 

Step 2: Characterize the relationships between facilities and their parents in the 

affected universe. 

Step 3: Estimate annual revenue of parent entities in the affected universe. 

Step 4: Identify small parent entities based on SBA definitions (see Section 5.2). 

 

49 Information in PCS and ICIS-NPDES indicates that facilities in these sectors make up less than 2% of the 

active NPDES facility universe. Note, however, that this percentage includes some municipalities operating 

POTWs classified in public administration sectors, which are considered in Section 0. The percentage of 

facilities not covered by this analysis falls below 1% if public administration sectors are excluded from the 

count. 
5-5 28 June 2013

Step 5: Develop parent entity annualized cost estimates, based on the number of 

facilities per parent estimated in Step 2. 

Step 6: Calculate the parent entity cost impact ratio, defined as the annualized cost as 

a percentage of annual revenue, as a measure of regulatory burden. 

Step 7: Estimate the number and percentage of small parent entities with parent-level 

impact percentages in each of three categories: (1) less than 1% of annual 

revenue; (2) between 1% and 3% of annual revenue; and (3) greater than or 

equal to 3% annual revenue. 

The specific assumptions and calculations used to estimate impacts for each category of facilities 

are described in more detail in the sections that follow. Section 5.5 considers the impacts on small 

entities in sectors for which information is available from the 2007 U.S. Census Statistics of U.S. 

Businesses (SUSB). Section 5.6 estimates the impacts on small municipalities operating POTWs. 

Section 5.7 estimates the impacts of the proposed rule on small parent entities operating 

electricity generation utility facilities. Section 5.8 characterizes the impacts on small parent 

entities in agricultural sectors. 

It should be noted that fewer facilities are considered in the small entity analysis (164,093 unique 

facilities) than were estimated in Section 2 (434,008 unique facilities). Ideally, EPA would 

identify the parent company of each facility potentially affected by the proposed rule, determine 

the small entity status (small or not-small) of the parent entity, estimate compliance costs for each 

small parent entity, and then compare compliance costs to each small parent entity’s annual 

revenue. However, due to the magnitude and diversity of facilities and sectors affected, this 

approach was not feasible. Because small entity status is based on industrial sector, the small 

entity analysis required data sources where industry sector (NAICS codes) of each facility could 

be identified. Although not a complete inventory of all potentially affected facilities, the universe 

of facilities currently in ICIS-NPDES and PCS was used.50 The assumption is made that facilities 

affected by the proposed rule but not currently in ICIS-NPDES and PCS will experience small 

entity impacts similar to the facilities currently in ICIS-NPDES and PCS. 

5.5 Census Sectors 

The majority of NPDES sectors (1,012 of 1,109, or 91%) have revenue and employment data 

available from the U.S. Census Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2010c). The sectors with data available from SUSB are summarized in Table 5-4 below. 

 

 

50 Not all facilities covered by Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) or stormwater general 

permits are currently in ICIS-NPDES or PCS It was assumed that, on a per facility basis, the estimated 

impacts on those facilities with information in ICIS-NPDES would be representative of the impacts on all 

regulated entities subject to the same subprogram. 
5-6 28 June 2013

Table 5-4: Sectors with Information in SUSB 

2-Digit 

NAICS NAICS Description # 6-Digit NAICS Codes 

11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 13 

21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 29 

22 Utilities 3 

23 Construction 31 

31-33 Manufacturing 463 

42 Wholesale Trade 64 

44-45 Retail Trade 67 

48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 54 

51 Information 23 

52 Finance and Insurance 24 

53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 22 

54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 38 

55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 2 

56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 37 

61 Educational Services 15 

62 Health Care and Social Service 39 

71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 25 

72 Accommodation and Food Services 15 

81 Other Services (Except Public Administration) 48 

Total Number of NPDES Sectors with Information in SUSB 1,012 

The SUSB provides annual data for U.S. business establishments by geography, industry, and 

enterprise size, covering all business establishments with paid employees. The data provided 

annually includes counts of establishments, firms, employees, and total receipts. The data 

available from the SUSB can therefore be used to identify the number of small parent entities 

affected under the proposed rule, construct annual revenue, and calculate cost impact ratios. 

A sector’s small business definition is based on either its annual revenue or the number of its 

employees, depending on the sector. The SUSB provides information tabulated by employment 

size or revenue size. For those sectors with revenue-based small business definitions, employment 

and revenue profiles were developed for each revenue size category. For sectors with 

employment-based small business definitions, profiles were developed for employment size 

categories. All tables and references in the sections below referring to revenue or employment 

size classes are mutually exclusive. 

In a small entity analysis, compliance costs are estimated at the parent entity level, which requires 

aggregation of regulated entity costs to the parent entity level. However, it was not possible to 

identify the regulated entity to parent entity relationship for all affected sectors in this analysis 

due to the large number of potentially affected regulated entities overall. The SUSB data provide 

counts of both establishments and firms. Census defines an establishment as a single physical 

location where business is conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed; 

this definition corresponds to a facility or NPDES regulated entity. Census defines a firm as a 

business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments in the same state and 

industry that are under common ownership or control. For the purposes of this analysis, it was 

assumed that a firm is equivalent to a parent entity. 

Note that the estimates in this section were derived based on census data available at the NAICScode level. Information from EPA data systems on individual NPDES facilities was used to 

construct the initial counts of NPDES permits by NAICS and SIC code. Thereafter, SUSB data 

were used to construct a distribution of NPDES facilities within the sector, which was then used 
5-7 28 June 2013

to calculate cost-impact ratios. The sections that follow discuss the method used to calculate the 

impacts on small parent entities, following the general method described in Section 5.4. 

5.5.1 Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities 

Information in ICIS-NPDES and PCS was used to characterize the universe of affected NPDES 

facilities by 6-digit NAICS code. Counts of active NPDES regulated entities associated with each 

NAICS code and SIC code (where no NAICS was available51) were obtained from EPA’s 

Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system via the Online Tracking and 

Information System (OTIS) (U.S. EPA, 2010b). The following rules (in order of application) 

were used in assigning NAICS codes to facilities: 

 Where a NPDES facility was associated with both a valid NAICS code and a valid SIC 

code, the NAICS code was chosen. 

 Where a NPDES facility was associated with more than one valid NAICS or SIC code, 

the first NAICS or SIC code listed in the facility record was chosen. 

 If a NPDES facility had a blank or invalid NAICS or SIC code associated with its 

NPDES permit, but had a NAICS or SIC code associated with another permit program in 

the facility record, it was assigned the NAICS or SIC code from the other permit 

program. 

 If a NPDES facility had a blank or invalid NAICS or SIC code associated with its 

NPDES permit, and did not have a valid NAICS or SIC code associated with another 

permit program, it was excluded from the analysis (applies to 13,312 facilities, 7% of the 

total number of facilities).52

 Where only a valid SIC code was available, the SIC code was mapped to its 

corresponding NAICS code based on the concordance file from U.S. Census.53

 Where a SIC code mapped to more than one NAICS code, the NAICS code with the 

largest number of facilities in ICIS-NPDES and PCS was used. 

 Where a SIC code mapped to more than one NAICS code, and the corresponding NAICS 

codes had an equal number of facilities in ICIS-NPDES and PCS, or all corresponding 

NAICS codes had zero facilities in ICIS-NPDES and PCS, if the corresponding NAICS 

codes were the same at the 4- or 5-digit level, the 4- or 5-digit NAICS code was used. 

Otherwise, the first NAICS code listed was used. 

Based on this method, 166,058 NPDES facilities were matched to 808 sectors. Note that the 

number of sectors is fewer than the 1,109 originally identified in Section 5.4 because: 1) only one 

NAICS code was mapped to each SIC code rather than all corresponding NAICS codes; and 2) 

only active NPDES facilities were included in the counts by NAICS or SIC code. Note that 

impacts on facilities in NAICS codes corresponding to POTWs, utilities, and agriculture are 

discussed in Sections 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8, respectively, and are not included in the estimates 

presented in this section. Additionally, facilities in 48 non-agricultural non-utility NAICS codes 

for which information is not available from the SUSB are not considered in this analysis (see 

 

51 The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) has replaced the U.S. Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) system. However, for many NPDES facilities, only a SIC code is available in the 

facility record. 

52 Note that many of the 13,312 facilities with no applicable NAICS or SIC code appear to be general 

permits. The assumption is made that facilities affected by the proposed rule with no industry sector 

identified in ICIS-NPDES or PCS will experience small entity impacts similar to the facilities currently in 

ICIS-NPDES and PCS. 

53 Available at http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/concordances/2002_NAICS_to_1987_SIC.xls 
5-8 28 June 2013

further discussion in Section 5.4). Facilities in these groups were excluded from the count of 

NPDES facilities, bringing the total to 116,959. 

The total number of NPDES facilities in each SUSB employment or revenue size class 

(depending on the sector) was determined by multiplying the total NPDES facility count by the 

number of establishments in the particular revenue or employment size class and dividing by the 

total number of establishments in that NAICS/revenue or employment size class. The results are 

shown in Table 5-5 and Table 5-6 below. 

Table 5-5: NPDES Facility 

Distribution by 

Employment Size Class 

Employment Size 

Class 

# NPDES 

Facilities 

0-4 employees 15,350 

5-9 employees 6,509 

10-19 employees 5,759 

20-99 employees 9,072 

100-499 employees 5,480 

500+ employees 13,755 

Total 55,988 

Note: Numbers may not sum due 

to rounding. 

Table 5-6: NPDES Facility 

Distribution by Revenue Size 

Class 

Revenue Size Class # NPDES 

Facilities 

<100,000 7,739 

100,000-499,999 17,373 

500,000-999,999 8,343 

1,000,000-2,499,999 8,697 

2,500,000-4,999,999 4,380 

5,000,000-7,499,999 1,841 

7,500,000-9,999,999 1,018 

10,000,000-14,999,999 1,180 

15,000,000-19,999,999 743 

20,000,000-24,999,999 507 

25,000,000-29,999,999 335 

30,000,000-34,999,999 300 

35,000,000-39,999,999 259 

40,000,000-44,999,999 267 

45,000,000-49,999,999 200 

50,000,000-74,999,999 629 

75,000,000-99,999,999 414 

100,000,000+ 6,551 

Total 60,971 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to 

rounding. 

5.5.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships 

Compliance costs and impacts are estimated at the parent entity level, where a parent entity may 

own one or more facilities. Therefore, it was necessary to estimate the number of NPDES 

facilities per parent, which was done by dividing the number of establishments by the number of 
5-9 28 June 2013

firms in the SUSB data for each NAICS/employment or revenue size class combination. The 

distribution of permits derived in Section 5.5.1 was then divided by this number to obtain a count 

of NPDES parent entities for each NAICS/revenue or employment size class combination. The 

counts of parent entities and average number of facilities per parent are shown in Table 5-7 and 

Table 5-8 below. 

Table 5-7: NPDES Parent Entity 

Distribution by Employment Size 

Class 

Employment Size 

Class 

# NPDES 

Parent 

Entities 

Average # 

Facilities 

per Parent 

0-4 employees 15,334 1 

5-9 employees 6,471 1.01 

10-19 employees 5,607 1.03 

20-99 employees 7,830 1.16 

100-499 employees 2,988 1.83 

500+ employees 2,598 5.29 

Total 40,828 1.37 

Table 5-8: NPDES Parent Entity 

Distribution by Revenue Size Class 

Revenue Size Class 

# NPDES 

Parent 

Entities 

Average # 

Facilities per 

Parent 

<100,000 7,735 1 

100,000-499,999 17,353 1 

500,000-999,999 8,316 1 

1,000,000-2,499,999 8,563 1.02 

2,500,000-4,999,999 4,204 1.04 

5,000,000-7,499,999 1,696 1.09 

7,500,000-9,999,999 883 1.15 

10,000,000-14,999,999 969 1.22 

15,000,000-19,999,999 566 1.31 

20,000,000-24,999,999 358 1.42 

25,000,000-29,999,999 244 1.37 

30,000,000-34,999,999 154 1.95 

35,000,000-39,999,999 139 1.86 

40,000,000-44,999,999 113 2.36 

45,000,000-49,999,999 96 2.08 

50,000,000-74,999,999 271 2.32 

75,000,000-99,999,999 147 2.82 

100,000,000+ 685 9.56 

Total 52,492 1.16 

5.5.3 Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities 

The SUSB data include the total annual receipts (defined as the revenue for goods produced, 

distributed, or services provided) for each NAICS/revenue or employment size class combination. 

The total annual revenue in SUSB was divided by the number of firms to determine average 

parent entity revenue for each NAICS/revenue or employment size class combination. In some 

cases total revenue was not provided in the SUSB data because doing so would disclose the 

operations of an individual establishment or firm, so it was necessary to extrapolate average 

revenue based on the available data. For sectors with revenue-based small business definitions, 

the midpoint of the revenue size class was substituted as the average revenue for the 

NAICS/revenue size class combination with missing data. For sectors with employment-based 
5-10 28 June 2013

small business definitions, the following method was used to estimate average revenue for those 

NAICS/employment size class combinations where revenue was not disclosed: 

1. Calculate the percent difference between average revenue in adjacent employment 

size classes based the on all NPDES NAICS codes populated with average revenue 

information in the relevant adjacent employment class sizes. 

2. For the NAICS/employment size class combination with no average revenue data, 

multiply the average revenue of the adjacent employment size class in that NAICS 

code by the average percent difference between the two adjacent employment size 

classes across all NPDES NAICS codes to estimate the average revenue. 

3. Where average revenue is available for both adjacent employment size classes, 

average the two estimated average revenue to obtain an average revenue for the 

missing NAICS/employment size class combination. Where average revenue is 

available for only one of the adjacent size classes, use the estimated average revenue 

based on the size class with data. 

Because the SUSB data reflects 2007 annual revenue, it was necessary to inflate the revenue to 

current dollars using one of several indices. The Industrial Production Index (IPI) measures the 

amount of industrial output from certain industries and was used to inflate annual revenue in 

mining (NAICS 21), utility (NAICS 2254), construction (NAICS 23), and manufacturing (NAICS 

31-33) sectors to 2012 dollars (U.S. Federal Reserve, 2013). The Producer Price Index (PPI) 

measures the average change over time in selling prices received by domestic producers of goods 

and services (BLS, 2013a); the PPI for farm products was used to inflate agricultural sector 

(NAICS 1155) revenue to 2012 dollars.56 All other sectors (NAICS 42-81) were inflated based on 

the change in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 2007 to 2012, which is a measure of overall 

economic output (BEA, 2013). 

5.5.4 Estimate Number of Small Parent Entities 

As discussed in Section 5.3, the small business definition is based on annual receipts or the 

number of employees. Because the SUSB provides data broken down by employment and 

revenue size class, it was possible to identify the number of small firms in each sector. Note that 

where a small business definition fell in the middle of a size or revenue class, it was assumed that 

all parent entities in that revenue or employment size class were not small. For example, the small 

business definition for NAICS 213113 (Support Activities for Coal Mining) is $7 million in 

annual revenue; therefore it was assumed that all parent entities in the $5,000,000 to $7,499,999 

revenue size class were not small. Using this method, 49,828 (95%) firms in sectors with 

revenue-based small business definitions and 37,998 (93%) firms in sectors with employment 

based small business definitions are small entities, for a total of 87,826 small entities. 

5.5.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs 

It was assumed that all parent entities would incur an annualized per-facility compliance cost of 

$30.49 at a 3% discount rate or $34.19 at a 7% discount rate (see Section 5.4). The parent entity 

will incur this cost once for each NPDES facility it operates. Therefore, the annualized perfacility compliance cost was multiplied by the number of facilities per parent entity (derived in 

Section 5.5.2) to obtain the total annualized compliance cost to the parent entity. This calculation 

was made separately for each small NAICS/revenue or employment size class combination. 

 

54 Except for electricity-generating utilities, discussed in Section 5.7. 

55 Except for NAICS 111 and 112, discussed in Section 5.8. 

56 Except for logging (NAICS 113310), which used PPI industry information for logging (BLS, 2013b). 
5-11 28 June 2013

5.5.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios 

The cost impact ratios for small parent entities operating NPDES facilities were estimated by 

dividing the total annualized compliance cost for that NAICS/revenue or employment size class 

(estimated in Section 5.5.5) by the parent entity average annual revenue for the NAICS/revenue 

or employment size class (estimated in Section 5.5.3). Based on this calculation, using the 3% 

discount rate, all of the small parent entities in sectors with Census information are expected to 

incur cost impacts of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 5-9). Similarly, using the 7% 

discount rate, all of the small parent entities in sectors with Census information are expected to 

incur cost impacts of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 5-10). Because the impacts are less 

than 1% they are considered to be minimal and no further action is required. 

Table 5-9: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on 

Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities in Sectors 

with Census Information, 3% Discount Rate 

Cost-Impact Ratio 

Percentage 

Small Parent Entity 

Count 

% of Small Parent 

Entities 

>3% 0 0% 

1-3% 0 0% 

<1% 87,826 100% 

Total 87,826 100% 

Table 5-10: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on 

Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities in Sectors 

with Census Information, 7% Discount Rate 

Cost-Impact Ratio 

Percentage 

Small Parent Entity 

Count 

% of Small Parent 

Entities 

>3% 0 0% 

1-3% 0 0% 

<1% 87,826 100% 

Total 87,826 100% 

5.6 Municipalities Operating Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 

Publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) are most often operated by the municipality in which 

the facility is located. Therefore, municipalities are considered to be the parent entity for POTWs. 

The U.S. Census of Governments was used to characterize municipal revenue (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2005a and 2005b). It characterizes the scope and nature of the nation's state and local 

governments; provides authoritative benchmark figures of public finance and public employment; 

classifies local government organizations, powers, and activities; and measures federal, state, and 

local fiscal relationships. Information is available by level of government and category of 

governmental activity. The Census of Governments provides the following definitions of these 

government types (referred to collectively as “local governments” throughout this section):

 Municipal governments: Organized local governments authorized in state constitutions 

and statutes and established to provide government for a specific concentration of 

population in a defined area; includes those governments designated as cities, villages, 

boroughs (except in Alaska), and towns (except in the six New England states, 

Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin). 

 Township governments: Organized local governments authorized in state constitutions 

and statutes and established to provide general government for areas defined without 
5-12 28 June 2013

regard to population concentration; includes those governments designated as towns in 

Connecticut, Maine (including organized plantations), Massachusetts, Minnesota, New 

Hampshire (including organized locations), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and 

Wisconsin, and townships in other states. 

 County governments: Organized local governments authorized in state constitutions and 

statutes and established to provide general government; includes those governments 

designed as counties, parishes in Louisiana, and boroughs in Alaska. 

For some POTWs, the most applicable parent entity was a township or county rather than a 

municipality (see further discussion in Section 5.6.1 below). The sections that follow discuss the 

method used to calculate the impacts on small local governments operating POTWs, following 

the general method described in Section 5.4. 

5.6.1 Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities 

Information in ICIS-NPDES and PCS was used to identify POTWs. The universe of affected 

POTWs was estimated by querying ICIS-NPDES for active facilities with a “POTW” permit 

component and PCS for active facilities classified in SIC code 4952 (Sewerage Systems).57 These 

queries generated a list of 17,412 POTWs affected under the proposed rule. 

In order to use the data available from the Census of Governments to construct municipal revenue 

and identify small municipalities, it was necessary to match each affected POTW to a local 

government on the Census list. As was discussed above, the U.S. Census provides data for 

municipalities, townships, and counties. The following order of preference was used to match 

POTWs to their corresponding Census local government: 

 Compare the ICIS-NPDES or PCS city name as extracted by OTIS to the Census list of 

municipalities. 

 Compare the city name from ICIS-NPDES or PCS to the Census list of townships.58

 Compare the facility name from the OTIS facility report to the Census list of 

municipalities. 

 Compare the facility name from ICIS-NPDES or PCS to the Census list of townships.59

 Conduct internet searches on the facility name, city name, and/or ZIP code to match the 

facility to a Census municipality or township.60

 Where no municipality or township match is possible, identify the corresponding Census 

County, based on the facility’s ZIP code.61 

Using this method, 17,329 of the 17,412 (99.5%) POTWs were matched to a census municipality, 

township, or county (see Table 5-11 below). Of the remaining 83 facilities with no Census match, 

74 are located in U.S. territories, and it is assumed that the distribution of impacts on these 

facilities is comparable to the overall distribution. The remaining 9 facilities could not be 

matched because the information in their OTIS facility reports was insufficient and were 

 

57 The POTW permit component flag is only available in ICIS-NPDES, so SIC 4952 was used to search for 

POTWs in PCS. 

58 Except for townships in the North Central Region (see explanation in Section 5.6.3). 

59 Ibid 

60 Ibid 

61 In some cases, the city identified in the OTIS facility report corresponded to an unincorporated area not 

administered by a municipality or township, such that the county was the only local government applicable. 

In other cases, a POTW was operated by the county rather than a single municipality or township, so the 

corresponding county was the most appropriate match. 
5-13 28 June 2013

excluded from this analysis due to lack of data. The POTWs excluded from this analysis account 

for less than 1% of the total POTW universe, and are assumed not to affect the conclusions of the 

overall analysis. 

Table 5-11: POTWs Matched to Census Municipalities, Townships, and 

Counties 

Facility Count % of Universe 

 POTWs matched to a Census Municipality 14,978 86% 

 POTWs matched to a Census Township 864 5% 

 POTWs matched to a Census County 1,487 9% 

 POTWs not matched to a Census Municipality, Township, or 

County (Not Considered in Analysis) 9 0.1% 

 POTWs located in a U.S. Territory (Not Considered in Analysis) 74 0.4% 

Total Number of POTWs Identified in ICIS-NPDES and PCS 17,412 100% 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

5.6.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships 

Compliance costs are estimated at the parent entity level, where a parent entity may own one or 

more facilities. Therefore, it was necessary to consider municipalities, townships, or counties 

operating multiple POTW facilities. Because the universe derived in Section 5.6.1 is based on a 

unique list of facilities matched to individual local governments, it was possible to determine the 

number of POTW facilities operated by each municipality, township, and county. The 17,329 

matched POTWs corresponded to a total of 11,972 unique local governments, with the majority 

(9,616, or 80%) operating only one POTW. For the remaining 2,356 local governments, the 

actual number of facilities per parent based on the data pulled from OTIS was used. 

5.6.3 Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities 

Because the Census of Governments does not provide revenue data for individual municipalities, 

townships, or counties, it was necessary to develop a method to estimate these revenue based on 

available information. The Government Finance series in the 2002 Census of Governments 

provides information at the state level regarding the per capita revenue of municipalities, 

townships, and counties by population-size range (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005a; U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2005b). Note that for townships, U.S. Census only provides per capita revenue by 

population-size group for states in the Northeast Region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont). For 

townships in the North Central Region (Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, and Minnesota, 

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin), per capita revenue were 

not available from Census. Therefore, the corresponding county was identified and used as the 

applicable local government for each affected POTW in these areas. There are no township local 

governments in states in regions other than the Northeast and North Central. 

It was necessary to inflate the 2002 revenue to 2012 dollars. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 

inflation index, which is a measure of overall economic output, was used to inflate 2002 revenue 

to 2012 dollars. Note that this method may overstate current revenue because the GDP is a 

measure of overall economic output and does not correlate directly to government revenue; 

however it was considered the best available index to use in this situation. 

To estimate the annual revenue for each affected municipality, township, and county, the per 

capita revenue was multiplied by the population. Population information was obtained from the 

U.S. Census 2009 Population Estimates (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). 
5-14 28 June 2013

5.6.4 Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities 

As discussed in Section 5.3, "small governmental jurisdictions" are defined as the government of 

a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of fewer than 50,000 

people. Therefore, any local government operating a POTW serving a population of 50,000 or 

fewer was considered “small” for the purposes of this analysis. In Section 5.6.2, the 2009 

population of each affected municipality, township, and county was identified from U.S. Census. 

Based on this information, 11,106 of the 11,972 (93%) local governments operating POTWs are 

small. 

5.6.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs 

It was assumed that all POTWs would incur an annualized per-facility compliance cost of $40.39 

at a 3% discount rate or $44.51 at a 7% discount rate (see Section 5.4). The affected municipality, 

township, or county will incur this cost once for each POTW it operates. Therefore, the 

annualized per-facility compliance cost was multiplied by the number of POTWs per local 

government (derived in Section 5.6.2) to calculate the total annualized compliance cost for each 

local government affected under the proposed rule. 

5.6.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios 

The cost impact ratios for small municipalities, townships, and counties operating POTWs were 

estimated by dividing the total annualized compliance cost for that entity (estimated in Section 

5.6.5) by the annual revenue of the local government (estimated in Section 5.6.3). Based on this 

calculation, at a 3% discount rate, all 11,106 of the small local governments affected by the 

proposed rule are expected to incur a cost impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 5-12). 

Similarly, at a 7% discount rate, all 11,106 of the small local governments affected by the 

proposed rule are expected to incur a cost impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 5-13). 

Cost impacts of less than 1% are considered to be minimal, and no further action is required. 

Table 5-12: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on 

Small Local Governments Operating POTWs, 3% 

Discount Rate 

Cost-Impact Ratio 

Percentage 

Small Local 

Government Count 

% of Small Local 

Governments 

>3% 0 0% 

1-3% 0 0% 

<1% 11,106 100% 

Total 11,106 100% 

Table 5-13: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on 

Small Local Governments Operating POTWs, 7% 

Discount Rate 

Cost-Impact Ratio 

Percentage 

Small Local 

Government Count 

% of Small Local 

Governments 

>3% 0 0% 

1-3% 0 0% 

<1% 11,106 100% 

Total 11,106 100% 
5-15 28 June 2013

5.7 Utilities 

For six utility sectors, the small business definition is based on electricity generation rather than 

employment or annual revenue. Therefore, for these sectors, it was necessary to use an alternate 

method to determine the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. The six sectors with small 

business definitions based on electricity generation are: 

 221111 Hydroelectric Power Generation 

 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation 

 221113 Nuclear Power Generation 

 221119 Other Electric Power Generation 

 221121 Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control 

 221122 Electric Power Distribution 

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) maintains monthly and annual data on electricity 

generation and fuel consumption for U.S. power plants in its EIA-923 database. This information 

was used to identify small entities and to construct annual revenue of small utility companies 

owning operations with NPDES permits. Subsequent sections outline the method used to 

calculate the impacts on small electric utilities, following the general method described in Section 

5.4. 

5.7.1 Characterize the Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities 

The universe of NPDES utility facilities was developed by identifying those power plants listed in 

the EIA-923 database with NPDES permits. Identification was made by querying the Facility 

Registry System (FRS) for all EPA-regulated entities with information in EIA databases (based 

on the Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) and the Clean Air 

Markets Division Business System (CAMDBS) facility linkages) (U.S. EPA, 2010a). This list 

was then limited to NPDES facilities by using the FRS IDs of the EIA-linked facilities to identify 

those with a NPDES permit. This method yielded a total of 1,609 EIA power generating locations 

with NPDES permit IDs. 

However, not all power plants in EIA databases are classified as a utility according to their 

primary NAICS code. For example, a manufacturing facility may generate electricity on site, but 

would be identified by a manufacturing NAICS code as its primary industrial classification. The 

impacts of the proposed rule on electricity generation facilities with primary industrial 

classifications other than those listed above, were therefore already analyzed in Section 5.5. To 

eliminate these facilities from the list of NPDES utility facilities, only those facilities with a 

utility NAICS or SIC code in their NPDES permit record were included in the universe, unless 

another program system (e.g., the Air Facility System (AFS)) classified the facility in a utility 

NAICS. Based on these assumptions, a total of 1,174 utilities with NPDES permits were 

considered in this part of the analysis. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) defines a major utility in 18 CFR §101 as 

having, in each of the last three consecutive years, sales or transmission service exceeding one 

million megawatt-hours of total sales, 100 megawatt-hours of sales for resale, 500 megawatthours of power exchanges delivered, or 500 megawatt-hours of wheeling for others (deliveries 

plus losses). FERC defines a nonmajor utility as those utilities not classified as major with total 

sales in each of the last three consecutive years of 10,000 megawatt-hours or more. Therefore, 

any utility NPDES facility not meeting the FERC definition of a major or nonmajor utility was 

assumed to have its primary industrial classification in a different NAICS code and was not 
5-16 28 June 2013

included in the universe. Based on the FERC definitions of major and nonmajor utilities, the 

universe was narrowed to 1,016 facilities, as is shown in Table 5-14 below. 

Table 5-14: NPDES Utility Facility 

Universe 

Utility Universe # 

Facilities 

EIA Power Plants with NPDES IDs 1,609 

 With Utility NAICS Code in EPA Records 1,174 

 Meets FERC Definition of a Utility 1,016 

5.7.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships 

The EIA-923 database also provides information about the operator of every utility in the 

database. It was assumed that the “operator” was the parent entity for the utility universe. Based 

on this information, it was possible to characterize the facility-parent relationship for every utility 

facility. The 1,016 utility facilities corresponded to 541 parents, of which 395 parents (73%) 

operate only one facility. For the remaining 146 parents, the actual number of facilities per parent 

based on the EIA data was used. 

5.7.3 Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities 

As stated above, the EIA-923 database provides information about the annual electricity 

generation of each power plant in the U.S (EIA, 2009). The EIA also provides information about 

the average retail price of electricity to ultimate customers by end-use sector, by state, on a 

monthly basis (EIA, 2013). Annual electricity generation and price were combined to generate an 

estimate of annual revenue. Specifically, a national average of 9.65 cents per kilowatt-hour, or 

$96.50 per megawatt-hour (December 2012) was multiplied by the total electricity generation per 

parent to construct annual revenue for each parent entity. 

For 69 utilities, information was not available from the EIA-923 database regarding annual 

electricity generation. However, the Form EIA-860 Annual Electric Generator Report provides 

information on the operational status of generators at electric plants owned and operated by 

electric utilities and non-utilities. Of the 69 utility facilities with no electricity generation data, 64 

were either retired, out of service, under construction, or planned at the time of this analysis. 

Because these facilities were not currently operational, they were not included in the universe of 

affected regulated entities and were not included in the small entity analysis. Of the remaining 

five utilities with no data, information about electricity generation was available for one facility 

from the 2007 EIA-923 database. No information was available for the remaining four facilities 

with no electricity generation data. However, the utilities with missing data account for 0.4% of 

the NPDES utility facility universe, and are assumed not to affect the conclusions of the overall 

analysis. Therefore, annual revenue was estimated for 947 facilities corresponding to 472 parent 

entities. The number of facilities per parent ranged from 1 to 19. 

5.7.4 Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities 

Small utilities are defined as those businesses primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, 

and/or distribution of electric energy for sale with the total electric output for the fiscal year not 

exceeding 4 million megawatt-hours. Based on this definition, and aggregating the individual 

facility net generation to the parent level, 341 of the 472 (72%) utility parent entities meet the 

definition of being a small parent entity. 
5-17 28 June 2013

5.7.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs 

It was assumed that all utilities would incur an annualized per-facility compliance cost of $30.49 

at a 3% discount rate or $34.19 at a 7% discount rate (see Section 5.4).The affected parent entity 

will incur this cost once for each NPDES utility facility it operates. Therefore, the annualized perfacility compliance cost was multiplied by the number of utility operations per parent (derived in 

Section 5.7.2) to calculate the total annualized compliance cost for each utility parent entity 

affected under the proposed rule. 

5.7.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios 

The cost impact ratios for small parent entities operating NPDES utility facilities were estimated 

by dividing the total annualized compliance cost for each entity (estimated in Section 5.7.5) by 

their annual revenue (estimated in Section 5.7.3). Based on this calculation, at a 3% discount rate, 

all of the 341 small utility parent entities affected under the proposed rule are expected to incur a 

cost impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 5-15). Similarly, at a 7% discount rate all of 

the 341 small utility parent entities affected under the proposed rule are expected to incur a cost 

impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 5-16). Cost impacts of less than 1% are 

considered minimal, and no further action is required. 

Table 5-15: Estimated Impacts of Proposed 

Rule on Small Utility Parent Entities, 3% 

Discount Rate 

Cost-Impact Ratio 

Percentage 

Small Parent 

Count 

% of Small 

Parent Entities 

>3% 0 0% 

1-3% 0 0% 

<1% 341 100% 

Total 341 100% 

Table 5-16: Estimated Impacts of Proposed 

Rule on Small Utility Parent Entities, 7% 

Discount Rate 

Cost-Impact Ratio 

Percentage 

Small Parent 

Count 

% of Small 

Parent Entities 

>3% 0 0% 

1-3% 0 0% 

<1% 341 100% 

Total 341 100% 

5.8 Agriculture 

Forty-two agricultural sectors were identified as potentially affected under the proposed rule. The 

term “farming” includes all agricultural activities in the affected sectors, ranging from egg 

production to aquaculture. Data for these sectors are available from the USDA’s Census of 

Agriculture (USDA, 2007). The Census of Agriculture is conducted by the National Agricultural 

Statistical Service (NASS) every five years, and provides a complete count of U.S. farms 

including data on income and expenditures, land use and ownership, and production practices. 
5-18 28 June 2013

The readily available data on revenue and economic class62 distributions from the Agricultural 

Census summarizes most of the affected 42 sub-sectors at a 4-digit NAICS level, with the Cattle 

Ranching and Farming industry disaggregated to 6-digit NAICS levels. Revenue and economic 

class data at the 6-digit level were requested from USDA’s Statistics Division for the Poultry and 

Egg Production sector (NAICS 1123) to meet the analytical needs of this analysis. 

For the agricultural sector, SBA sets size standards for small businesses by annual revenue 

assigned at the 6-digit NAICS sub-sector level. SBA’s size standards differ from the revenue 

cutoff generally recognized by USDA, which has defined $250,000 in gross sales as its cutoff 

between small and large family farms (USDA, 2010a). 

With two exceptions (Cattle Feedlots and Chicken Egg Production sub-sectors), current SBA 

standards define a “small business” within the agricultural sector as an operation generating 

average revenue of less than $0.75 million per year. The Cattle Feedlots sub-sector (NAICS 

112112) has a small business definition of $2.5 million per year. Within the Poultry and Egg 

Production sector, the Chicken Egg Production sub-sector (NAICS 112310) has a small business 

definition of $12.5 million per year. 

5.8.1 Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities 

Information in ICIS-NPDES and PCS was used to characterize the universe of affected NPDES 

facilities by NAICS code. Following the rules identified in Section 5.5.1, 12,061 facilities were 

matched to 42 6-digit NAICS codes. Table 5-17 summarizes the distribution of NPDES facilities 

across NAICS codes. 

 

62 Economic class data are the classification of farms by the sum of market value of agricultural products 

sold and government payments (revenue). For example, one economic class classification is the number of 

farms with average annual revenue between $25,000 and $49,999. According to the Agricultural Census, 

government payments consist of payments received from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), 

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP), or Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program (CREP) plus government payments received from Federal, State, and local 

programs other than the CRP, WRP, FWP, and CREP, and Commodity Credit Corporation loans. 
5-19 28 June 2013

Table 5-17: NPDES Facility Distribution by NAICS Code 

NAICS NAICS Description # NPDES 

Facilities 

1111 Oilseed and Grain Farming 173 

1112 Vegetable and Melon Farming 9 

1113 Fruit and Tree Nut Farming 10 

1114 Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production 35 

1119a Sugarcane, Hay, and all Other Crop Farming 27 

1121 Cattle Ranching and Farming 

 112111 Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming 59 

 112112 Cattle Feedlots 3,339 

 112120 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production 3,208 

1122 Hog and Pig Farming 1,826 

1123 Poultry and Egg Production 

 112310 Chicken Egg Production 399 

 112320 Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production 1,512 

 112330 Turkey Production 29 

 112340 Poultry Hatcheries 24 

 112390 Other Poultry Production 574 

1124 Sheep and Goat Farming 26 

1125b Animal Aquaculture and other Animal Production 811 

Total Number of NPDES Agricultural Facilities 12,061 a

 Includes data on the following NAICS: 11193, 11194, and 11199. 

b Data are combined with NAICS 1129: Other Animal Production. 

5.8.2 Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships 

In a small entity analysis, compliance costs are estimated at the parent entity level, where a parent 

entity may own one or more facilities. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that a 

farm is the rough equivalent of a facility. According to the 2008 USDA report titled MillionDollar Farms in the New Century (USDA, 2008), in 2006 only 1.4% of U.S. farms identified 

themselves as part of a larger firm or corporation, thus, for the purpose of this analysis, it was 

assumed that all facilities in the agricultural sector are parent entities with single locations. 

5.8.3 Construct Annual Revenue of Parent Entities 

Agricultural Census data includes revenue (presented as the sum of total market value of 

agricultural products sold and government payments) tabulated by economic class and NAICS 

level. The total revenue of each economic class was divided by the number of farms in the 

economic class to estimate average revenue per economic class for each NAICS level. 

Because the Census data reflects 2007 annual revenue, it was necessary to inflate the revenue to 

current dollars. The Producer Price Index (PPI) measures the average change over time in selling 

prices received by domestic producers of goods and services (BLS, 2013a). The agricultural 

sector revenue was inflated to 2012 dollars based on the PPI commodity information for farm 

products. 

5.8.4 Identify Small Parent Entities 

As mentioned above, in this analysis it was assumed that all facilities in the agricultural sectors 

are their own parent (i.e., single location). The distribution of small parent entities was estimated 

using the Agricultural Census data on the number of farms within each economic class. Farms 

with income of less than $10,000 were not considered in this analysis as it is likely that these 
5-20 28 June 2013

farms have alternate sources of income and therefore cannot be considered in this small entity 

analysis with operations for which farming is the primary income source. In fact, USDA’s 

Economic Research Service identifies these farms as small noncommercial entities that “exist 

independently of the farm economy because their operators rely heavily on off-farm income” 

(USDA, 2010b). 

The percentage of farms with revenue below the small business threshold was then applied to the 

universe of NPDES facilities to estimate the number of affected NPDES facilities that are small 

parent entities as shown in Table 5-18. 

Table 5-18: NPDES Facility Distribution by NAICS Code 

NAICS USDA NAICS Description NPDES Facilities 

(#) 

Small NPDES 

Facilities 

(#) 

Small NPDES 

Facilities 

(%) 

1111 Oilseed and Grain Farming 173 147 85%

1112 Vegetable and Melon Farming 9 7 82%

1113 Fruit and Tree Nut Farming 10 9 90%

1114 Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture 35 29 84%

1119a Sugarcane, Hay, and all Other Crop Farming 27 26 95%

112111 Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming 59 57 97%

112112 Cattle Feedlots 3,339 3,105 93%

112120 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production 3,208 2,502 78%

1122 Hog and Pig Farming 1,826 895 49%

112310 Chicken Egg Production 399 399 100%

112320 Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken 1,512 287 19%

112330 Turkey Production 29 5 17%

112340 Poultry Hatcheries 24 5 19%

112390 Other Poultry Production 574 511 89%

1124 Sheep and Goat Farming 26 25 97%

1125b Animal Aquaculture and other Animal Production 811 754 93%

Total Number of NPDES Agricultural Facilities 12,061 8,763 73% a

 Includes data on the following NAICS: 11193, 11194, and 11199. 

b Data are combined with NAICS 1129: Other Animal Production. 

Note: Farms with revenue of less than $10,000 are not included in this analysis. 

5.8.5 Calculate Parent Entity Compliance Costs 

It was assumed that all parent entities would incur an annualized per-facility compliance cost of 

$30.49 at a 3% discount rate, or $34.19 at a 7% discount rate (see Section 5.2). The parent entity 

will incur this cost once for each NPDES facility it operates. For agricultural sectors, it was 

assumed that all agricultural entities are single locations; therefore the per-facility annualized 

compliance cost was apportioned once to each parent entity. 

5.8.6 Estimate Cost Impact Ratios 

The cost impact ratios for small parent entities were estimated by dividing the annualized 

compliance cost, (derived in Section 4.4.1), by the average revenue in each economic class for 

each NAICS code. The percent of small farms experiencing impacts of less than 1%, between 1% 

and 3%, and greater than 3% was then applied to the universe of small NPDES agricultural 

facilities to estimate the distribution of impacts within the affected agricultural sector. Based on 

this calculation, at a 3% discount rate, all of the 8,763 of the small parent entities in the affected 

agricultural sectors are expected to incur a cost impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (see 

Table 5-19). Similarly, at a 7% discount rate, all of the 8,763 of the small parent entities in the 

affected agricultural sectors are expected to incur a cost impact of less than 1% of annual revenue 

(Table 5-20). Cost impacts of less than 1% are considered minimal and no further action is 

required. 
5-21 28 June 2013

Table 5-19: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES 

Agricultural Facilities, 3% Discount Rate 

NAICS USDA NAICS Description 

Cost Impact of 

 <1% 

Cost Impact 

Between 

1 and 3% 

Cost Impact of 

>3% 

# % # % # % 

1111 Oilseed and Grain Farming 147 100 0 0 0 0 

1112 Vegetable and Melon Farming 7 100 0 0 0 0 

1113 Fruit and Tree Nut Farming 9 100 0 0 0 0 

1114 Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production 29 100 0 0 0 0 

1119a Sugarcane, Hay, and all Other Crop Farming 26 100 0 0 0 0 

112111 Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming 57 100 0 0 0 0 

112112 Cattle Feedlots 3,105 100 0 0 0 0 

112120 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production 2,502 100 0 0 0 0 

1122 Hog and Pig Farming 895 100 0 0 0 0 

112310 Chicken Egg Production 399 100 0 0 0 0 

112320 Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production 287 100 0 0 0 0 

112330 Turkey Production 5 100 0 0 0 0 

112340 Poultry Hatcheries 5 100 0 0 0 0 

112390 Other Poultry Production 511 100 0 0 0 0 

1124 Sheep and Goat Farming 25 100 0 0 0 0 

1125b Animal Aquaculture and other Animal Production 754 100 0 0 0 0 

Total Number of NPDES Agricultural Facilities 8,763 100 0 0 0 0 a

 Includes data on the following NAICS: 11193, 11194, and 11199. 

b Data is combined with NAICS 1129: Other Animal Production. 

Note: The estimated impacts on entities in the agricultural sector does not include a potential adjustment for 

residential/lifestyle and retirement farms. 

Table 5-20: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES 

Agricultural Facilities, 7% Discount Rate 

NAICS USDA NAICS Description 

Cost Impact of 

 <1% 

Cost Impact 

Between 

1 and 3% 

Cost Impact of 

>3% 

# % # % # % 

1111 Oilseed and Grain Farming 147 100 0 0 0 0 

1112 Vegetable and Melon Farming 7 100 0 0 0 0 

1113 Fruit and Tree Nut Farming 9 100 0 0 0 0 

1114 Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production 29 100 0 0 0 0 

1119a Sugarcane, Hay, and all Other Crop Farming 26 100 0 0 0 0 

112111 Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming 57 100 0 0 0 0 

112112 Cattle Feedlots 3,105 100 0 0 0 0 

112120 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production 2,502 100 0 0 0 0 

1122 Hog and Pig Farming 895 100 0 0 0 0 

112310 Chicken Egg Production 399 100 0 0 0 0 

112320 Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production 287 100 0 0 0 0 

112330 Turkey Production 5 100 0 0 0 0 

112340 Poultry Hatcheries 5 100 0 0 0 0 

112390 Other Poultry Production 511 100 0 0 0 0 

1124 Sheep and Goat Farming 25 100 0 0 0 0 

1125b Animal Aquaculture and other Animal Production 754 100 0 0 0 0 

Total Number of NPDES Agricultural Facilities 8,763 100 0 0 0 0 a

 Includes data on the following NAICS: 11193, 11194, and 11199. 

b Data is combined with NAICS 1129: Other Animal Production. 

Note: The estimated impacts on entities in the agricultural sector does not include a potential adjustment for 

residential/lifestyle and retirement farms. 
5-22 28 June 2013

5.9 Summary 

Small entity impacts were estimated for the following sectors: 

 Industrial sectors; 

 POTWs operated by municipalities; 

 Electricity generating utilities; and, 

 Agricultural sectors. 

Of these sectors, no entities are expected to incur a cost impact of 1% or greater associated with 

the annualized compliance costs resulting from the proposed rule. These results are summarized 

in Table 5-21 and Table 5-22. Based on the assumption that facilities affected by the proposed 

rule but not currently in ICIS-NPDES and PCS are similar to those facilities that are in ICISNPDES and PCS, no small entity impacts above 1% are expected due to the proposed rule. 

Table 5-21: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES 

Facilities, 3% Discount Rate 

Category of Sector Description 

Cost Impact of 

 <1% 

Cost Impact 

Between 

1 and 3% 

Cost Impact of >3% 

# % # % # % 

Sectors covered by U.S. Census data 87,826 100 0 0 0 0 

Municipalities operating POTWs 11,106 100 0 0 0 0 

Utility sectors 341 100 0 0 0 0 

Agricultural sectors 8,763 100 0 0 0 0 

Total 108,036 100 0 0 0 0 

Note: The estimated impacts on entities in the agricultural sector does not include a potential adjustment for 

residential/lifestyle and retirement farms. 

Table 5-22: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES 

Facilities, 7% Discount Rate 

Category of Sector Description 

Cost Impact of 

 <1% 

Cost Impact 

Between 

1 and 3% 

Cost Impact of >3% 

# % # % # % 

Sectors covered by U.S. Census data 87,826 100 0 0 0 0 

Municipalities operating POTWs 11,106 100 0 0 0 0 

Utility sectors 341 100 0 0 0 0 

Agricultural sectors 8,763 100 0 0 0 0 

Total 108,036 100 0 0 0 0 

Note: The estimated impacts on entities in the agricultural sector does not include a potential adjustment for 

residential/lifestyle and retirement farms. 
5-23 28 June 2013

References

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce. 2013. National 

Income and Products Accounts Table, Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic 

Product. <http://www.bea.gov/index.htm> 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2013a. Producer Price Index-Commodities: Farm 

Products. Series ID WPU01. <http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm> 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2013b. Producer Price Index Industry Data: Logging. 

Series ID PCU113310113310. <http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm> 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005a. 2002 Census of Governments: Government Finance: Finances of 

County Governments: 2002. Vol 4, No. 3, Issued February 2005. 

<http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/gc02x43.pdf> 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005b. 2002 Census of Governments: Government Finance: Finances of 

Municipal and Township Governments: 2002. Vol 4, No. 4, Issued April 2005. 

<http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/gc02x43.pdf> 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. Federal, State, & Local Governments: Definitions. 

<http://www.census.gov/govs/definitions/index.html> 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. Population Estimates: Incorporated Places and Minor Civil 

Divisions: All Places: 2000 to 2009. <http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2009-

4.html> 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010c. Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB). 

<http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/> 

USDA, 2007. Census of Agriculture 2007. 

<http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp> 

USDA, 2008. Hoppe, Robert A., P. Korb, and D. Banker. Million-Dollar Farms in the New 

Century, Economic Information Bulletin No. 42, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, December 2008. 

USDA, 2010a. Hoppe, Robert A., and David E. Banker. Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: 

Family Farm Report, 2010 Edition. EIB-66, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, July 2010. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB66/

USDA, 2010b. Hoppe, Robert A., James M. MacDonald, and Penni Korb. Small Farms in the 

United States: Persistence Under Pressure, EIB-63, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, February 2010. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy. 2008. Form EIA-860 

Database Annual Electric Generator Report. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html> 
5-24 28 June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy. 2009. Form EIA-923 

Database. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920.html> 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy. 2013. Table 5.6.A.: 

Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Consumers by End-Use Sector, by State, 

December 2012 and 2011. < 

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_06_a > 

U.S. EPA. 2010a. Facility Registry System (FRS). 

<http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/fii/fii_query_java.html> 

U.S. EPA. 2010b. Online Tracking and Information System. <http://www.epa-otis.gov/otis/> 

U.S. Federal Reserve. 2013. Table 4: Industrial Production Indexes: Market and Industry Group 

Summary Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization. < 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/table4.htm > 

U.S. SBA. Office of Advocacy. 2006. Statistics – All Industries by NAICS Codes, 2006: 

Employer Firms & Employment by Employment Size of Firm by NAICS Codes. 

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/us06_n6.pdf. Downloaded on March 6, 2009. 

U.S. SBA. 2008. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 

Classification System Codes. 

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. 

Downloaded on January 19, 2010.
6-1 28 June 2013

Section 6. – Benefits 

6.1 Introduction 

EPA has concluded that the proposed rule will facilitate a reduction in pollution to our nation’s 

waters. More timely, consistent, and accurate data will improve targeting of our federal and state 

resources to the most serious water quality and compliance problems. Furthermore, EPA expects 

that because obtaining facility-specific information electronically is more efficient than current 

reporting, data entry, and other work processes, significant savings will be realized by regulated 

entities, authorized NPDES programs, and EPA. Specifically, updating the submittal process by 

implementing electronic reporting is expected to reduce data entry costs for authorized NPDES 

programs and reduce paper and mailing costs for regulated entities and EPA Regions. It will also 

help reduce data entry errors, which will reduce the need for processing corrections and 

reentering data. Additionally, improved NPDES information will be available throughout the U.S. 

because authorized NPDES programs will be required to enter the required data into ICISNPDES for both major and nonmajor NPDES regulated entities. The electronic information flow 

will allow EPA and authorized NPDES programs to manage the NPDES program more 

efficiently. The public will benefit through increased access to more complete and timely NPDES 

information. This section discusses the benefits associated with operational efficiency gains that 

EPA, authorized NPDES programs, regulated entities, and the public will experience as a result 

of the proposed rule, as well as improved NPDES information and better implementation of EPA 

programs. 

6.2 Savings due to Electronic Reporting 

As discussed in Section 4, the proposed rule is expected to result in overall savings. Post 

implementation, regulated entities will avoid paper and mailing costs as a result of switching to 

electronic reporting, and will save time on data entry as a result of the built in error detection 

tools. Authorized NPDES programs will experience reduced costs of data entry and processing of 

paper forms due to the updating of the reporting process. Note that the savings presented in this 

section are the total gross savings that regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs are 

projected to experience due to the proposed rule. Net savings - savings remaining after all costs 

are accounted for - are presented in Section 4. 

6.2.1 Processing Savings 

Electronic reporting will eliminate paper and mailing costs associated with DMRs, NOIs, and 

program reports for regulated entities. This change is expected to produce annual savings of $1.4 

million dollars to regulated entities following rule implementation. Additionally, use of electronic 

versions of pre-populated DMR forms and eliminating processing of paper DMRs and permits 

will save state authorized NPDES programs and EPA Regions $13.8 million dollars and $503,000 

63 annually, respectively. 

6.2.2 Data Entry (NOIs, DMRs, and Program Reports) Savings 

With existing paper submissions, authorized NPDES programs must manually enter information 

submitted by regulated entities either into their own data system, which is then transferred to 

ICIS-NPDES, or directly into ICIS-NPDES. Under the proposed rule, information submitted 

 

63 Note that while some states may also be providing pre-populated DMR forms to regulated entities, it was 

not possible to accurately characterize this activity for this analysis. 
6-2 28 June 2013

electronically by regulated entities will flow directly into the data system of the appropriate 

authorized NPDES program, or into ICIS-NPDES, at the option of the authorized NPDES 

program.64 Additionally, some data elements will be pre-populated in ICIS-NPDES (e.g., permit 

status, limit type). These submission updates will substantially reduce the data entry costs 

associated with information from NOIs, DMRs, and program reports. However, authorized 

NPDES programs will still be responsible for entering the data elements they generate (e.g., 

permit data elements, compliance monitoring data elements). 

Estimated data entry savings to authorized NPDES programs and EPA Regions following rule 

implementation are $19.8 million dollars and $344,000 annually, respectively, due to electronic 

reporting. 

6.2.3 Eliminating ANCR,QNCR, and SASS 

The proposed rule will also eliminate regulatory requirements for authorized NPDES programs to 

submit the Annual Non-Compliance Report (ANCR) the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report 

(QNCR), and the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report (SASS), as these activities will be 

completed based on the information already in the system. States and EPA Regions are expected 

to save $825,000 and $36,000, respectively, due to elimination of the ANCR, QNCR, and SASS. 

6.2.4 Total Savings 

In total, regulated entities, states, and EPA Regions are expected to experience $36.1 million 

dollars in annual savings due to the proposed rule, as summarized in Table 6-1. 

Table 6-1: Total Annual Savings under Proposed Rule 

Type of Saving EPA 

Regions States Regulated Entities Total 

Data Entry Savings a $344,000 $19,760,000 $0 $20,104,000 

Processing Savings $503,000 $13,827,000 $1,365,000 $15,695,000 

Elimination of the ANCR, QNCR, and SASS $36,000 $825,000 $0 $861,000 

Total $883,000 $34,412,000 $1,365,000 $36,660,000 a

 Data entry savings are limited to NOIs, DMRs, and program reports. Authorized NPDES programs will still be 

responsible for entering the data elements that they generate.

6.3 Improved NPDES Information 

EPA has concluded the proposed rule will deliver more timely, consistent, and accurate 

information to EPA’s data system. These changes will result in access to better NPDES 

information for all stakeholders, which in turn will improve understanding and awareness of the 

provision and distribution of information about NPDES covered discharges. The newly available 

information will improve the ability of EPA, authorized NPDES programs, and the public to 

make well-informed decisions relating to the NPDES program. For example, as a result of the 

proposed rule, complete information describing effluent discharges and the applicable limits and 

limit sets will be available in ICIS-NPDES for major and nonmajor permits. Prior to the proposed 

rule complete information was only required to for major permits. 

Currently, the public has limited information regarding a substantial portion of the NPDES 

regulated universe (e.g., discharge monitoring data and permit limits and limit sets are not 

 

64 In states with no electronic reporting systems during the implementation phase, data will flow from 

regulated entities directly into ICIS-NPDES. 
6-3 28 June 2013

required to be entered into EPA data systems for nonmajor regulated entities). Access to more 

complete and more accurate NPDES data will provide the public with a greater understanding of 

the sources of water pollution in their communities. The public will also benefit from greater 

transparency regarding the compliance status of the dischargers and the enforcement responses 

taken by the states and EPA. Electronic reporting by NPDES regulated entities will also increase 

the timeliness of the information available to the public. 

Improved NPDES data can significantly improve EPA’s knowledge of the regulated community; 

such knowledge is essential in problem identification and in the development of sound 

regulations, guidance, and policy. In addition, the information will reflect the performance of 

state NPDES programs in achieving the goals and objectives of the CWA. A critical aspect of 

EPA’s ability to oversee NPDES programs is adequate data with which to manage authorized 

NPDES programs. Previously, EPA could not ensure this oversight due to insufficient 

information. By requiring electronic reporting by NPDES regulated entities and the additional 

compliance information generated by the authorized NPDES program, EPA will receive timely 

and reliable data for overall management and oversight. 

Regulated entities will benefit by knowing that the information in EPA’s data systems 

characterizing their permitted entities is timely and accurate. Through electronic reporting, 

regulated entities can be more confident that their reports are received and acknowledged in a 

timely manner, and the reduced need for manual data entry by the authorized NPDES program 

will ensure that reported information and compliance status are being characterized correctly. 

Because the electronic reporting tools will include the ability to check for certain types of errors, 

the regulated entities will also see savings related to improved data quality and less need to revise 

and reenter their submissions. 

6.4 Improved Efficiency of EPA Programs 

EPA has concluded the most efficient way to obtain NPDES data is to obtain it directly from the 

sources that generate the data, such as the regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs. 

Electronic reporting also improves data quality and allows for data sharing across federal and 

authorized NPDES program regulators using the Exchange Network. With electronic reporting, 

EPA and authorized NPDES programs will be able to use self-reported regulated entity data in 

real time. Additionally, EPA and states will be able to use computer aided tools to compare selfmonitoring data with permit limits to assess compliance. 

The additional information that will be available about NPDES regulated entities under the 

proposed rule will allow EPA and authorized NPDES programs to more efficiently manage their 

programs. For example, EPA will be better able to identify the causes of water impairment based 

on the readily available discharge monitoring data and discharge limits. The additional 

information about both major and nonmajor regulated entities will also allow authorized NPDES 

programs and EPA to better monitor and report on the status of the NPDES programs they 

administer. 

The expanded information available in ICIS-NPDES could also provide baseline information for 

possible pollution trading schemes. Because DMRs for both majors and nonmajors will now be 

required to be entered into ICIS-NPDES, more information characterizing the baseline loadings 

in U.S. waterways will be available. Potential pollution trading programs might be able to use this 

information to develop novel ways of improving overall water quality. 
6-4 28 June 2013

The list of required data elements (found in Appendix A) includes several data elements specific 

to certain subprograms covered by the NPDES program. Regulated entities already submit these 

subprogram-specific data; however, authorized NPDES programs will now be required to share 

the data with EPA. This information will improve the efficiency of the various NPDES 

subprograms. For example, biosolids regulated entities submit biosolids disposal data (land 

application, incineration, etc.). With this more complete information, EPA will be able to identify 

which methods of biosolids disposal are being used and could integrate this information into 

nutrient management plans for land disposal. Similarly, effluent discharges from significant 

industrial users (SIUs) will be electronically entered into ICIS-NPDES (currently, this 

information is submitted via paper directly to POTWs and is not entered into ICIS-NPDES), 

allowing POTWs to more efficiently manage their pre-treatment programs based on reported SIU 

discharges to the treatment works. 

6.5 Conclusion 

This analysis estimates that regulated entities, authorized NPDES programs, and EPA Regions 

will experience a total savings of $36.7 million dollars annually following rule implementation. 

No attempt was made here to monetize the benefits of improved NPDES information or improved 

efficiency for EPA programs due to the wide range of beneficiaries and the nature of the 

associated benefits. However, EPA has concluded that electronic reporting advances EPA’s goal 

of protecting human health and the environment. EPA has also concluded that converting to 

electronic reporting will improve facility compliance by increasing the availability of compliance 

information to all audiences, thereby incentivizing regulated entities, authorized NPDES 

programs, and EPA to deliver on the goal of full compliance. In addition, it will allow EPA and 

authorized NPDES programs to reduce the time and resources spent on technology issues, and 

focus on environmental policy and goals. 
7-1 28 June 2013

Section 7. - Additional Analyses 

7.1 Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 

4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” under §3(f) of the Executive Order 

because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. 

7.2 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval 

to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number [XXXX.XX]. 

EPA is proposing this regulation to better utilize current technology to ensure that facilityspecific information under the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) program is submitted to EPA on a nationally timely, consistent, 

accurate, and complete basis for national program management, oversight, and transparency. This 

regulation will require that most of this NPDES information be submitted electronically by the 

regulated entities; this information will be supplemented by required information regarding 

NPDES implementation activities by EPA, states, territories, and tribes authorized to implement 

the NPDES program. 

The projected burden and cost of the regulation are summarized in Table 7-1. Consistent with the 

Information Collection Request (ICR), these estimates reflect the net burden and cost to regulated 

entities and States over the first three years following promulgation of the rule. These costs are 

related to implementation and include training, one-time provision of facility information to EPA, 

data reconciliation, and data entry for States. The implementation costs and burdens change into 

savings and burden reductions in two years after the effective date. Once the rule is fully 

implemented (four years after the effective date of the rule), net annual savings are expected to be 

$28.7 million for states and $1.2 million for regulated entities (based on 3% discount rate). 

 
7-2 28 June 2013

Table 7-1: Projected Burden and Cost over the First Three Years of the Proposed 

Rule

Unit of Analysis Affected Entity 

Regulated Entities States 

Average Annual Number of Respondents (# of 

affected entities)1 233,166 47 

Average Annual Number of Responses (# of 

Permits for which entity must submit information 

x annual frequency of response) 

187,114 1,069,905 

Frequency of Response (range) 1 – 36 1 -36 

Average Annual Burden (hours) 108,201 -298,493 

Average Annual Cost $6,249,803 -$17,758,888 

Average Annual Burden per Respondent 0.46 hrs -6,351 hrs 

Average Annual Burden per Response 0.58 hrs -0.28 hrs 

Average Annual Cost per Respondent $26.80 -$377,848 

Average Annual Cost per Response $33.40 -$16.60 

1. The average annual number of regulated entity respondents is based on the following: In the first year 

regulated entities must check the EPA website, and some may incur savings associated with paper mailings. 

In the second year, some regulated entities must dual report to EPA and some may incur savings associated 

with paper mailings. In the third year, fewer regulated entities must dual report to EPA and a greater number 

incur savings associated with paper mailings. 

7.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: 

(1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is the government of a city, county, 

town, school districts, or special districts with a population of less than 50,000 people; or (3) a 

small organization that is any "not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its field." Note that under the RFA definition, States and tribal 

governments are not considered small governmental jurisdictions. For the detailed analysis of 

small entity impacts see Section 5. 

After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed rule on small entities, EPA certifies 

that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are small businesses (e.g., 

industrial sectors, electricity generating facilities, and agricultural sectors) and small 

governmental jurisdictions (e.g., POTWs operated by municipalities). EPA has determined that 

108,036 small entities (100% of the small entities considered in this analysis) will experience an 

impact of less than 1% of revenues. 

Note that fewer facilities are considered in the small entity analysis than were estimated as the 

affected universe for the proposed rule (see Section 2). Due to the magnitude and diversity of 

facilities and sectors affected by this rulemaking, it was not possible to conduct a detailed 

analysis of parent entity-specific impacts. Because small entity status is based on industrial 

sector, the small entity analysis required data sources where industry sector (NAICS codes) of 
7-3 28 June 2013

each facility could be identified. Although not a complete inventory of all potentially affected 

facilities, the universe of facilities currently in ICIS-NPDES and PCS was used. The assumption 

is made that facilities affected by the proposed rule but not currently in ICIS-NPDES and PCS 

will experience small entity impacts similar to the facilities currently in ICIS-NPDES and PCS. 

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. In 

fact, this rule creates annual savings for small entity analyses through elimination of mailing and 

postage costs. 

EPA continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and 

welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts.

7.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one 

year. In order to determine the burden on States, the workgroup conducted an economic analysis 

of potential costs. The analysis examined implementation using various options including the 

potential burden to state governments. Preliminary indications suggest that the rule will not only 

cost states and local governments well below the threshold of $100 million, it will actually result 

in savings. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

Additionally, this rule is not subject to the requirements Section 203 of UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Although this rule will impose electronic reporting requirements on small 

governments such as municipalities and tribes, EPA does not expect these impacts to be 

substantial or unique sufficient to meet the UMRA standards. According to EPA’s Interim Small 

Government Agency Plan, actions have a significant impact if the cost is above $100 million. As 

stated above, EPA does not expect this rule to exceed that threshold. Additionally, the guidance 

states that an action uniquely affects small governments if it disproportionately affects small 

governments, requires the hiring of experts, require sophisticated or expensive equipment, or 

require training. EPA does not expect this rule will have these requirements. Moreover, this rule 

will not require purchase of sophisticated or expensive equipment, nor will it require significant 

training (any required training will be offered by the agency). Thus this rule is not subject to 

Section 203. 

7.5 Executive Order 13132 – Federalism 

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.” “Policies 

that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 

have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government 

and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 

government.” 

According this Executive Order, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism implications 

(e.g., imposes substantial direct compliance costs that are not required by statute) unless the 

Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by 
7-4 28 June 2013

state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed action. 

EPA has concluded that this action may have federalism implications because it will impose 

electronic reporting requirements on states to provide certain NPDES information to EPA. 

Federalism implications are defined as substantial direct effects on states or local governments 

(individually or collectively), on the relationship between the national government and the states, 

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 

However, this action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state or local 

governments, nor will it preempt state law. Thus, the requirements of Sections 6(b) and 6(c) of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this action. 

Consistent with EPA policy, and as described in Sections VI.A. and B. of this preamble, EPA 

nonetheless consulted with state and local officials65 and representatives of state and local 

governments66 early in the process of developing the proposed action to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its development. As described in those preamble sections, EPA 

provided significant opportunities for such consultation in public meetings, webinars, a state 

working group, and in a meeting on September 15, 2010 specifically linked to notifications and 

consultations required under this Executive Order. This meeting was attended by 11 state and 

local government officials and organizations. EPA received useful feedback in these meetings, 

with support for the concept of electronic reporting, comments on the feasibility of various 

implementation options, and interest in developing details of how the rule would be implemented. 

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 this proposed rule from state and local officials. EPA will continue to consult with 

state and local officials throughout the process of developing the proposed action to permit them 

to have meaningful and timely input into its development. In addition to stakeholder outreach, 

EPA will contact elected representative as well as appropriate organizations to ensure compliance 

with this executive order. 

7.6 Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments 

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA may not impose 

requirements not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary 

to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal 

officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary 

impact statement. 

 

65 Note: “State and local officials” are defined narrowly under E.O. 13132 as “elected officials of State and 

local governments or their representative national organizations.” For purposes of E.O. 13132, OMB 

defines representative national organizations as: National Governors Association, National Conference of 

State Legislatures, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, Council of State Governments, 

International City/County Management Association, National Association of Counties, County Executives 

of America, and National Association of Towns and Townships. As a policy matter, EPA also includes the 

Environmental Council of the States in this list. As noted in the Agency Guidance, for actions that have 

federalism implications, but do not impose substantial direct compliance costs or preempt State or local 

law, at a minimum you should consult with each of these organizations. 66 “Representatives of State and local governments” include non-elected officials of State and local 

governments and any representative national organizations not listed in the previous footnote. 
7-5 28 June 2013

EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications. However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Although no 

tribes have currently received approval for an authorized NPDES program, this rule will impose 

electronic reporting requirements on tribal facilities and on facilities operating on tribal lands. 

EO 13175 may apply to this action, and therefore, consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and the tribes, EPA consulted with tribal representatives in 

developing this rule via conference calls and webinars with the National Tribal Caucus and 

National Tribal Water Counsel in November 2010. For additional information, see Section VI.B. 

of this preamble. No concerns were raised during those consultations. 

In addition, EPA mailed information to 563 tribes regarding an opportunity to participate in two 

additional tribal outreach efforts in December 2010. Again, during these conference calls, no 

concerns were raised by participants during those consultations. 

EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. 

7.7 Executive Order 13045 – Children’s Health 

Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires that federal agencies examine the impacts of each 

regulatory action on children for any economically significant regulation (as defined by Executive 

Order 12866) that the agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children. The 

proposed rule is not subject to EO 13045, because it does not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety risks, nor does it otherwise have a disproportionate effect on 

children. Furthermore, the proposed rule is not economically significant.

7.8 Executive Order 13211 – Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, entitled 

Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

7.9 National Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), 

Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rule involves environmental monitoring or measurement. Consistent with the 

Agency’s Performance Based Measurement System (“PBMS”), EPA proposes not to require the 

use of specific, prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use of any 

method that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS approach is intended to be 

more flexible and cost-effective for the regulated community; it is also intended to encourage 
7-6 28 June 2013

innovation in analytical technology and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding the use of 

any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the 

performance criteria specified. 

Enforcement and Compliance Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000026.2, July 30, 2008. 

This data standard should be used in this regulation because it identifies and defines the major 

areas of enforcement and compliance information that could be used for the exchange of data 

among environmental agencies and other entities. The purpose of the standard is to provide a 

common lexicon, so that information about functionality similar activities and/or instruments can 

be stored and to provide and receive data in a clearly defined and uniform way. 

EPA proposes to use the following data standards which were developed by the Exchange 

Network Leadership Council (ENLC). The ENLC identifies, prioritizes, and pursues the creation 

of data standards for those areas where information exchange standards will provide the most 

value in achieving environmental results. The EDSC involves Tribes and Tribal Nations, state 

and federal agencies in the development of the standards. More information about ENLC is 

available at www.exchangenetwork.net. 

Permitting Information Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000021.2, January 6, 2006. 

This data standard should be used in this regulation because it specifies the key data groupings 

necessary for the consistent identification of information pertaining to permits of interest to 

environmental information exchange partners. This data standard provides a minimum set of data, 

which needs to be reported for permitting information such as permit name, number, type, 

organization or facility name and affiliation type. 

Facility Site Identification Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000020.2, January 6, 2006. 

The purpose of this data standard is to identify a facility of environmental interest. This data 

standard should be used in this regulation because it provides for the unique identification of 

facilities regulated or monitored by US EPA, Tribes and States. Each facility is assigned a unique 

factory identification number, which identifies information for the facility specified. This 

standard provides and describes data groupings that are used to exchange facility site 

identification data and information. This standard helps US EPA, Tribes, and States integrate and 

share facility information across multiple information systems, programs, and governments. 

Contact Information Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000019.2, January 6, 2006. 

This data standard should be used in this regulation because it provides information regarding the 

source of contact. This standard offers data groupings that are used to describe a point of contact, 

address, and communication information. For example, the data grouping “Point of Contact” 

subdivides to lower levels such as individual, Affiliation, and Organization. These intermediate 

data groupings are further defined at the elemental levels with Name, Title, Code, and Prefix. 

Representation of Date and Time Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000013.1, January 6, 2006. 

This data standard should be used in this regulation because it provides and describes data 

groupings that are used for exchange of Date and Time data and information. The standard 

provides information on the high level, intermediate and elemental representation of date and 

time data groupings. 

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

This data standard should be used in this regulation because it establishes the requirements for 

documenting latitude and longitude coordinates and related method, accuracy, and description 

data for all places used in the data exchange transaction. Places include facilities, sites, 
7-7 28 June 2013

monitoring stations, observations points, and other regulated or tracked features. This standard 

describes data elements and data grouping that are used to exchange latitude/longitude data and 

information. The purpose of the standard is to provide a common set of data elements to use for 

recording horizontal and vertical coordinates and associated metadata that define a point on the 

earth. 

SIC/NAICS Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000022.2, January 6, 2006.

This data standard should be used in this regulation because it provides a common set of data 

groupings to specify a way to classify business activities, including industry classifications, 

product classifications, and product codes. This data standard provides information on business 

activity according to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS). 

7.10 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice 

Executive Order (EO) 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)), establishes 

federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations 

and low-income populations in the U.S. 

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 

adversely affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. 

The rule will not create any new reporting requirements; it will simply require reports be 

submitted electronically, which will in turn support and enhance compliance assurance to the 

benefit of minority and low-income populations. Enhanced monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements can help maximize the use of existing statutory and regulatory authority to 

assess and ensure compliance to protect adversely affected populations. Moreover, electronic 

reporting promotes transparency, giving the public more and improved information about sources 

of water pollution in their communities thereby increasing minority and low-income populations’ 

opportunities for meaningful involvement.
A-1 28 June 2013

Appendix A – List of Data Elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 

and System Required Data Elements not in Appendix A to 40 

CFR 127 

The proposed rule will increase the number of data elements that authorized NPDES programs 

are required to enter into ICIS-NPDES from the 222 in the Water Enforcement National Data 

Base (WENDB) to the 438 data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 (see Section 1). A full 

list of these data elements is presented in Table A- below. There are also 11 data elements that are 

currently system required that are not part of Appendix A. These data elements are presented in 

Table A-2 below. 

Table A-1: Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 

Area Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Facility Facility Facility Type of Ownership 

Facility Facility Facility Site Name 

Facility Facility Facility Site Address 

Facility Facility Facility Site City 

Facility Facility Facility Site State 

Facility Facility Facility Site Zip Code 

Facility Facility Facility Site Tribal Land Indicator 

Facility Facility Facility Site Longitude 

Facility Facility Facility Site Latitude 

Facility Facility Facility Site Source Map Scale Number 

Facility Facility Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure 

Facility Facility Facility Site Horizontal Collection Method 

Facility Facility Facility Site Horizontal Reference Datum 

Facility Facility Facility Site Reference Point 

Facility Facility Facility Individual Affiliation Type Code 

Facility Facility Facility Individual First Name 

Facility Facility Facility Individual Last Name 

Facility Facility Facility Individual Title 

Facility Facility Facility Individual Organization 

Facility Facility Facility Individual Street Address 

Facility Facility Facility Organization Formal Name 

Facility Facility Facility Individual City 

Facility Facility Facility Individual State 

Facility Facility Facility Individual Zip 

Facility Facility Facility Individual E-Mail Address 

Facility Facility Facility Organization Street Address 

Facility Facility Facility Organization City 

Facility Facility Facility Organization State 

Facility Basic Permit Information Facility Organization Zip Code 

Facility Basic Permit Information NPDES ID 

Facility Basic Permit Information Master General Permit Number 

Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Type 

Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Issue Date 

Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Effective Date 

Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Modification/Amendment Date 

Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Expiration Date 

Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Termination Date 

Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Major/Minor Status Indicator 

Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Major/Minor Status Start Date 

Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Application Total Design Flow 

Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow 

Facility Basic Permit Information Complete Permit Application/NOI Received Date 

Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indicator Permit Application/NOI Received Date 
 A-2 28 June 2013 

Table A-1: Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 

Area Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indicator Permit Status 

Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indicator Master General Permit Industrial Category 

Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indicator Permit Issuing Organization Type 

Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indicator DMR Non-Receipt 

Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indicator Reportable Noncompliance Tracking 

Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indicator Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines 

Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indicator Permit Compliance Tracking Status 

Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indicator Permit Compliance Tracking Status Start Date 

Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indicator RNC Status Quarter 

Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indicator RNC Status Year 

Facility Associated NPDES Permit Information RNC Status (Manual) 

Facility Associated NPDES Permit Information Associated NPDES ID Numbers 

Facility Associated NPDES Permit Information SIC Codes 

Facility Associated NPDES Permit Information NAICS Codes 

Facility Associated NPDES Permit Information Regulated entity Street Address 

Facility Associated NPDES Permit Information Regulated entity Organization Formal Name 

Facility Associated NPDES Permit Information Regulated entity Zip Code 

Facility Associated NPDES Permit Information Regulated entity City 

Facility Associated NPDES Permit Information Regulated entity State 

Facility Biosolids Average Annual Dry Biosolids Production 

Facility Biosolids 

Average Annual Amount of Exceptional Quality (EQ) Product 

Distributed and Marketed 

Facility Biosolids Average Annual Amount of Land Applied Biosolids 

Facility Biosolids Average Annual Amount of Incinerated Biosolids 

Facility Biosolids Average Annual Amount of Biosolids Co-Disposed in MSW 

Facility Biosolids Average Annual Amount of Biosolids Surface Disposal 

Facility Biosolids Average Annual Amount of Biosolids Otherwise Managed 

Facility Biosolids Biosolids Management Facility Type 

Facility CAFO Facility CAFO Flag 

Facility CAFO Facility Animal Types 

Facility CAFO Facility Annual Average Total Number 

Facility CAFO 

Facility Annual Average Total Number (Unhoused 

Confinement) 

Facility CAFO Permit/NOI CAFO Waste Type 

Facility CAFO Permit/NOI Status of the CAFO Waste 

Facility CAFO Permit/NOI 12-Month Amount of CAFO Waste 

Facility CAFO 

Total Number of Acres for Land Application Covered by the 

Nutrient Management Plan 

Facility CAFO 

Facility Manure Containment or Storage Containment Type 

Code 

Facility CAFO Facility Manure Annual Average Total Capacity 

Facility Stormwater Permit Required by Residual Designation 

Facility Stormwater Residual Designation Determination Date 

Facility Construction Stormwater Entire Construction Project Size 

Facility Construction Stormwater Estimated Construction Project Start Date 

Facility Construction Stormwater Estimated Construction Project End Date 

Facility Construction Stormwater Low Erosivity Waiver Date 

Facility Industrial Stormwater Total Industrial Activity Area 

Facility Industrial Stormwater Total Impervious Industrial Activity Area 

Facility Industrial Stormwater No Exposure Certification Authorized Date 

Facility MS4 MS4 Permit Class 

Facility MS4 MS4 Public Education Program 

Facility MS4 

MS4 Measurable Goals Associated With Public Education 

Program 

Facility MS4 MS4 Public Involvement and Participation Program 

Facility MS4 

MS4 Measurable Goals for the Public Involvement and 

Participation Program 

Facility MS4 MS4 System Map 

Facility MS4 MS4 Prohibition Enforcement 

Facility MS4 MS4 Detecting Non-Stormwater Discharges 

Facility MS4 MS4 Public Education: Illegal Discharges 
 A-3 28 June 2013 

Table A-1: Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 

Area Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Facility MS4 MS4 Construction Runoff Ordinance 

Facility MS4 MS4 Erosion and Sediment Controls 

Facility MS4 MS4 Construction Site Waste 

Facility MS4 MS4 Construction Site Review 

Facility MS4 MS4 Public Information 

Facility MS4 MS4 Site Inspections And Enforcement 

Facility MS4 

MS4 Controls For Stormwater From New Development And 

Redevelopment 

Facility MS4 

MS4 Stormwater Ordinance For New Development And 

Redevelopment 

Facility MS4 MS4 Maintenance Of BMPs 

Facility MS4 MS4 Runoff From Municipal Operations 

Facility MS4 MS4 Additional Measures 

Facility MS4 MS4 Measurable Goals for Additional Measures 

Facility CSS & SSS Name of Collection System 

Facility CSS & SSS Owner Name of Collection System 

Facility CSS & SSS Owner Type of Collection System 

Facility CSS & SSS Permit Number for Collection System 

Facility CSS & SSS Population of Collection System 

Facility CSS & SSS Percentages of Collection System Types 

Facility CSS Complete and Implement a Long-Term CSO Control Plan 

Facility CSS Nine Minimum CSO Controls Developed 

Facility CSS Nine Minimum CSO Controls Implemented 

Facility CSS Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) Required 

Facility CSS Enforcement Mechanism for the LTCP 

Facility CSS LTCP Submitted 

Facility CSS LTCP Approved 

Facility CSS LTCP Approval Date 

Facility CSS Actual Date Completed LTCP and CSO Controls 

Facility CSS Enforceable Schedule to Complete LTCP and CSO Controls 

Facility CSS Other CSO Control Measures with Compliance Schedule 

Facility CSS Approved Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Pretreatment Program Required Indicator 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Pretreatment Program Approved Date 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Approval Authority Name 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs 

Program Modification Date for Required Pretreatment 

Streamlining Changes 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs 

Program Modification Date for Optional Pretreatment 

Streamlining Changes 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs 

Program Modification Type for Optional Pretreatment 

Streamlining Changes 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Significant Industrial User Name 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Significant Industrial User Address 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Significant Industrial User City 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Significant Industrial User State 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Significant Industrial User Zip Code 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Significant Industrial User Subject to Local Limits 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs 

Significant Industrial User Subject to Local Limits More 

Stringent Than Categorical Standards 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Industrial User Subject to Categorical Standards 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Applicable Categorical Standards 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Significant Industrial User Process Wastewater Flow Rate 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Type of Significant Industrial User Process Wastewater Flow 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Significant Industrial User Non-Process Wastewater Flow Rate 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs 

Type of Significant Industrial User Non-Process Wastewater 

Flow 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Industrial User Causing Problems at POTW 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Receiving RCRA Waste 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Receiving Remediation Waste 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Control Authority Name 

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Control Authority NPDES Permit Number 

Facility Cooling Water Type of Facility 
 A-4 28 June 2013 

Table A-1: Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 

Area Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Facility Cooling Water Number of Cooling Water Intake Structures 

Facility Cooling Water Location Type for Cooling Water Intake Structure 

Facility Cooling Water 

Distance Offshore for Submerged Cooling Water Intake 

Structure 

Facility Cooling Water 

Significant Navigation or Waterbody Use Type Near The Intake 

Entrance 

Facility Cooling Water Mean Intake Water Depth 

Facility Cooling Water Intake Well Depth 

Facility Cooling Water Debris Loading 

Facility Cooling Water Impingement Control Technology In-Place 

Facility Cooling Water Entrainment Control Technology in-Place. 

Facility Cooling Water Percentage of Intake for Cooling Purposes 

Facility Cooling Water Design Intake Flow for Cooling Water Intake Structure 

Facility Cooling Water Actual Intake Flow for Cooling Water Structure 

Facility Cooling Water 

Average Reported Intake Flow for Cooling Water Intake 

Structure 

Facility Cooling Water Maximum Through Screen Velocity 

Facility Cooling Water Average Through-Screen Velocity 

Facility Cooling Water Percentage of Mean Annual Flow Withdrawn 

Facility Cooling Water Verification Monitoring Plan Submission Date 

Facility Cooling Water Source Water Physical Data Submission Date 

Facility Cooling Water Cooling Water Intake Structure Data Submission Date 

Facility Cooling Water 

Source Water Biological Characterization Data Submission 

Date 

Facility Cooling Water 

Percentage of Design Intake Flow over Tidal Cycle – Tidal 

River or Estuary Facilities 

Facility Cooling Water Waterbody Type 

Facility Cooling Water Canal/Fish Return Length 

Facility Cooling Water 

Track II Comprehensive Demonstration Study Submission 

Date 

Facility Cooling Water Design and Construction Technology Plan Submission Date 

Facility Cooling Water 

Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data 

Submission Date 

Facility Cooling Water 

New Facilities – Alternative Requirements Provision Request 

Approval Date 

Facility Thermal Discharge Thermal Variance Unit 

Facility Thermal Discharge Thermal Variance Granted 

Facility Thermal Discharge Thermal Variance Value 

Facility Thermal Discharge Thermal Variance Date 

Facility Thermal Discharge Thermal Variance Study Date 

Facility Permit Data Elements Description 

Facility Permit Data Elements Narrative Condition Number 

Facility Permit Data Elements Schedule Date 

Facility Permit Data Elements Actual Date 

Facility Permit Data Elements Report Received Date 

Facility Permit Data Elements Event 

Facility Permit Data Elements Application Design Flow (MGD) 

Facility Permit Data Elements Application Actual Average Flow (MGD) 

Facility Permit Data Elements Permitted Feature ID 

Facility Permit Data Elements Type 

Facility Permit Data Elements Receiving Waterbody Name for Permitted Feature 

Facility Permit Data Elements Permitted Feature Longitude 

Facility Permit Data Elements Permitted Feature Latitude 

Facility Permit Data Elements Permitted Feature Source Map Scale Number 

Facility Permit Data Elements Permitted Feature Horizontal Accuracy Measure 

Facility Permit Data Elements Permitted Feature Horizontal Collection Method 

Facility Permit Data Elements Permitted Feature Horizontal Reference Datum 

Facility Permit Data Elements Permitted Feature Reference Point 

Limit Set Limit Set Limit Set Designator 

Limit Set Limit Set Type 

Limit Set Limit Set Default Months Limit Set Applies 

Limit Set Limit Set Initial Monitoring Date 
 A-5 28 June 2013 

Table A-1: Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 

Area Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Limit Set Limit Set Initial DMR Due Date 

Limit Set Limit Set Number of Report Units 

Limit Set Limit Set Number of Submission Units 

Limit Set Limit Set Limit Set Status Start Date 

Limit Set Limit Set Status 

Limit Limit Monitoring Location 

Limit Limit Season Number 

Limit Limit Start Date 

Limit Limit End Date 

Limit Limit Change of Limit Status Indicator 

Limit Limit Stay Type 

Limit Limit Stay Start Date 

Limit Limit Stay End Date 

Limit Limit Reason for Stay 

Limit Limit Stay Limit Value 

Limit Limit Limit Type 

Limit Limit Enforcement Action ID 

Limit Limit Final Order ID 

Limit Limit Modification Effective Date 

Limit Limit Modification Type 

Limit Limit Parameter 

Limit Limit Months 

Limit Limit Value Type 

Limit Limit Quantity Units / Concentration Units 

Limit Limit Statistical Base Code 

Limit Limit Optional Monitoring Flag 

Limit Limit Qualifier 

Limit Limit Value 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Permitted Feature Identifier 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Actual End Date 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Planned End Date 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity State 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Activity 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Type 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Bio-Monitoring Inspection Method 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Category 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Action Reason 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Was this a State, Federal or Joint (State/Federal) Inspection? 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Agency Type 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Law Sections Violated 

Compliance Monitoring Activity 

Compliance Monitoring Activity - 

Biosolids Deficiencies Identified Through the Biosolids Inspection 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Animal Type 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Total Number of Animals 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Total Number of Animals in Unhoused Confinement 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Animal Maximum Capacity 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Containment Type 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Containment Total Capacity 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO CAFO Designation Date 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Designation Reason 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Is the Animal Facility Type a CAFO? 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Did Facility Make a No Discharge Certification? 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Is an NMP Being Implemented? 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Is an NMP Being Updated Annually? 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Land Application BMP Type 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Mortality Disposal Method 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Monitoring Well Data Availability 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Storage Type 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Storage Total Capacity Measure 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CSS & SSS Sewer Overflow Longitude 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CSS & SSS Sewer Overflow Latitude 
 A-6 28 June 2013 

Table A-1: Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 

Area Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CSS & SSS Type of Sewer Overflow 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CSS & SSS Sewer Overflow Cause 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CSS & SSS Duration of Sewer Overflow event (hours) 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CSS & SSS Sewer Overflow Discharge Volume 

Compliance Monitoring Activity CSS & SSS Failure to Submit Sewer Overflow Incident Report 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Pretreatment Legal Authority Status and Deficiencies 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Pretreatment 

Failure of the Control Authority to Enforce Against PassThrough or Interference 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Pretreatment 

Failure of the Control Authority to Submit Required Reports 

Within 30 Days 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Pretreatment 

Failure of the Control Authority To Meet Compliance Schedule 

Milestone Dates Within 90 Days 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Pretreatment 

Failure of the Control Authority to Issue or Reissue Control 

Mechanisms 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Pretreatment Failure of the Control Authority To Inspect or Sample 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Pretreatment 

Failure of the Control Authority to Enforce Pretreatment 

Standards and Reporting Requirements 

DMRs DMRs Permitted Feature 

DMRs DMRs Limit Set 

DMRs DMRs Parameter Code 

DMRs DMRs Monitoring Location 

DMRs DMRs Monitoring Period End Date 

DMRs DMRs NODI 

DMRs DMRs Value 

DMRs DMRs Concentration Units/ Quantity Units 

DMRs DMRs Value Received Date 

DMRs DMRs Value Type 

DMRs DMRs Qualifier 

Program Reports Program Reports Date Report Received 

Program Reports Program Reports Start Date of Reporting Period 

Program Reports Program Reports End Date of Reporting Period 

Program Reports Program Reports Regulatory Section(s) Requiring the Program Report 

Program Reports Biosolids Treatment Processes 

Program Reports Biosolids Biosolids Class 

Program Reports Biosolids Biosolids Volume Amount 

Program Reports Biosolids Management practice 

Program Reports Biosolids Sampling and analytical methods 

Program Reports Biosolids Biosolids Receiving Site Name 

Program Reports Biosolids Biosolids Receiving Site Street Address 

Program Reports Biosolids Biosolids Receiving Site City 

Program Reports Biosolids Biosolids Receiving Site State 

Program Reports Biosolids Biosolids Receiving Site Zip Code 

Program Reports Biosolids Biosolids Receiving Site Latitude 

Program Reports Biosolids Biosolids Receiving Site Longitude 

Program Reports Biosolids Biosolids Monitored Parameter 

Program Reports Biosolids Biosolids Monitored Parameter Concentration 

Program Reports Biosolids Biosolids Monitored Parameter Units 

Program Reports Biosolids Actual Measured Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate 

Program Reports Biosolids Actual Measured Annual Application Rate 

Program Reports Biosolids Disposition of incinerator ash 

Program Reports CAFOs Animal Types 

Program Reports CAFOs Total Number 

Program Reports CAFOs Total Number of Animals in Unhoused Confinement 

Program Reports CAFOs CAFO Waste Type 

Program Reports CAFOs Amount of CAFO Waste 

Program Reports CAFOs Status of the CAFO Waste 

Program Reports CAFOs 

Total Number of Acres for Land Application Covered by the 

Nutrient Management Plan 

Program Reports CAFOs Total Number of Acres Used for Land Application 

Program Reports CAFOs Discharges During Year from Production Area 

Program Reports CAFOs Discovery Dates of Discharges from Production Area 
 A-7 28 June 2013 

Table A-1: Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 

Area Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Program Reports CAFOs Duration of Discharge from Production Area 

Program Reports CAFOs Approximate Volume of Discharges from Production Area 

Program Reports CAFOs Whether NMP Approved or Developed by Certified Planner 

Program Reports CAFOs Actual Crop(s) Planted for Each Field 

Program Reports CAFOs Actual Crop Yield(s) for Each Field 

Program Reports CAFOs Concentration Units/ Quantity Units 

Program Reports CAFOs Nitrogen Content of the CAFO Waste Type 

Program Reports CAFOs Phosphorus Content of the CAFO Waste Type 

Program Reports CAFOs 

Method for Calculating Maximum Amounts of Manure, Litter, 

and Process Wastewater 

Program Reports CAFOs Description of the Field Location 

Program Reports CAFOs Latitude of the Center of the Field Location 

Program Reports CAFOs Longitude of the Center of the Field Location 

Program Reports CAFOs 

Calculated Maximum Amount of That CAFO Waste to Be Land 

Applied to that Field 

Program Reports CAFOs Actual Amount of That CAFO Waste Applied to that Field 

Program Reports CAFOs CAFO Waste Type Applied to That Field 

Program Reports CAFOs 

Pollutant Parameter Measured in the Soil Test, under the 

Narrative Rate Approach 

Program Reports CAFOs 

Amount of That Pollutant Parameter Removed, under the 

Narrative Rate Approach 

Program Reports CAFOs Nitrogen Amount of Any Supplemental Fertilizer Applied 

Program Reports CAFOs Phosphorus Amount of Any Supplemental Fertilizer Applied 

Program Reports MS4s MS4 Reliance on Other Government Entities 

Program Reports MS4s 

Unique Number for Each Municipality Covered Under MS4 

Permit 

Program Reports MS4s Listing of MS4 Permit Components 

Program Reports MS4s Identified Measurable Goal for Each MS4 Permit Component 

Program Reports MS4s 

Status and Assessment of Implementing MS4 Components in 

Permit 

Program Reports MS4s Number of Notice of Violations 

Program Reports MS4s Number of Administrative Fines 

Program Reports MS4s Number of Stop Work Orders 

Program Reports MS4s Number of Civil Penalties 

Program Reports MS4s Number of Criminal Actions 

Program Reports MS4s Number of Administrative Orders 

Program Reports Pretreatment SNC Published in Newspaper Flag 

Program Reports Pretreatment SNC with Pretreatment Schedule Flag 

Program Reports Pretreatment 

Date of Most Recent Adoption of Technically Based Local 

Limits 

Program Reports Pretreatment Date of Most Recent Technical Evaluation & or Local Limits 

Program Reports Pretreatment Local Limits Pollutants 

Program Reports Pretreatment POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment POTW Biosolids Contamination Indicator (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Removal Credits Application Status 

Program Reports Pretreatment Date of Most Recent Removal Credits Approval 

Program Reports Pretreatment Removal Credits Pollutants 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User Name (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User Address (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User City (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User State (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User Zip Code (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User SIU Flag 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User Control Mechanism Flag 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User Control Mechanism Expiration Date 

Program Reports Pretreatment 

Industrial User Subject to Categorical Standards and Type 

(Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Applicable Categorical Standards (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User Subject to Local Limits (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment 

Industrial User Subject to Local Limits More Stringent Than 

Categorical Standards (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment SNC with Pretreatment Standards (Program Report) 
 A-8 28 June 2013 

Table A-1: Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 

Area Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Program Reports Pretreatment SNC with Reporting Requirements (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment 

SNC with Other Control Mechanism Requirements (Program 

Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Number of Quarters in SNC 

Program Reports Pretreatment Number of Industrial User Inspections 

Program Reports Pretreatment Number of Industrial User Sampling Events 

Program Reports Pretreatment Number of Industrial User Violation Notices 

Program Reports Pretreatment Administrative Orders Issued to IUs (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Civil Suits Filed Against IUs (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Criminal Suits Filed Against IUs (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User Cash Civil Penalty Amount Assessed 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User Cash Civil Penalty Amount Collected 

Program Reports Pretreatment 

Industrial User POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator 

(Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment 

Industrial User Biosolids Contamination Indicator (Program 

Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment 

Industrial User Process Wastewater Flow Rate (Program 

Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment 

Type of Significant Industrial User Process Wastewater Flow 

(Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment 

Significant Industrial User Non-Process Wastewater Flow Rate 

(Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment 

Type of Significant Industrial User Non-Process Wastewater 

Flow (Program Report) 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User Removal Credits Flag 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User Removal Credits Pollutants 

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User Reduced Reporting Flag 

Program Reports Pretreatment 

Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) 

Certification to Control Authority 

Program Reports Pretreatment Control Authority Budget Resources 

Program Reports CSS and SSS Sewer Overflow Longitude (Sewer Overflow Event Report) 

Program Reports CSS and SSS Sewer Overflow Latitude (Sewer Overflow Event Report) 

Program Reports CSS and SSS Type of Sewer Overflow (Sewer Overflow Event Report) 

Program Reports CSS and SSS Sewer Overflow Cause 

Program Reports CSS and SSS 

Date of Sewer Overflow Discovery (Sewer Overflow Event 

Report) 

Program Reports CSS and SSS 

Duration of Sewer Overflow event (hours) (Sewer Overflow 

Event Report) 

Program Reports CSS and SSS 

Sewer Overflow Discharge Volume (Sewer Overflow Event 

Report) 

Program Reports CSS and SSS 

Receiving Waterbody Name for Permitted Feature (Sewer 

Overflow Event Report) 

Program Reports CSS and SSS Dry or Wet Weather Occurrence for Sewer Overflow 

Program Reports CSS and SSS 

Corrective Actions Taken or Planned for Sewer Overflows 

(Sewer Overflow Event Report) 

Program Reports CSS and SSS 

Type of Potential Impact of Sewer Overflow Event (Sewer 

Overflow Event Report) 

Violation Violation Violation Code 

Violation Violation Agency Identifying the Single Event Violation (SEV) 

Violation Violation Single Event Start Date 

Violation Violation Single Event End Date 

Violation Violation RNC Detection Code 

Violation Violation RNC Detection Date 

Violation Violation RNC Resolution Code 

Violation Violation RNC Resolution Date 

Enforcement Action Enforcement Action Enforcement Action Identifier 

Enforcement Action Enforcement Action Enforcement Action Name 

Enforcement Action Enforcement Action Enforcement Action Type 

Enforcement Action Enforcement Action Law Sections Violated 

Enforcement Action Enforcement Action Programs Violated 

Enforcement Action Enforcement Action Violation Code 

Enforcement Action Enforcement Action Violation Date 
 A-9 28 June 2013 

Table A-1: Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 

Area Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Enforcement Action Final Orders Final Order Type 

Enforcement Action Final Orders Violation Code 

Enforcement Action Final Orders Violation Date 

Enforcement Action Final Orders Final Order Issued/ Entered Date 

Enforcement Action Penalty Cash Civil Penalty Amount Assessed 

Enforcement Action Penalty Cash Civil Penalty Amount Collected 

Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule Compliance Schedule Number 

Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule Schedule Descriptor 

Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule Schedule (Start) Date 

Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule Actual Date 

Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule Report Received Date 

Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule Schedule Event 

Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule Milestones/ Sub-activities 

Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule Sub Activity Type 

Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule Actual Date 

Table A-2: System Required Data Elements not in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127 

Area Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Facility Permit Data Elements Recurring or Non-Recurring Event 

Facility Permit Data Elements Date Based 

Facility Permit Data Elements Recurring: Frequency 

Facility Permit Data Elements Recurring: Number of Occurrences 

Facility Permit Data Elements Recurring: End Date 

Limit Limit Eligible for Burden Reduction 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Federal Statute 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Programs 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Name 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Schedule Frequency 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Schedule Number of Occurrences or End Date 
 B-1 28 June 2013

Appendix B – List of States by Data Entry Type 

There are three different methods state authorized NPDES programs utilize to submit data into 

ICIS-NPDES or PCS: Direct Entry, Batch Upload and a Hybrid of the two approaches (see 

Section 3). 

 Direct Entry authorities enter data into EPA’s ICIS-NPDES or PCS system directly. 

 Batch systems use their own state system to track regulated entities and their own 

activities under the NPDES program. This NPDES information is periodically uploaded 

to EPA’s ICIS-NPDES or PCS systems. 

 Hybrid systems enter most data over the web, with the DMR component of the NPDES 

permit batch uploaded to EPA’s ICIS-NPDES or PCS systems periodically. 

Table B-1 lists each state, tribe, and territory with its associated data entry type. 

Table B-1: States by 

Data Entry Type 

State Data Entry Type 

AL Batch 

AK Direct 

ASa Direct 

AZ Batch 

AR Hybrid 

ATa Direct 

CA Direct 

CO Direct 

CMa Direct 

CT Direct 

CZa Direct 

DE Batch 

DC Direct 

FL Batch 

GA Direct 

GEa Direct 

GUa Direct 

GMa Direct 

HI Direct 

ID Direct 

IL Hybrid 

IN Direct 

IA Batch 

KS Batch 

KY Batch 

LA Direct 

ME Batch 

MD Direct 

MA Direct 

MI Hybrid 

MN Hybrid 

MS Direct 

MO Batch 

MT Direct 

NE Direct 

NV Batch 

NH Direct 

NJ Direct 

NM Direct 

NNb Direct 
 B-2 28 June 2013

Table B-1: States by 

Data Entry Type 

State Data Entry Type 

NY Direct 

NC Direct 

ND Batch 

OH Batch 

OK Direct 

OR Batch 

PA Batch 

PRa Direct 

RI Direct 

SC Direct 

SD Direct 

SRb Direct 

TN Batch 

TTa Direct 

TX Hybrid 

UT Direct 

VT Batch 

VIa Direct 

VA Batch 

WA Batch 

WV Batch 

WI Direct 

WY Batch a This area is a territory. 

b This area is a tribe. 

Source: Kadish, Rochele. 

2013. Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance, U.S. EPA. 
 C-1 28 June 2013

Appendix C – NPDES Program Management Information (PMI) 

Survey 

This survey was originally developed to support an earlier version of this proposed rule (known 

as the Program Management Information Proposed Rule) that did not include electronic 

reporting. Certain elements of the earlier proposed rule, however, are relevant to the current 

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (ERR). Specifically, the time required of state personnel to 

enter NPDES data elements, as collected in the attached survey, is relevant to calculating the data 

entry burden to states under the ERR rule. 

NPDES Program Management Information (PMI) Survey 

This survey contains the following three sections: 

 A description of the new data elements covered by the proposed PMI proposed rule and 

questions relating to data entry activities that states undertake to provide NPDES data. 

 Additional questions related to other activities such as QA/QC, training, and program 

management that states undertake to provide NPDES data. 

 Definitions of terms used in this survey.

C.1 SECTION 1: Description of New Data Elements and Data Entry 

Questions 

In order to better protect human health and the environment, the EPA has expanded the 

information collected for NPDES. Under the proposed NPDES PMI Rule, new data elements 

(listed below in Table C-2, Table C-4, Table C-6, Table C-8, Table C-10, and Table C-12, and 

Table C-14) will be added to the following data families: facility, permit, compliance monitoring 

activity, discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), violation, program reports, and enforcement 

action. In addition, certain information will now be reported for new subprograms including 

Biosolids, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO), 

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), Storm Water Management (SWM), and Pretreatment. 

As a starting point for this analysis, we would like you to consider the amount of time it takes 

your state to enter the Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) data elements. For the 

purposes of this analysis, we are assuming that your state enters all of the currently required 

WENDB data elements. Please respond accordingly by providing time estimates by data family in 

Table C-1, Table C-3, Table C-5, Table C-7, Table C-9, Table C-11, and Table C-13. Considering 

the new data elements listed below, please provide estimates of the additional time your state will 

spend per data family to enter the new data required by the proposed NPDES PMI Rule in Table 

C-2, Table C-4, Table C-6, Table C-8, Table C-10, and Table C-12, and Table C-14. For majors 

and nonmajors, please include the amount of time to conduct research on the required data and 

the amount of time to locate the data in your files as costs associated with data entry. Note: Under 

the proposed NPDES PMI rule, all data elements for nonmajor permits will be required for data 

entry. 

The following sections are organized by data element families. Please answer the questions below 

to the best of your ability. 
 C-2 28 June 2013

Facility Data Element Family 

The Facility Data Element Family generally includes data elements such as name and address of 

the facility, and contact name. Several pieces of facility information will be required to improve 

the EPA’s management of facilities. Tribal Land is required so that the EPA can identify effluent 

discharges in Tribal nations. Affiliation information is required to ensure reported data comes 

from the appropriate employee or representative. 

Table C-1: WENDB Facility Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently 

Required WENDB Data Elements 

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB facility data elements for a 

typical permit (Assuming your state is 

entering all of the required WENDB 

data elements)? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___60 – 90 minutes 

___90 – 120 minutes 

___ >120 minutes 

___Not Applicable 

Table C-2: New Facility Data Elements 

Data Family Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Basic Info Tribal Land 

Non Government Contacts Affiliation type 

Non Government Contacts Individual Title 

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering these new facility 

data elements for a typical permit? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___> 60 minutes 

___Not Applicable 

Permit Data Element Family 

The Permit Data Element Family generally includes basic permit information, tracking of a 

permit’s issuance, narrative permit conditions such as permit schedules, permitted features 

(outfalls), permit limit sets, and permit limits. Data elements like DMR non-receipt tracking flags, 

RNC tracking flags, and applicable effluent guidelines have been added to help EPA characterize 

and monitor a facility’s compliance with their permit requirements. Data elements have also been 

added to address changes in industrial codes. Under the WENDB requirements, Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) codes were used to designate a facility’s industrial sector. Since 

then, the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) has been adopted to more 

accurately represent commercial activities. These changes will allow the EPA to more effectively 

manage basic permit information for compliance and enforcement purposes. 

Other permit data elements have been added to represent the expanded NPDES program. The 

required permit data elements are designed to effectively measure the environmental impact of 
 C-3 28 June 2013

new facility types covered under the CWA. Both the size of the permitted site and the cause of 

the discharge, such as the number of animals in a feeding operation, will be reported. Wet 

weather components are included to manage stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces. CSO 

data elements are included to track possible discharges of untreated human and industrial waste. 

Other elements, such as Control Authority ID Number tie treatment facility permits to the 

approved local pretreatment programs. 

Additional data elements have been added to characterize permitted features, their limit sets, and 

limits. Actual flow and design flow contain information on the volume of effluent a permitted 

feature can be expected to accommodate. Months of duration for a limit set, stay end date, reason 

for stay, enforcement action ID, eligibility for a burden reduction, months, and qualifier all 

capture information that can be used to characterize and justify effluent limit or stays of such 

limits. These new permit data elements allow EPA to better monitor compliance and enforcement 

of the NPDES program. 

Table C-3: WENDB Permit Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently 

Required WENDB Data Elements 

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB permit data elements for a 

typical permit (Assuming your state is 

entering all of the required WENDB 

data elements)? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___60 – 90 minutes 

___90 – 120 minutes 

___ >120 minutes 

___Not Applicable 
 C-4 28 June 2013

Table C-4: New Permit Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Basic Info DMR Non-Receipt 

Basic Info RNC 

Basic Info Application Effluent Limit Guideline 

Basic Info NAICS Codes 

Biosolids Amount EQ Product Distribute and Market 

Biosolids Amount Land Applied 

Biosolids Amount Incinerated 

Biosolids Amount Codisposed in a MSW Landfill 

Biosolids Amount Surface Disposal 

Biosolids Amount Managed Other Methods 

CAFO Designation Reason 

CAFO Designation Date 

CAFO Solid Manure or Litter Generated 

CAFO Solid Manure or Litter Transferred 

CAFO Liquid Manure or Wastewater Generated 

CAFO Liquid Manure or Wastewater Transferred 

CAFO NMP Developed Date 

CAFO CAFO Classification 

CAFO Animal : Type 

CAFO Animal : Other 

CAFO Total Number 

CAFO Containment : Type 

CAFO Containment : Total Capacity 

CAFO Storage : Type 

CAFO Storage : Other 

CAFO Days of Storage 

CAFO Storage Total Capacity Measure 

Storm Water State Water Body Name 

Storm Water Construction NOT Termination Date 

Storm Water Construction Entire Project Size 

Storm Water Industrial NOT Termination Date 

Storm Water Industrial No Exposure Date 

Storm Water MS4 MS4 Permit Class 

Storm Water MS5 Receiving MS4 Name 

CSO CSS population Served 

CSO Percent of Collection System Combined 

CSO Name of CSS Satellite Collection System 

CSO Permit ID of CSS Satellite Collection System 

Pretreatment Pretreatment Program Approved Date 

Pretreatment Control Authority NPDES ID 

Pretreatment SSCS Population Served 

Pretreatment Length of SSCS 

Narrative Condition/Permit Schedules Description 

Basic Info Application Design Flow 

Basic Info Application Actual Average Flow 

Basic Info Default Months Limit Set Applies 

Basic Info Stay End Date 

Basic Info Reason for Stay 

Basic Info Enforcement Action ID 

Basic Info Eligible for Burden Reduction 

Basic Info Months 

Basic Info Qualifier 
 C-5 28 June 2013

Table C-4: New Permit Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name 

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering the data for this 

data family? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___> 60 minutes 

___Not Applicable 

Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Element Family 

The Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Element Family is designed to document compliance 

monitoring activities at facilities with CAFO, CSO, SSO, and pretreatment permit components. 

This family of data generally includes information associated with inspections such as inspection 

type, information characterizing the NPDES facility, and dates associated with the inspection. 

New compliance monitoring activity data elements have been added to allow EPA to track 

compliance monitoring activities and monitor activities associated with non-point sources of 

pollution. Some examples of these data elements are planned end dates, inspection methods, and 

improved locational information such as latitude and longitude. These new compliance 

monitoring activity data elements improve the Agency’s understanding of where environmental 

impacts take place. 

Table C-5: WENDB Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently Required 

WENDB Data Elements 

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB compliance monitoring 

activity data elements for a typical 

permit (Assuming your state is 

entering all of the required WENDB 

data elements)? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___60 – 90 minutes 

___90 – 120 minutes 

___ >120 minutes 

___Not Applicable 
 C-6 28 June 2013

Table C-6: New Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Basic Info Compliance Monitoring Activity Planned End Date 

Basic Info Bio-Monitoring Inspection Method 

Basic Info Compliance Monitoring Action Reason 

CAFO Designation Reason 

CAFO Animal Type 

CAFO Animal Type: Other 

CAFO Animal Total Number 

CAFO Containment Type 

CAFO Containment Total Capacity 

CAFO Containment Other 

CAFO CAFO Classification 

CAFO CAFO Designation Date 

CAFO Solid Manure or Litter Generated 

CAFO Solid Manure or Litter Transferred 

CAFO Liquid Manure or Wastewater Generated 

CAFO Liquid Manure or Wastewater Transferred 

CAFO NMP Developed Date 

CAFO NMP Last Updated Date 

CAFO Is the Animal Facility Type a CAFO 

CAFO Storage: Type 

CAFO Storage: Other 

CAFO Days of Storage 

CAFO Storage Total Capacity Measure 

CSO Permitted Feature ID 

CSO Location Street Address 

CSO Longitude 

CSO Latitude 

CSO CSO Overflow Event Date 

Pretreatment Pass-through/Interference Indicator 

SSO Location Street Address 

SSO Longitude 

SSO Latitude 

SSO SSO Event Date 

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering these new 

compliance monitoring activity data elements 

for a typical permit? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___> 60 minutes 

___Not Applicable 

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) Data Element Family 

The DMR Data Element Family generally includes self-monitoring effluent data provided by 

NPDES facilities. This new information is required to assist EPA with the review of effluent 

discharges. A new data element has been added for concentration and quantity units which can be 

used by EPA to interpret reported effluent values. Several other data elements have been added to 

characterize a facility’s treatment and disposal of biosolids. 
 C-7 28 June 2013

Table C-7: WENDB DMR Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently Required WENDB Data Elements 

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB DMR data elements for a 

typical permit (Assuming your state is 

entering all of the required WENDB 

data elements)? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___60 – 90 minutes 

___90 – 120 minutes 

___ >120 minutes 

___Not Applicable 

Table C-8: New DMR Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Basic Info Concentration Units/Quantity Units 

Biosolids – Incinerator Compliance With National Emission Standard for Beryllium 

Biosolids – Incinerator Compliance With National Emission Standard for Mercury 

Biosolids - Land Application Site Pollutant Table Met 

Biosolids - Land Application Site Does Facility Certify Pathogen Reduction for Land Application 

Biosolids - Land Application Site Does the Facility Certify Vector Attraction Reduction for Land 

Application 

Biosolids - Surface Disposal Does Facility Certify Pathogen Reduction for Surface Disposal 

Biosolids - Surface Disposal Does Facility Certify Attraction Reduction for Surface Disposal 

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering these new DMR 

data elements for a typical permit? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___> 60 minutes 

___Not Applicable 

Violation Data Element Family 

The Violation Data Element Family includes data associated with violations such as single event, 

effluent, and compliance schedule violations. Two new data fields have been added concerning 

single event violations that allow EPA to track the timing and duration of these violations. The 

Agency may use this information to estimate the scale of possible environmental impacts and the 

efficiency of efforts to return a facility to compliance. 
 C-8 28 June 2013

Table C-9: WENDB Violation Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently Required WENDB Data Elements 

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB violation data elements for a 

typical permit (Assuming your state is 

entering all of the required WENDB 

data elements)? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___60 – 90 minutes 

___90 – 120 minutes 

___ >120 minutes 

___Not Applicable 

Table C-10: New Violation Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Basic Info Single Event Start Date 

Basic Info Single Event End Date 

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering these new 

violation data elements for a typical permit? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___> 60 minutes 

___Not Applicable 

Program Reports Data Element Family 

The Program Reports Data Element Family generally includes program reports submitted for 

NPDES subprograms such as CAFOS, CSOs, and approved local pretreatment facilities. These 

data elements include locational information such as latitude and longitude for CSOs that 

improve the Agency’s understanding of where environmental impacts take place. 

Table C-11: WENDB Program Reports Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently Required WENDB Data Elements 

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB program report data 

elements for a typical permit 

(Assuming your state is entering all 

of the required WENDB data 

elements)? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___60 – 90 minutes 

___90 – 120 minutes 

___ >120 minutes 

___Not Applicable 
 C-9 28 June 2013

Table C-12: New Program Reports Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Biosolids Report Coverage End Date 

Biosolids Number of Report Units 

CAFO Animal Type 

CAFO Animal Other 

CAFO Total Number 

CAFO Discharges During Year from Production Area 

CAFO Solid Manure or Litter Generated 

CAFO Liquid Manure or Wastewater Generated 

CAFO Solid Manure or Litter Transferred 

CAFO Liquid Manure or Wastewater Transferred 

CAFO Does the Facility have an NMP developed or approved by a certified 

planner 

CAFO Total number of Acres identified by NMP 

CAFO Total number of acres used for land application in past 12 months 

CSO Permitted Feature ID 

CSO Location Street Address 

CSO Longitude 

CSO Latitude 

Pretreatment Pass-through/Interference Indicator 

Pretreatment Local Limits Pollutants 

Pretreatment Removal Credits Application Status 

Pretreatment Date of Most Recent Removals Credits Application 

Pretreatment Removal Credits 

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering these new 

program reports data elements for a typical 

permit? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___> 60 minutes 

___Not Applicable 

Enforcement Action Data Element Family 

The Enforcement Action Data Element Family generally includes data regarding the enforcement 

action itself as well as associated compliance schedules and penalties. A new enforcement action 

data element has been added to document reasons for deleting enforcement actions. This data 

element enables EPA to improve its data management practices for enforcement action records. 

 
 C-10 28 June 2013

Table C-13: WENDB Enforcement Action Data Elements 

Estimated Time to Enter Currently Required WENDB Data Elements 

Please indicate the average amount 

of time your state spends entering 

WENDB enforcement action data 

elements for a typical permit 

(Assuming your state is entering all 

of the required WENDB data 

elements)? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___60 – 90 minutes 

___90 – 120 minutes 

___ >120 minutes 

___Not Applicable 

Table C-14: New Enforcement Action Data Elements 

Sub-Area Data Element Name 

Basic Info Reason for deleting Enforcement Action 

What is the average amount of time your 

state would spend entering these new 

enforcement action data elements for a 

typical permit? 

___ < 1 minute 

___ 1 - 5 minutes 

___ 5 - 10 minutes 

___ 10 – 15 minutes 

___ 15 – 20 minutes 

___ 20 – 30 minutes 

___ 30 - 40 minutes 

___40 – 60 minutes 

___> 60 minutes 

___Not Applicable 

C.2 SECTION 2: Questions Related to Other State Activities 

In this section, EPA requests information on other activities that states undertake to provide 

NPDES data. 

Note: Please use the following information to convert reporting time into Full Time Equivalents 

(FTEs). 

1 hour every week equals 0.025 FTEs (assuming a 40 hour work week) 

1 day every week equals 0.20 FTEs (assuming an 8 hour work day) 

1 week every month equals 0.25 FTEs (assuming a 40 hour work week with 30 days in 

each month) 

1 month every year equals 0.08 FTEs (assuming 30 days in each month and 365 days 

in a year) 

 

1) Roughly how much will your state spend to Quality Assure/Quality Control the new data 

elements in your NPDES Information System? Keep in mind that reporting on nonmajors is 

required under the NPDES PMI rule. Please quantify in terms of quarterly FTEs and/or contract 

dollars. 

________________________________________________________________________ 
 C-11 28 June 2013

2) Roughly how much training will it take to familiarize data entry staff with the new data 

elements? Please quantify in terms of quarterly FTEs and/or contract dollars. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

3) On an average quarterly basis, what level of effort (FTEs and/or contract dollars) will be 

expended on program management for the following subprograms: 

CAFOs: ______________ 

SSOs: ______________ 

CSOs: ______________ 

SWMs: ______________ 

Pretreatment: ______________ 

Biosolids: ______________ 

4) On an average quarterly basis, how much time does your state spend entering DMR data into 

your NPDES Information System for a typical permit? 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

5) What is your estimate of the number of nonmajors in your state? 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

6) On an average quarterly basis, how much time (FTEs and/or contract dollars) does your state 

expend on the management of DMR data for your NPDES Information System? 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

7) Will there be an increased cost to maintain your state system with the additional data elements 

and the requirement that nonmajors enter their data into your NPDES Information System? If yes, 

please quantify these costs in terms of average quarterly FTEs and/or contract dollars. (Note: This 

does not apply to Direct Entry states) 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

8) Will your state’s NPDES Information System need upgrades to submit data to the EPA? If so, 

how much will these upgrades cost in terms of quarterly FTEs and/or contract dollars? (Note: 

This does not apply to Direct Entry states) 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

9) When your state has aggregated all of their data into a cohesive NPDES Information System, 

will your state realize any savings and/or efficiencies? If yes, please explain and quantify the 

savings in terms of quarterly FTEs and/or contract dollars. 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 
 C-12 28 June 2013

10) The proposed NPDES PMI Rule may possibly remove regulatory requirements for submitting 

the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR), the Annual Non-Compliance Report (ANCR) 

and the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary. Please provide an estimate of how much your state 

spends preparing each of these reports in terms of quarterly FTEs and/or contract dollars. 

QNCR: ________ 

ANCR: ________ 

Semi-Annual Statistical Summary: ________ 

C.3 SECTION 3: Definitions of Terms 

Authorized State or Tribe 

For the purposes of this presentation, an authorized State or Tribe is a State or Tribal government 

which has received NPDES authorized NPDES program from EPA. 

Batch data entry 

Batch data entry in ICIS-NPDES is the transmission of eXtensible Markup Language (XML) data 

files through the Central Data Exchange into ICIS-NPDES. States with their own systems would 

transfer their data to ICIS-NPDES through this electronic data transfer process. 

Direct data entry 

This refers to manual data entry by key punching, often in the case where the State, Tribe or EPA 

Region is using PCS or ICIS-NPDES as their primary NPDES data management system. 

Direct User State or Tribe 

In a NPDES program implemented by an authorized State or Tribe which will use ICIS-NPDES 

to manage the NPDES program, direct users manually enter data into ICIS-NPDES through the 

keyboard into web screens. 

Hybrid State or Tribe 

In a NPDES program implemented by an authorized State or Tribe which will use ICIS-NPDES 

to manage the NPDES program, hybrid users manually enter some of the data (usually non-DMR 

data) into ICIS-NPDES through the keyboard into web screens. They also electronically transfer 

the rest of the data (usually DMR data) into ICIS-NPDES; this electronic method of data entry 

will likely increase, especially with the availability of eDMR (electronic DMR) tools, such as 

NetDMR. 

ICIS 

The acronym ICIS stands for the Integrated Compliance Information System, developed by EPA 

to serve as a national multi-media data system. 

Major 

A major facility is defined as follows: a major municipal facility has a flow of 1 million gallons 

per day or greater, a service population of 10,000 or greater or a significant impact on water 

quality; industrial facilities are considered major facilities based on a rating system that allocates 

points in various categories, including flow, pollutant loadings and water quality factors. EPA 

Regions, States and Tribes also have the discretion to identify other facilities as major facilities 

due to environmental concerns. 
 C-13 28 June 2013

Nonmajor 

The universe of facilities regulated under the NPDES program that are not “major” facilities. 

Nonmajor facilities can also be referred to as “minor” facilities, although this does not denote a 

less important status. 

PCS 

The acronym PCS stands for the Permit Compliance System, which served as the national 

database of record for the NPDES program since 1985. 

Program components 

Program components refer NPDES permit requirements associated with particular program areas. 

In ICIS-NPDES, a group of data elements are available to users to track program-specific data on 

Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary 

Sewer Overflows (SSOs), Pretreatment, Biosolids, Stormwater, and Concentrated Animal 

Feeding Operations (CAFOs). 

Single event violation 

A Single Event Violation is a violation of a NPDES permit or regulatory requirement that is 

observed or determined by the authorized NPDES program (EPA Region or authorized State/ 

local/ tribal government), and is distinct from violations that are system-generated (e.g., effluent 

limit violations arising from DMR submission, DMR non-receipt or compliance schedule 

violations). An unauthorized bypass or discharge, a violation detected during an inspection, a 

narrative violation description reported on a DMR, and a pretreatment violation are examples of 

Single Event Violations. 

WENDB 

The acronym WENDB stands for the Water Enforcement National Data Base data elements, 

identified as the required data elements in the Permit Compliance System (PCS), which served as 

the national database of record for the NPDES program since 1985. 

Wet weather sources 

These are non-traditional NPDES sources which include storm water runoff from industrial and 

municipal sectors, discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and 

overflows from combined and sanitary sewer systems (CSOs, SSOs, bypass events). Such sources 

have been a program priority for EPA’s enforcement and compliance program since 1998.