### 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 Ruleii 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 Mu st be Addressed by the EA ..................................................... xiv ES.5 Key Steps for Implementation .................................................................................................. ..... xiv

Section 1. – Background and Overview of the Econom ic 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 U sed 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 ......................................................................................................................... ............... 2-11iii 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 Im plementation 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 Summari es 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 ...................................................... 4-5iv 28 June 2013 4.3.3 Total Costs ................................................................................................................... .... 4-5 4.4 Regulated Entity and Authorized NPDES Progr am 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 Da ta 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-Paren t 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-Paren t 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 A ffected NPDES Facilities ............................................. 5-15 5.7.2 Characterize Facility-Paren t 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-Paren t 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 -1v 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 Or der 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 Coordina tion with Indian Tribal Governments ....... 7-4 7.7 Executive Order 13045 – Children’s Health ................................................................................ 7-5 7.8 Executive Order 13211 – Energy Supp ly, 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 Appe ndix A to 40 CFR 127 ............................................................................... A -1
Appendix B – List of States by Data Entry Type ................................................................................ .. B-1
Appendix C – NPDES Program Manageme nt Information (PMI) Survey ....................................... C-1vi 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 Entit y Initiating Reporting/Submittal Activity .............. 2-5 Table 2-4: Permit Universe and Annual Reporti ng Frequency Methods, by Subprogram ........... 2-6 Table 2-5: Standard Industrial Dischargers Pe rmit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency . 2-9 Table 2-6: Biosolids Permit Universe and Annual Reporti ng Frequency .................................. 2-11 Table 2-7: CAFOs Permit Universe a nd Annual Reporting Frequency ..................................... 2-14 Table 2-8: CSS POTW Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency .............................. 2-16 Table 2-9: Pretreatment Permit Univer se 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 Upda ting the Submission Process ......................................................... 4-6 Table 4-6: Incremental Electronic Reporting Da ta Element Requirements by NPDES Subprogram

.............................................................................................................................. ...... 4-8 Table 4-7: Surveyed Stat es 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 Elimin ating 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 a nd Costs (3% Discount Rate) ............................................... 4-16 Table 4-19: Schedule of Savings a nd Costs (7% Discount Rate) ............................................... 4-17 Table 5-1: Compliance Costs Incu rred under Proposed Rule ...................................................... 5-3 Table 5-2: Annualized Compliance Cost s Incurred Under Proposed Rule .................................. 5-3 Table 5-3: Categorizing Sectors A ffected by Proposed Rule ....................................................... 5-4 Table 5-4: Sectors with Information in SUSB ............................................................................. 5-6 Table 5-5: NPDES Facility Distributio n by Employment Size Class .......................................... 5-8 Table 5-6: NPDES Facility Distribu tion by Revenue Size Class ................................................. 5-8 Table 5-7: NPDES Parent Entity Distribution by Employment Size Class .................................. 5-9vii 28 June 2013 Table 5-8: NPDES Parent Entity Dist ribution 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 Informa tion, 3% Discount Rate .............................................. 5-11 Table 5-10: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities in Sectors with Census Informa tion, 7% Discount Rate .............................................. 5-11 Table 5-11: POTWs Matched to Census Muni cipalities, 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 Monito ring 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 Violatio n Data Elements ................................................................................. C-8 Table C-11: WENDB Program Reports Data Elements .............................................................. C-8 Table C-12: New Program Repor ts Data Elements ..................................................................... C-9 Table C-13: WENDB Enforcement Action Data Elements ...................................................... C-10 Table C-14: New Enforcement Action Data Elements ............................................................. C-10viii 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/Co sts Analysis – 3% Discount Rate ........................ 4-17 Figure 4-3: Electronic Reporting Savings/Co sts Analysis – 7% Discount Rate ........................ 4-18ix 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 Maintenancex 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 (acco rding 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 (a ccording 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 Languagexi 28 June 2013 

## Executive Summary

ES.1 Purpose of the Proposed Rule

The proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule w ill 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 wate rs. 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 regulat ed 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 a nd use of limited compliance and enforcement resources, and enhance transparency and pub lic accountability by providing the public with timely information on potential sources of water pollu tion. When the rule is fully implemented it will result in improved water quality and significan t cost savings for regulated entities, states, territories, tribes, and EPA.

This Economic Analysis (EA) quantifies the cost s and savings of this proposed rule, while acknowledging many of the qualitative benefits th at will result from its implementation. This proposed rule justifies itself on the basis of the savings/costs alone.

Historically, EPA and authorized states have fo cused 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 s ources also impact water quality. Stormwater discharges, concentrated animal feeding opera tions, 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. Th e proposed rule improves data quality and availability for these significant sources, thereb y providing the states and EPA with more complete and comparable data on a substantia l 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 mo ney 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 progr am. 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 million 1 . 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%, wh ich 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 savi ng 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 year s after the rule is finalized it is expected to generate a net savings of roughl y $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 10Dollars(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 10Dollars(2012)

Year 

### Annual Costs

Annual Savings

Total Costs

Total Savingsxiii 28 June 2013 The proposed rule will essentially eliminate the need for authorized NPDES programs to enter data submitted by regulated entities into inform ation 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 program s 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 info rmation 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 entiti es to revise and reenter data will be reduced.

Qualitative Benefits - Other anticipated benefits of th e proposed rule include improved quality and accuracy of the data available to regulat ory agencies and the public; more timely and expanded use of the data to iden tify, target, and address problems; quicker availability of the data for use; and increased accessibility and transpar ency of the data to the public. These benefits should allow states to shift precious resources fro m data management activities to activities more useful in solving water quality and noncompliance is sues. 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 a nd improved data available to th e public, as it does now with the existing data, to provide communities and citizens wi th the best available information on facility and government performance. Such data provid es a powerful incentive to improve performance by giving government, regulated entities and th e public ready access to complete compliance information. This incentive can serve to elevat e the importance of compliance information and environmental performance within regulated en tities, providing an opportunity for them to quickly address any noncompliance. More comple te, 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 perform ance systematically and to quickly address significant issues that may be hidden in unmanag eable paper reports, minimizing environmental and public health impacts. It creates an opportu nity for two-way communication with regulated entities to immediately address data quality issues a nd 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 program s, 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 N on-Compliance Report (QNCR), the Annual NonCompliance Report (ANCR), the Semi-Annual St atistical Summary Report (SASS), and the biosolids information required to be submitted to EPA annually by states.

Under the proposed rule, the resulting informa tion flows will allow EPA and authorized NPDES programs to manage the NPDES program more e fficiently. 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 da ta 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 an d allows for data sharing across federal and authorized NPDES program regulators using th e Exchange Network – a network EPA built to foster data sharing between EPA and the states. Bringing the additional information about bothxiv 28 June 2013 major and nonmajor regulated entities into IC IS-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 knowle dge of the regulated community; and that knowledge is essential for problem identification a nd for developing sound regulations, guidance, and policy. Regulated entities will benefit by know ing 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 Consid eration 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 electroni c 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 an alysis, 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 $10 0 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 add itional 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 requi rements of the UMRA are not applicable.



### ES.5 Key Steps for Implementation

Updating the NPDES information flow will a llow states and EPA to each have a central repository of NPDES information and to readily sh are 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 r econciling 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 30 8 reporting under this rule is suspended).

Regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs w ill need to make changes in order to use the updated data bases and reporting tools. The majo r 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 submi ssion 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 con tinue 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 pa per 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 In formation System (ICIS)-NPDES. EPA needs regulated entity-specific information in order to provide national program direction and oversight; to ensure that implementation and enforcem ent of the NPDES program, both nationally and locally, will effectively protect human health a nd the environment; and to facilitate public access to NPDES information. This proposed rule will al so 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 da ta entry on states, tribes, and territories (hereinafter referred to as states) and EPA Re gions. 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 detaile d results of the Economic Analysis (EA). To understand the effects of the proposed rule, how ever, 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 th e 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 descripti on 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 Hi story 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 authori zed by a NPDES permit. The Clean Water Act establishes the NPDES program’s authority to regula te the discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. EPA has issued comprehensiv e 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) Pret reatment 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 au thority (also known as an “Attorney Generals Statement” or “AG Statement”), and supportin g 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 author ized 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 the1-3 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 NPD ES programs to keep records and submit to EPA such information as the Agency may reasonabl y 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 pr ograms are required to make available to EPA upon request any information authorized NPDE S 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 program s to “keep such records and submit to the Administrator such information as the Admini strator may reasonably require.” See 40 CFR 123.43(d). To implement this and other regulati ons, EPA has issued guidance on the information to be submitted electronically to a national datab ase. In particular, the 1985 PCS Policy Statement (as amended in 2007) and the PCS Quality Assu rance Manual identify the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and consistency expectations fo r 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 mainta in and technology and protocols that transfer NPDES data to PCS. EPA also uses two mech anisms, a Memorandum of Agreement and CWA Section 106 Work Plan, for requiring data sh aring 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 st ormwater issues, Congress passed the 1987 Water Quality Act which extended NPDES requirement s to stormwater discharges. This action expanded the NPDES program to include stormwat er discharges. In December 2000, Congress also amended the CWA with the “Wet Weathe r 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, wh ich 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 di fferent 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=specific1-4 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 informati on (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 in dustrial 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 r esponsibilities 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 variet y of standard conditions. Record-keeping and reporting requirements often include prepara tion and submission to the authorized NPDES program of monthly discharge monitoring repor ts, 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, trib e, 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 authori zed 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 effectivel y 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.pdf1-5 28 June 2013  Conducting oversight of authorized states;

 Identifying the compliance status of faci lities subject to NPDES regulations in a nationally consistent manner;

 Monitoring and reporting the status of impl ementing the CWA in watersheds throughout the nation;

 Identifying potential non-compliance probl ems and their associated environmental impacts to effectively target resources;

 Demonstrating results achieved to me et NPDES program goals, including the Government Performance and Results Act (G PRA) measures reported to Congress, under Goal 2 (Clean and Safe Water) and Go al 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 st ates 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 maintain s the Integrated Compliance Information System – National Pollution Discharge Eliminati on 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 facilit ies in terms of major and nonmajor sources and whether they have coverage under an i ndividual or general pe rmit. NPDES permitted facilities designated as a major includes a Pub licly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) with designed discharge flows of greater than one m illion 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 di scharges 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 ha ve coverage under ge neral 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.pdf1-6 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 frame work for regulating sewage sludge (biosolids). EPA has established a protective regulatory frame work 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 subm it their Biosolids Annual Program Report [40 CFR 503].

Significant Industrial Users

POTWs receive wastewater from households (domes tic waste), as well as from a wide variety of commercial and industrial facilities, referred to as in dustrial 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 pa rticular 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 de veloped 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 wit hout an approved pretreatment program would electronically submit the following data: (1) Peri odic 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 n ecessary to enable PCS to function as a useful operational and management tool for the NPDES pr ogram. 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 sev eral 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 othe r 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-N PDES 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 informa tion 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 entiti es 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 re quired 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 wit hout approved pretreatment programs must also submit bi-annual compliance repor ts 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 num ber of similar facilities require permits, a general permit allows the authorized NPDES pr ogram 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, a nd territories must seek EPA approval to administer general permits. EPA’s regula tions governing the General Perm it 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 certifica tion from a facility indicating that coverageunder an existing stormwater general permit is not necessary due to certain facilityspecific conditions [40 CFR 122.26(g)(1) and (4)]; and1-8 28 June 2013  Low Erosivity Waiver (LEW): A certificati on from a facility indicating that coverage under an existing construction stormwater ge neral 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 perm it regulations (40 CFR 122.28) do not require all general permit covered faciliti es to submit NOIs for all general permits issued by EPA and authorized state NPDES programs. Some gene ral permits provide fo r automatic coverage. This means that neither EPA nor the authorized state, tribe, or territory programs will have information regarding exactly which faciliti es are regulated under these general permits.

General permits cover a wide range of facility types that range fro m the very large (e.g., offshore oil and gas facilities, seafood processors) to very small discharges. Discharges from facilities covered under general permits incl ude a variety of pollutants, such as total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, oil and grease, bact eria, nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, and toxics.

Basic facility information for some facilities cove red 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 Annua l 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 sets 6 ) 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 r esponsible 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 NP DES 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 in formation 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 Comp liance Evaluation Inspection, Compliance Sampling Inspection, Performance Audit Inspection, Dia gnostic Inspection, Compliance Bio-Monitoring Inspection, and/or Toxics Sampling Inspection ever y 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 regulat ed 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 developi ng 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 gr oups 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 complian ce status of the nation’s water dischargers and the enforcement responses taken by authori zed NPDES programs and EPA. Electronic reporting by NPDES regulated entities will increase the ti meliness, completeness, and accuracy of NPDES information made available to the public. It is expected that with th ese 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 th e CWA’s NPDES program is effectively and consistently implemented nati onwide, 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 NPD ES regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs in order to effectively manage th e national NPDES program, including permitting and enforcement.

Authorized NPDES Programs Authorized NPDES programs are currently inunda ted with paper reports from regulated entities. They use valuable resources reviewing those s ubmissions 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 othe r general permits, such as the Vessels General Permit and the Pesticides General Permit, that are not ex pected to be affected by the proposed rule.1-10 28 June 2013 for this effort delays the availability of the da ta, 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 en suring 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 author ized 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 Appe ndix 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 pr ograms 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 au thorization 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 regulate d entities electronically sending their data directly to EPA in addition to any pre-exis ting paper-based reporting requirem ents 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 a nd 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, includi ng 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 rulema king was expanded to consider how much of the NPDES information could reasonably be obtai ned 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 in formation 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 direct ly 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 determin ations, and issuance of enforcement actions), the authorized NPDES program would be the logi cal 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 prio rities, 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 program s, 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 pe rmit 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 fl ags, RNC tracking flags, and applicable effluent guidelines have been added under th e proposed rule to help EPA characterize and monitor a regulated entity’s complian ce with their permit requirements. Data elements have also been added to address ch anges 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 expa nsion 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, w ill 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 ar e treated similarly throughout this analysis and are referred to as Facility Da ta 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, a nd 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 m onths 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 overfl ows include sanitary sewer overflows, combine sewer overflows, and bypass events.

Compliance Monitoring: The Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Family documents compliance monitoring activities at permitted f acilities. 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 locati onal 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 da ta 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 cha nge those requirements. Similarly, existing regulations define the universe of NPDES regul ated entities, and the proposed rule does not change those definitions.

The major changes resulting from the proposed ru le are that authorized NPDES programs will provide electronically to EPA more of the data they already collect for nonmajor (individual and general) permits, and da ta 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 inform ation 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 pro cess 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 an y 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 Re ports 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 Yes a Yes No Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Yes a Yes Yes MS4 and other Stormwater (Industrial and Construction) Yes a Yes b 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 Yes a Yes Yes Sewer Overflows - Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) c Yes a Yes Yes

a Only general permit covered facilities
b Only individual major or general mult i-sector permit co vered 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 provide d by EPA, to receive these reports. Authorized NPDES programs operating their own NPDES data sy stems will also need to establish data flows to send all of the required data, regulated entit y 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 un iverse 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 Perm it Universe and Required Data Reporting/Submittal

2.1 Introduction

Estimating the burden and cost associated with th e 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 th eir authorized NPDES program and between authorized NPDES programs and EPA. These input s 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 estimat e burden and cost, it is necessary to know:

 The entity responsible for generating the requi red data or data transfer. Some required data will be reported directly to EPA by pe rmitted 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 te rms of an annual reporting frequency. For instance, a report that is submitted every 5 y ears has an annual reporting frequency of 0.2, whereas a report that is submitted monthl y 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, wher eas 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 f acilities 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 ge neral 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. Th e cost analysis accounting for the differences between major and nonmajor perm its; and between individual and ge neral 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 pretreat ment regulations have i ndividual NPDES permits.

c These POTWs also have the potential for bypass event s 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 s ubprogram(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 Yes a Yes No Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Yes a Yes Yes MS4 and other Stormwater (Industrial and Construction) Yes a Yes b 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 Yes a Yes Yes Sewer Overflows - Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) c Yes a Yes Yes

a Only general permit covered facilities
b Only individual major or general mult i-sector permit co vered 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 NP DES permit. These facilities can be classified as majors or nonmajors and may have cove rage under individual or general NPDES permits. Facilities with coverage under a gene ral permit will submit one or more general2-3 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 fac ilities 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 s ubmit 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 cl assified 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 pret reatment program. This means that EPA or the authorized state is the control author ity. 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 repor ts 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 ge neral NPDES permits. Facilities with coverage under a general permit w ill 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 regi on 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 th at serve 10,000 people or more, and Class I sewage sludge management facilities. In ge neral, Class I sewage sludge management facilities must report annually to the authorized NPDES program biosolids monitoring2-4 28 June 2013 data, quantity of biosolids managed, ultimate e nd 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 th rough or interfere with POTW treatment processes or contaminate sewage sludge, thereb y posing a threat to human health or the environment. POTWs with approved pretreatme nt 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 (d ry or wet-weather) that constitute noncompliance are required to be reporte d 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 dischar ges during dry weather. Therefore, EPA regulations require that these and other nonc ompliance 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 sew er 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 Stat es, may be indicative of improper operation and maintenance of the sewer system and thus may violate NPDES permit conditions requiring proper operation and maintenan ce [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 permitt ee’s discovery of the overflow event [see 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)]. All other overflows are requi red 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 regulati ons. To facilitate understa nding of the proposed rule, all of those existing data requirements ar e consolidated in Appendix A. These data are categorized into the data families listed in Tabl e 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 currently2-5 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 re lated 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 require d to send DMRs. Additio nally, 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 fam ily 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 a nnual reporting frequency est imation 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 fl ows of most of the NPDES universe. The purpose of this section is to summarize the size of th e 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 fre quencies were calculated are presented by subprogram in Section 2.3– 2.9.2-6 28 June 2013 Table 2-4: Permit Universe and Annual Re porting 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 20,630 a 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 Industria l Direct Dischargers

Standard industrial direct dischargers include indu strial facilities that discharge to a surface water. These facilities have been regulated sin ce the inception of the NPDES Program.

2.3.1 Permit Universe

Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits The number of major and nonmajor facilities operati ng 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 cer tain permit data elemen ts relating to cooling water intakes and thermal variances be reporte d to ICIS-NPDES for major regulated entities. Affected facilities are typically industrial fac ilities 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 coolin g 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 A ddressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities Federal Register Notice (67 FR 78 947, December 26, 2002) provides a list of SIC and NAICS codes of entities likely to use cooling wa ter 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 in take data elements will need to be reported, ICIS-NPDES and PCS were queried for active major permits with in 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 da ta elements must be reported was provided by EPA’s Office of Water, using national es timates from the EPA’s 316b proposed rule. 11 The distribution of thermal variances was estimated at th e 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 c overed 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 genera l 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 reporti ng frequencies described in this section apply to individual major, individual nonmajor and gene ral 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 fre quency 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/lawsguid ance/cwa/316b/upload/qa_proposed.pdf2-8 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 annua l 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 issu ed under one of the defined subprograms. By definition, this group of facilities is not rela ted to a subprogram, so the “program report” requirement does not apply, which means the fre quency for submitting the program report data is zero for this group of facilities.

Compliance Monitoring
Information was not available from ICIS-N PDES regarding the frequency of compliance monitoring reports for standard industrial disch argers. Therefore, the annual reporting frequency of inspections (0.2) established by the Complia nce 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 w as 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 enfo rcement actions is 0.11, which was estimated by:

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES 12 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 num ber of formal and informal enforcement actions in a one-year period. 4. Dividing the average number of formal a nd informal enforcement actions by the number of permits to estimat e 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 co mponent search capability, it was used to gather violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It wa s 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 i ndustrial dischargers and the annual frequencies for each required data family.

Table 2-5: Standard Indust rial Dischargers Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency

Individual

Majors Individual Nonmajors General Nonmajors # Permits 3,727 a 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 f acilities 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 th e biosolids offsite. Therefore, the biosolids universe used in the analysis only represents t hose 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 ma jor 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 O ffice 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 bioso lids 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 pe rmits 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 th at 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 reporti ng frequencies described in this section apply to both major and nonmajor biosolids facilities.

Permits
As biosolids facilities are a subset of PO TWs, the annual reporting frequency for permit information is included in the analysis of th e 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 el ements 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 indu strial 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 Disch arger universes. Therefore, biosolids facilities have no biosolids specific discharges, which m eans the frequency for submitting limit and limit set data is zero for this group of facilities.

DMRs As stated above, biosolids facilities are SSSs, C SSs, 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 Indu strial Discharger universes. Biosolids facilities have no biosolids specific discharges, which m eans the frequency for submitting DMRs is zero for this group of facilities.

13 Based on an ICIS-NPDES query of biosolids facilitie s 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 a nnual 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 in formation associated with these facilities is accounted for under the SSS, CSS or Standard In dustrial Discharger permit universes and, to prevent double counting, the reporting freque ncy 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 in formation associated with these facilities is accounted for under the SSS, CSS or Standard In dustrial 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 in formation associated with these facilities is accounted for under the SSS, CSS or Standard In dustrial Discharger permit universes and, to prevent double counting, the reporting fre quency for enforcement actions is zero.

2.4.3 Summary

Table 2-6 summarizes the number of biosolids re gulated 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 0.2 a 0.2 a 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 (CAF O) is an agricultural operation where a large number of animals are kept and raised in confined situations, and is defined based on the number2-12 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 nonm ajor generals was unknown. A query of ICIS revealed 386 individual permit covered CAFO fac ilities 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 reporti ng frequencies described in this section apply to both individual and general pe rmit 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 frequen cy for limits and limit sets is therefore 0.

DMRs DMRs are generally not required for CAFOs; th erefore the annual reporting frequency is zero.

Program Reports CAFOs have an annual program report requireme nt, therefore the annual reporting frequency for program reports data is 1.

Compliance Monitoring
Information was not available from ICIS-N PDES 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 th e 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.pdf2-13 28 June 2013 Violations The annual reporting frequency of violations is estim ated to be 0.01 for both nonmajor individual and general CAFO permits , and was estimated by:

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES 15 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 vi olation by the total number of facilities with CAFO components to estimat e the annual reporting frequency.

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequenc y for violations data.

Enforcement Actions The estimated annual reporting frequency of enfo rcement actions is 0.02 for both nonmajor individual and general CAFO perm its, which was estimated by:

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES 16 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 num ber of formal and informal enforcement actions in a one-year period. 4. Dividing the average number of formal a nd informal enforcement actions by the number of permits with CAFO compone nts 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 regul ated entities and the annual frequencies for each required data family.

15 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit co mponent search capability, it was used to gather violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It wa s assumed that the violation rate in ICIS-NPDES was representative of the universe as a whole.
16 ibid2-14 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 h eavy 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 d esigned 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 ope rate CSS can also have bypass events [40 CFR 122.41(m)] and are also required to report such events when sewage by passes 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 i nventoried 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 univer se is assumed to be equal to the number of CSSs in the 2004 report because program reports capturi ng CSO events and inspections are required at the CSS level. The distinction between major and no nmajor 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 Pennsylva nia 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=52-15 28 June 2013 2.6.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family
Except where stated otherwise, the annual freque ncies described in this section apply to both major and nonmajor CSS permits.

Permits CSS permit data must be entered into ICIS-N PDES. 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 da ta 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 requi rement 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 repo rt 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 en tered 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 a nnual reporting frequency is 11.22 for majors and nonmajors.

Violations The estimated annual reporting frequency for violat ion 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 frequenci es were estimated by:

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES 18 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 vi olation 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 frequenc y for violations data elements. Annual reporting frequenci es were calculated separately for majors and nonmajors.

18 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit co mponent search capability, it was used to gather violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It wa s 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 enfo rcement action data for major CSS facilities is 0.36. The estimated annual reporting frequency fo r enforcement action data for nonmajor CSS facilities is 0.14. These annual reporting frequencies were estimated by:

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES 19 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 a nd 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 frequenc ies were calculated separately for majors and nonmajors.

2.6.3 Summary
Table 2-8 summarizes the number of CSS regulat ed 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 al so receive wastewater from industrial users. The General Pretreatment Regulations establis h 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 co mponent search capability, it was used to gather violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It wa s 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 PO TWs 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 PO TWs 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 freque ncies described in this section apply to both major and nonmajor pretreatment permits.

Permits As pretreatment facilities are a subset of POTW s, the annual reporting frequency for permit data is captured by the CSS and SSS subprograms. Ther efore, the annual frequencies for both major and nonmajor individual pretreatment facilities we re set to 0. However, those permit data elements specific to the pretreatment prog ram 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 lim it sets data entered into ICIS-NPDES. Limits and limit sets change according to the permit cy cle, and therefore have an annual reporting frequency of 0.2.

DMRs Annual reporting frequencies are linked to the requi rement 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 comp liance 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-NPDES 20 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 represen ts the annual reporting frequency for compliance monitoring data. Annual reporting frequencies we re calculated separately for majors and nonmajors.

Violations The estimated annual reporting frequency for violat ions 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-NPDES 21 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 vi olation 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 frequenc y for violations data. Annual reporting frequencies we re calculated separately for majors and nonmajors.

Enforcement Actions The estimated annual reporting frequency for enfo rcement action data for major pretreatment facilities is 0.39. The estimated annual reporti ng frequency for enforcement action data for nonmajor pretreatment facilities is 0.22. These annual reporting frequencies were estimated by:

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES 22 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 num ber of formal and informal enforcement actions in a one-year period.

20 ibid

21 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit co mponent search capability, it was used to gather violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It wa s 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 co mponent search capability, it was used to gather violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It wa s 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 a nd informal enforcement actions by the number of permits with pretreatment co mponents to estimate the annual reporting frequency.

The percentage calculated in step #4 represents the annual reporting frequency for enforcement action data. Annual reporting frequenc ies were calculated separately for majors and nonmajors.

2.7.3 Summary
Table 2-9 summarizes the number of pretreatme nt 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 0.2 a 0.2 a 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 designe d to collect and transport all domestic sewage that flows into them to a POTW. Properly designe d, operated, and maintained SSSs are designed to prevent overflows. However, occasional unintentional discharges of raw sewage from municipal sanitary sewers occur in almost ever y 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 i nventoried 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=52-20 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 be tween 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 freque ncies described in this section apply to both major and nonmajor POTWs with SSOs.

Permits SSS POTW permit data must be entered into IC IS-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 cy cle, and therefore have an annual reporting frequency of 0.2.

DMRs All SSS POTWs must submit DMRs for their perm itted 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 a nnual reporting frequency of 12.

Program Reports SSS POTWs must submit a program report for ever y overflow and bypass event. Therefore, the estimated annual reporting frequency for program re port 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 reporti ng frequency is 2.70 for majors and nonmajors.

Compliance Monitoring Compliance monitoring information must be ente red for every SSO event, according to the EPA Compliance Monitoring Strategy. The 2004 Re port to Congress characterizing CSSs and SSSs stated that there were 40,000 SSO events annuall y from a total of 15,582 SSS POTWs. Therefore, the annual reporting frequency for compliance mon itoring 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 violatio n data for nonmajor SSS POTWs is 0.11. These annual reporting frequenci es were estimated by:

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES 24 for the number of facilities with SSS components.

24 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit co mponent search capability, it was used to gather violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It wa s 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 vi olation 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 frequenc y for violations data. Annual reporting frequencies we re calculated separately for majors and nonmajors.

Enforcement Actions The estimated annual reporting frequency for enfo rcement action data for major SSS facilities is 0.36. The estimated annual reporting frequency fo r enforcement action data for nonmajor SSS facilities is 0.14. These annual reporting frequencies were estimated by:

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES 25 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 num ber 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 frequenc ies were calculated separately for majors and nonmajors.

2.8.3 Summary
Table 2-10 summarizes the number of SSS regulat ed 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 ibid2-22 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 di scharges. 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 assume d that all Phase 2 MS4s are nonmajor facilities. The number of Phase 2 MS4s was obtained from EP A’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 w as 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 a nd 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 u nder a NPDES industrial stormwater permit for stormwater discharges. The number of facilities covered by constructi on 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 ope rations are not exposed to stormwater.

2.9.2 Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family
Except where stated otherwise, the annual frequenc ies described in this section apply to major individual, nonmajor individual, and nonmajor general st ormwater permits.2-23 28 June 2013 Permit Data for Major and Nonmajor MS4 Permits MS4s permit data must be entered into ICIS-N PDES. 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 cons truction facilities filing NOIs and for construction facilities filing low erosivity waivers. Data fro m 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 univer se 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 fre quency 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 fac ilities 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 industr ial 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 perm it 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 fre quency 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 reporti ng 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 DM Rs and so are not required to have the limits and limit sets data families entered into ICIS-N PDES, 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 mast er permit, such that these data elements need not be entered for each regulated entity. Theref ore, 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 requi rement 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; theref ore the annual reporting frequency is zero.

DMRs for Construction General Permits (CGP) DMRs are not required for facilities covere d 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 potentia lly 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-N PDES regarding the frequency of compliance monitoring reports for stormwater permits. Therefore, the annual reporting frequency of inspections from the Compliance Monitoring St rategy was used (U.S. EPA, 2007a). The estimated annual reporting frequency for major a nd nonmajor individual permits is 0.2. The estimated annual reporting frequency for general construction and multi-sect or permits is 0.05

Violations The estimated annual reporting frequency for violat ion data elements for major facilities is 0.06. The estimated annual reporting frequency for violat ion data elements for nonmajor facilities is 0.01. The estimated annual reporting frequency for vi olation data elements for general facilities is 0.02. These annual reporting frequencies were estimated by:

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES 26 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 frequenc y for violations data. Annual reporting frequencies were calculated sep arately for major, nonmajor, and general permits.

Enforcement Actions The estimated annual reporting frequency for enfo rcement data elements for major individual permits is 0.12. The estimated annual reporting frequency for en forcement data elements for

26 Because ICIS-NPDES has a more specific permit co mponent search capability, it was used to gather violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It wa s 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 estim ated annual reporting frequency for enforcement data elements for CGP and MSGP general pe rmits is 0.02. These a nnual reporting frequencies were estimated by:

1. Querying ICIS-NPDES 27 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 num ber 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 freque ncies 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 Industr ial Users (SIUs)

As discussed above for the pretreatment pr ogram, 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 co mponent search capability, it was used to gather violation and enforcement data rather than PCS. It wa s 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 th e applicable authorized NPDES programs. This report is annual; therefore the annual repo rting frequency for program reports is 1.

2.10.3 Summary
Table 2-12 summarizes the number of pretreatme nt 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 Nonmajors a 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 majo r, individual nonmajor, and general nonmajor permits under each subprogram.

Table 2-13: Universe Summary by Subprogram

Subprogram Number of Permits

Individual

Majors a Individual Nonmajors General Nonmajors
Industrial and Stormwater Standard Industrial Dischargers 3,727 38,926 31,805 CAFOs 0 2,782 11,624 Stormwater b 297 6,300 322,137 SIUs 0 20,630 c 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 savi ngs and cost associated with the proposed rule.2-28 28 June 2013 Table 2-14 presents the annual frequencies by da ta family for each permit type under each subprogram. As the high frequency of DMR submi ssion 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 0 b 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 0.2 a 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Individual Nonmajor 0.2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

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

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

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

a Annual reporting frequency applies only to those permit data elements specific to the pretreatment or biosolids program. All ot her permit data elements are captured by CSSs and SSSs and have an annual reporting frequency of 0.
b 1% of Stormwater Construction regulated entities have DMR require ments due to an enforcement action. These facilities need to s ubmit 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.c fm?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 Polluta nt Discharge Elimination System Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Core Program and Wet Weather Sources. <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/po licies/monitoring/cwa/npdescms.pdf>

U.S. EPA. 2007b. EPA’s Interim Significant N oncompliance Strategy for Clean Water Act Violations Associated with CSOs, SSOs, CAFO s, and Storm Water Point Sources (“Interim Wet Weather SNC Policy”). <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/polic ies/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/la wsguidance/cwa/316b/basic.cfm>

U.S. EPA. 2010d. EPA’s Electronic Stormwat er Notice of Intent (eNOI) Home Page. <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/enoi.cfm>

U.S. EPA. 2010e. NPDES CAFO Rule Implemen tation 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/hom e.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 Affec ted 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 th e proposed rule is fully implemented, regulated entities will submit their information to thei r authorized NPDES program electronically. Authorized NPDES programs will share that datawith EPA, and will also share with EPA the data they generate. During the initial implementati on 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 sy stems 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, th ereby certifying compliance with EPA’s Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR);

 State authorized NPDES program and EPA tr aining webinars and r econciling 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 w ill need to make changes in order to use the updated data bases and reporting tools. The activ ities required to use the updated systems are:3-2 28 June 2013  Electronic reporting to EPA by regulated en tities whose authorized NPDES program does not have an adequate system for receiving NOI s, DMRs, and annual reports in electronic format;

 Regulated entity registration for user account s in CDX or the state authorized NPDES program electronic system and submission of electronic signature agreements;

 Regulated entity training;

 Regulated entity submission of electroni c NOIs, DMRs, and program reports; and,

 Authorized NPDES program electronic submi ssion of programmatic Appendix A data to EPA.

When electronic submission is operational, re gulated entities and authorized NPDES programs will experience ongoing savings from operational e fficiencies. During the first two years (2014- 2015), there will be costs associated with th e 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 implementa tion 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 NP DES permit batch uploaded to EPA data systems periodically.

The proposed rule will require EPA and state aut horized 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 w ithin 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 c oordinated CWA program management system that can work together. The system will use ex isting 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 sh are 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 allowi ng states and EPA to access and share information over the internet. The proposed rule will levera ge this capability to re duce 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 ow n 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 al ready 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 entitie s 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 th eir program reports online. Once these tools are implemented, EPA will incur operating and maintenance costs into the future.

State authorized NPDES programs may develop a nd operate their own reporting tools to meet rule requirements. Because EPA will offer nationa l 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 th at 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 pr ovide 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 syst ems 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 au tomate the comparison of DMR data to the limits and limit sets in the permit, authorized NP DES programs will need to share their facility information, limits and limit sets with EPA. Cu rrently, 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 formatte d 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 alr eady automated much of this data, in which case their costs will be less than est imated 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 implemen tation 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.pdf3-5 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 incu r the costs of electronic reporting, but will not realize the savings from paper and postage reduc tions 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 r eceived 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 informati on 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 establis hed 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 associat ed 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 th e 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 electr onic PIN number is the legal equivalent of their written signature. Facilities covered by a master ge neral permit will conti nue using the existing eNOI reporting software. Table 3-2 shows the re gulated 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) Yes a No Yes Stormwater Yes a Yes b Yes c SIUs n/a n/a Yes d
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 mult i-sector permit co vered 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 effectiv ely 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 oper ating 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 thei r 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 transf er 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 a nd 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 w ill 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 ther e is no requirement for that information to be entered into an electronic da ta 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 ente red 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 informati on 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 sa vings might be partially offset by the need for authorized NPDES programs to enter programma tic 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 in to ICIS-NPDES. The cost of submitting these data to ICIS-NPDES is partially mitigated by auto-p opulating specific fields, such as the date an electronic report is received.

For example, in order to compare DMRs to thei r 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 propos ed rule, this information will be required for all permit types. Individual permits will need thei r specific limits and parameters entered by the authorized NPDES program permit writer. For genera l permits, the task is simplified by bundled limit sets that permit writers can apply to all f acilities 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-ComplianceReport, 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 re garding the compliance status of regulated entities in their jurisdiction. To meet this re quirement, state authorized NPDES programs submit their non-compliance information to the Regiona l Administrator, who submits them to EPA headquarters. Under the proposed rule, this inform ation 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, resultin g 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 pos tage 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 effi ciencies 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-comp liance, thus simplifying EPA and authorized

32 Authorized NPDES programs will incur costs asso ciated 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 recurri ng effort and cost of de veloping 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 Nationa l 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 Econ omic Impacts of the Proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

4.1 Introduction

This section describes how the savings and cost s 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) implementa tion; 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 associat ed with the current data flow and reporting processes, and identify how these processes woul d 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 a nd costs involved the following steps:

 Determine EPA and authorized NPDES progr am 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 an alysis. Section 4.3 provides a description of costs associated with updating information shari ng 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 w ith the proposed rule include:

 Updating the IT systems;

 Data processing needed for authorized NP DES 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 tr ansfer 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 syst ems Savings/Costs Savings/Costs Sharing NPDES information electronically Savings Savings

Two significant baseline assumptions are made for th e savings and cost analysis. The first is that there is currently full compliance with existi ng data requirements. Although some authorized NPDES programs may already be submitting info rmation beyond those requirements, it is not possible to accurately account for that additiona l 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 pr ior 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 fo llowing effect on this analysis:

 Where authorized NPDES programs are reporting to ICIS-NPDES more data than is currently required, the analysis may ove restimate incremental costs; and,

 Where regulated entities are already submitting electronically through state systems, the analysis may overestimate savings and implem entation costs for both the regulated entity and authorized NPDES program.



### 4.2 Labor Costs

To estimate the cost associated with data entr y, processing, and submission activities (Section 3), the analysis uses 2012 hourly wage rates for thr ee job categories: managerial, programmer, and data clerk; each of which include fringe bene fits 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 separ ate wage estimates for government and private sector workers. 33

The managerial labor rate is defined as the aver age 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 inform ation; and may program web sites. The data clerk labor rate is defined as the average hourly wa ges for staff who compute, classify, and record numerical data to keep financial records co mplete; 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 accu racy of figures, calculations, and postings pertaining to business transactions recorded by other workers.

33 http://www.bls.gov/ne ws.release/ecec.nr0.htm4-3 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 prop osed rule will require state authorized NPDES programs and EPA to establish an electronic reportin g system. As shown in the data flow diagram in Section 1 (Figure 1-2), the data capture pr ocess 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 pr ograms 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 Re port electronic reporting tools to capture regulated entity submissions. Hybrid authorized NPDES programs use ICIS-NPDES for some information and batch upload their DMR info rmation. Batch authorized NPDES programs manage their information in state systems, and ba tch upload all of their information to EPA. For these systems to accept electronic data from the re gulated entities and transfer that information between EPA and authorized NPDES programs, alte rations 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 Compli ance Costs Under the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule , Prepared for the Chemical Manufactur ers Association, D ecember 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 pr ovide 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 electroni c reporting system, authorized NPDES programs and EPA will need to provide the necessary repor ting tools. This section discusses the steps EPA will take to provide tools that can be adopted by each authorized NPDES program. This sectiondoes not discuss existing or possible alterations to individual authorized NPDES program ereporting systems. The tools EPA will develop incl ude 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 furthe r 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 progr ams 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 estim ates 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 da ta elements, the per state implementation cost is $321,900 for a total of $6.8 million dollars. Th is 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 st ate laws to ensure that the electronic documents required under the rule are the legal equivalent to the hardcopy docume nts 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; es calated to 2012 dollars usin g the BLS Employment Cost Index for government workers

37 http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentS treamer?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.txt4-5 28 June 2013 After implementation, EPA envisions that regulat ed entities will use EPA or third party provided software (such as fillable PDFs) to simultaneous ly submit NOIs, DMRs, or program reports to both EPA and state authorized NPDES programs. Therefore, once data standards 38 are established for each data element, state authorized NPDES pr ograms will need to reconfigure their exchangetemplates (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 el ements. 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 a ll DMR data elements and a separate exchange template for NOIs and program reports for each s ubprogram 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 program s are properly informed of the changes to the ICIS-NPDES system and the new data standard s, EPA will develop and offer a 90-minute online training webinar for each phase of the implementa tion. 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 re quired 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 NP DES 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. Oper ations include accepting data from regulated entities, receiving data from authorized NPDES programs, and sending EPA data to the state authorized NPDES programs. Maintenance incl udes 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 s ubmission process, including implementation and operations and management are presented in Table 4-4. Specifically, state authorized NPDES

38 Data standards ensure that report s 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 do llars 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 electroni c system. States currently operating their own systems will not have any operations or mainte nance 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 ch ange regulated entity and authorized NPDES program activities resulting in both savings and costs. Authorized NPDES programs will make minor permit modifications 39 , which will require the regulated entity to report electronically. Regulated entities will check an EPA website to de termine if they are required to report to both EPA and the state authorized NPDES program.

Authorized NPDES programs will be required to el ectronically 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 requirement s, 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 re quired 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 dete rmine 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. Th e 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 e NOI 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.xml4-7 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 reportin g, 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 Ag reement, or NetDMR training based on the reporting requirements of the permitted facility. E ach 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 fo r 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 require ments (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 manage rial account for each permit. Biosolids and pretreatment regulated entity implementation co sts are an exception to this assumption for the following reasons. As described in Section 2, bios olids and pretreatment permits are issued to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) for monitoring sewage sludge or for accepting industrial waste along with domestic sewage, resp ectively. 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 re gulated 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. Fo r 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 fact ors 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 sh ared 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.html4-8 28 June 2013 decreasing the number of data elements authorized NPDES programs are required to enter into ICIS-NPDES from paper DMRs and program repor ts, while increasing the number of regulated entities for which compliance and en forcement data will be required. As shown in Figure 4-1, estimating data entry costs relies on combining th e 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 st aff entering the data elements. The number of permits and activity frequency are described in S ection 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 re quirements associated with entering various data elements. The following sections describe the st ate 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 Reporti ng 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 -18 a -10 a
POTWs Biosolids 5 10 Pretreatment and Significant I ndustrial 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 ar e 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 surv eyed 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 a ll 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 representa tives 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 fam ily 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 ti me per data family for each mode of ICIS-NPDES submission (batch, hybrid, and direct) and subp rogram. 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 mu ltiplied by state data clerk wage rates to determine the average state costs of data entry pe r 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 Pretreatment b 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 regul ated entity DMRs and program reports correctly, authorized NPDES programs will have to populat e 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, st ates 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 add itional 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 electroni cally to ensure the data meets the new data standards. This assumption results in a conserva tive estimate, and actual costs will be less for4-10 28 June 2013 those authorized NPDES programs that have alread y 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 da ta 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 au thorized NPDES programs. The annual costs associated with state authorized NPDES programs and EPA Regions entering the programmatic data is $2.1 million dollars and $31 4,000, 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 coll ection 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 fro m 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 informati on from general permit covered facilities for state authorized NPDES program-issued general pe rmits and program reports from all facilities.

Regulated entity electronic reporting to EPA invol ves 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 te n 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 co st per report, which is then multiplied by the number of regulated entities affected and the freque ncy 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 EP A 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 repor t 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 reconc iliation 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 au thorized 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 propo sed 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-Comp liance Report will require 36 hours of EPA technical time and 4 hours of manageri al 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 Ta ble 4-10 include EPA headquarters’ cost of operating and maintaining the updated system, a nd the recurring data entry cost incurred by authorized NPDES programs due to the programma tic data elements (the shift from WENDB to Appendix A and to having to enter informati on for nonmajor regulated entities). There are no ongoing data entry costs to regulated entities.

Data entry costs associated with programmatic da ta elements in eNOI a nd 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 Tabl e 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 a nd 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 impl ementation 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 acc ounts, 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 da ta quality and less need to revise and reenter their submissions. However, savings associated w ith improved data quality were not quantified in this analysis.4-13 28 June 2013 Table 4-12: Mailing Costs

Cost Category Cost Page of Paper a $0.01 Envelope – Small b $0.05 Envelope – Large c $0.19 Postage – Small d $0.45 Postage - Large Envelope with 60 Pages inside d $2.12 Postage - Flat Rate Envelope d $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. Pretreatme nt 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 expe rience any savings related to program reports. The total annual savings for all regulated en tities submitting program reports electronically is $38,000.

DMR submission savings are similar to program re port 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 f illed out by the regulated entity, sent to an independent laboratory, and then sent to the au thorized 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 not ed 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 submissi on costs savings due to the fact that reporting frequencies are different within and across s ubprograms. For example, major stormwater regulated entities submit DMRs monthly, multi-sector generals submit DMRs three times per year, and construction stormwater covered fac ilities 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 fo r 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 NPD ES programs receive these reports in the mail, staff open and inspect them to ensure they are f illed 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 DMR 42 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 a nd program reports is $13.8 million and $503,000 for authorized NPDES programs and EPA, respectively.

EPA Regions and state authorized NPDES program s will also experience savings by no longer sending pre-populated DMR forms to regulated en tities. Currently, EPA Regions and authorized NPDES programs mail DMR forms with regulated en tity-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 uni versally available and eliminating the need to mail the forms out. Table 4-14 details the per perm it 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, elim inating the need for data entry. The annual savings is $19.8 million dollars and $344,0 00 for authorized NPDES programs and EPA, respectively.

Total Annual Savings after Full Implementation Table 4-15 shows the aggregated annual savings est imated for regulated entities, states, and EPA Regions. 44 Regulated entities will save $1.4 million dolla rs due to eliminating paper and mailing

42 No DMR processing savings are associated with the CA FO 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 permitTable 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 $2.914-15 28 June 2013 costs for DMRs and program reports. State aut horized NPDES programs will save $19.8 million dollars on data entry and $13.8 million dolla rs 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. Annua l 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 cha nges called for in the proposed rule, annual savings total $865,000 for EPA, $34,412,000 for st ates, 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 Savings a $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, r espectively. NetDMR will save th ese groups $447,000, $16.5 million dollars, and $614,000, respectively. eProgram Re ports 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 appr oach and return on investment. EPA will need to have upgraded its electronic tools before the e ffective 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 requiremen ts 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 effec tive 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 Stat e 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 ra te. As can be seen in Table 4-18 and Table 4-19, the annual savings exceed annual costs two y ears 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 s hown 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, yiel ding a net annual savings of $29.6 million. As shown in Table 4-19, when using a 7% discount ra te, 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, th e 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 da ta 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)

Year 1 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)

Year 1 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 inv estment over a ten year period using 3% and 7% discount rates, respectively. Dollar values are repor ted on the y-axis and the number of years after the effective date of the rule on the x-axis. A nnual costs are represente d 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 gr aphs, 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 10Dollars(2012)

Year 

### Annual Costs Annual Savings Total Costs Total Savings4-18 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 10Dollars(2012)

Year 

### Annual Costs

Annual Savings

Total Costs

Total Savings5-1 28 June 2013 

## Section 5. – Small Entity Analysis

5.1 Introduction

This section addresses the potential impacts of th e 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 webs ite 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 el ectronic 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. Followi ng rule implementation, regulated entities will realize savings through eliminating mailing pape r 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 a nd reenter their submissions. However, savings associated with improved data quality we re 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 burde n 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 th is analysis. Section 5.4 describes the general methodology used to determine if the proposed ru le 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 (R FA) 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 En forcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires an agency to perform an initial and fina l 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 sma ll 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 busin ess” 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 w ill likely be affected by the proposed rule. 46

To establish what constitutes a small business, SB A considers a number of economic and market characteristics that may allow a business of concer n 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 standard s 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 a ffiliates 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 jurisdiction s” 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 sma ll 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 an alysis uses annual cost impact percentages to measure potential impacts on small entities. The co st 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 pare nt 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 st aff 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 elect ronic reporting systems in place or where EPA is the authorized NPDES program will not be subject to el ectronic reporting to EPA. In addition, regulated entities in states that develop electronic reporting system s 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 appli cable 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 Electronica lly 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 sector s as well as local governments. The compliance activities and costs will vary among sectors dependi ng on the permit requirements of individual facilities. It was not possible to conduct a detaile d 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 possibl e 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 ph ase-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 1,1 09 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 app licable 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 categori es presented in Table 5-3 below. The categories were developed based on the small business defin ition 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 a pplicable small business threshold is based on either revenue or employment. Sector Categor y #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 po ssible 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 ar e 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 data a 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 OTIS b 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, diffe rent data sources were used to estimate relevant economic sizes, and then the impacts of the pr oposed 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 pa rent entities in the affected universe.

Step 4: Identify small parent entities b ased on SBA definitions (see Section 5.2).

49 Information in PCS and ICIS-NPDES indicates that f acilities 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 an nual 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 availa ble 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 consid ered 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 potenti ally affected by the proposed rule, determine the small entity status (small or not-small) of th e parent entity, estimate compliance costs for each small parent entity, and then compare complianc e costs to each small parent entity’s annual revenue. However, due to the magnitude and di versity 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 industr y 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 curren tly 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-N PDES 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. busin ess establishments by geography, industry, and enterprise size, covering all business establishmen ts with paid employees. The data provided annually includes counts of establishments, firm s, 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 annua l revenue, and calculate cost impact ratios.

A sector’s small business definition is based on eith er 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 re venue-based small business definitions, employment and revenue profiles were developed for each revenue size category. For sectors with employment-based small business definitions, prof iles were developed for employment size categories. All tables and references in the sec tions below referring to revenue or employment size classes are mutually exclusive.

In a small entity analysis, compliance costs are es timated at the parent entity level, which requires aggregation of regulated entity costs to the pare nt entity level. However, it was not possible to identify the regulated entity to pa rent entity relationship for all a ffected 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 establishmen t as a single physical location where business is conducted or where ser vices or industrial operations are performed; this definition corresponds to a facility or NPD ES 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 deri ved based on census data available at the NAICScode level. Information from EPA data syst ems 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 used5-7 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 activ e NPDES regulated entities associated with each NAICS code and SIC code (where no NAICS was available 51 ) 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 NAI CS 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 availabl e, 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-N PDES 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 we re matched to 808 sectors. Note that the number of sectors is fewer than the 1,109 original ly 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, resp ectively, and are not included in the estimates presented in this section. Additionally, faciliti es in 48 non-agricultural non-utility NAICS codes for which information is not available from the SU SB are not considered in this analysis (see

51 The North American Industry Cla ssification 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 w ill 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.xls5-8 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 multip lying the total NPDES facility count by the number of establishments in the particular reve nue 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 w as necessary to estimate the number of NPDES facilities per parent, which was done by dividing the number of establishments by the number of5-9 28 June 2013 firms in the SUSB data for each NAICS/employm ent or revenue size class combination. The distribution of permits derived in Section 5.5.1 w as 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 f acilities 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 receipt s (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 SU SB 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 sector s 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-based5-10 28 June 2013 small business definitions, the following method w as 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 adj acent employment size class in that NAICS code by the average percent difference be tween 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 revenu e 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 revenu e, 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 industri es and was used to inflate annual revenue in mining (NAICS 21), utility (NAICS 22 54 ), 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 11 55 ) revenue to 2012 dollars. 56 All other sectors (NAICS 42-81) were inflated based on the change in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fro m 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 nu mber 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 37,9 98 (93%) firms in sectors with employment based small business definitions are small en tities, for a total of 87,826 small entities.

5.5.5 Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs
It was assumed that all parent entities would in cur 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 numbe r of facilities per parent entity (derived in Section 5.5.2) to obtain the total annualized comp liance 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 fo r that NAICS/revenue or employment size class (estimated in Section 5.5.5) by the parent en tity average annual revenue for the NAICS/revenue or employment size class (estimated in Section 5.5.3). Based on this cal culation, 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 re venue (Table 5-10). Because the impacts are less than 1% they are considered to be mi nimal and no further action is required.

Table 5-9: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities of NP DES 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 NP DES 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 Public ly-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 figur es of public finance and public employment; classifies local government organizations, powers, a nd activities; and measures federal, state, and local fiscal relationships. Information is ava ilable by level of government and category of governmental activity. The Census of Government s provides the following definitions of these government types (referred to collectively as “local governments” throughout this section):

 Municipal governments: Organized local governments aut horized 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 (e xcept 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 gene ral government for areas defined without5-12 28 June 2013 regard to population concentration; includ es those governments designated as towns in Connecticut, Maine (including organized pl antations), 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 gene ral 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 cons truct 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 follo wing 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 th e 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 distribu tion. 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 th e most appropriate match.5-13 28 June 2013 excluded from this analysis due to lack of da ta. 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 entit y 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 uni verse 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 m unicipality, 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 provi de revenue data for i ndividual municipalities, townships, or counties, it was necessary to develop a method to estimate these revenue based on available information. The Government Finan ce series in the 2002 Census of Governments provides information at the state level regard ing 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, Penns ylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont). For townships in the North Central Region (Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, and Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Da kota, and Wisconsin), per capita revenue were not available from Census. Therefore, the corr esponding county was identified and used as the applicable local government for each affected PO TW in these areas. Ther e 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 ov erstate 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 availa ble 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 Estimat es (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 on ce for each POTW it operates. Therefore, the annualized per-facility compliance cost was mu ltiplied by the number of POTWs per local government (derived in Section 5.6.2) to calcula te 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 governme nt (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 incu r 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 incu r 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 furt her 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 th ese sectors, it was necessar y 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 pl ants in its EIA-923 database. This information was used to identify small entities and to cons truct 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 develope d by identifying those power plants listed in the EIA-923 database with NPDES permits. Iden tification was made by querying the Facility Registry System (FRS) for all EPA-regulated en tities with information in EIA databases (based on the Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) and the Clean Air Markets Division Business System (CAMDBS) fac ility 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 datab ases 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 NPD ES utility facilities, only those facilities with a utility NAICS or SIC code in their NPDES perm it 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 onemillion megawatt-hours of total sales, 100 megawatt-hours of sales for resale, 500 megawatthours of power exchanges delivered, or 500 megawa tt-hours of wheeling for others (deliveries plus losses). FERC defines a nonmajor utility as t hose 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 not5-16 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” w as the parent entity for the utility universe. Based on this information, it was possible to characteri ze 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 pa rents, 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 provid es 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 ultim ate customers by end-use sector, by state, on a monthly basis (EIA, 2013). Annual electricity genera tion and price were combined to generate an estimate of annual revenue. Specifically, a nati onal average of 9.65 cents per kilowatt-hour, or $96.50 per megawatt-hour (December 2012) was multip lied by the total electricity generation per parent to construct annual re venue for each parent entity.

For 69 utilities, information was not availabl e 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 generato rs 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 construc tion, or planned at the time of this analysis. Because these facilities were not currently operationa l, 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 elect ricity generation was available for one facility from the 2007 EIA-923 database. No information wa s available for the remaining four facilities with no electricity generation data. However, th e utilities with missing data account for 0.4% of the NPDES utility facility universe, and are assume d not to affect the conclusions of the overall analysis. Therefore, annual revenue was estimat ed 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 pare nt 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 numbe r of utility operations per parent (derived in Section 5.7.2) to calculate th e total annualized compliance co st 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 (Tab le 5-15). Similarly, at a 7% discount rate all of the 341 small utility parent entities affected under th e proposed rule are expected to incur a cost impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (Tab le 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 pot entially affected under the proposed rule. The term “farming” includes all agricultural activiti es in the affected sectors, ranging from egg production to aquaculture. Data for these sector s are available from the USDA’s Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2007). The Census of Agricultu re 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 e xpenditures, land use a nd ownership, and pr oduction practices.5-18 28 June 2013 The readily available data on revenue and economic class 62 distributions from the Agricultural Census summarizes most of the affected 42 sub-sect ors 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 sta ndards 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 h as defined $250,000 in gross sales as its cutoff between small and large family farms (USDA, 2010a).

With two exceptions (Cattle Feedlots and Ch icken 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 defin ition of $2.5 million per year. Within the Poultry and Egg Production sector, the Chicken Egg Production s ub-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 iden tified 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 receive d from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP), or Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) plus government payments received fr om 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 1119 a 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 1125 b 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 esti mated 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 corporati on, 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 (pr esented as the sum of total market value of agricultural products sold and government paym ents) 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 revenu e, it was necessary to inflate the revenue to current dollars. The Producer Price Index (PPI) me asures 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 b ased on the PPI commodity information for farm products.

5.8.4 Identify Small Parent Entities
As mentioned above, in this analysis it was assu med that all facilities in the agricultural sectors are their own parent (i.e., single location). The di stribution of small parent entities was estimated using the Agricultural Census data on the numbe r of farms within each economic class. Farms with income of less than $10,000 were not consid ered in this analysis as it is likely that these5-20 28 June 2013 farms have alternate sources of income and ther efore 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 farm s 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 Farmin g 173 147 85% 1112 Ve g etable and Melon Farmin g 9 7 82% 1113 Fruit and Tree Nut Farmin g 10 9 90% 1114 Greenhouse, Nurser y , and Floriculture 35 29 84% 1119 a Su g arcane, Ha y , and all Other Cro p Farmin g 27 26 95% 112111 Beef Cattle Ranchin g and Farmin g 59 57 97% 112112 Cattle Feedlots 3,339 3,105 93% 112120 Dair y Cattle and Milk Production 3,208 2,502 78% 1122 Ho g and Pi g Farmin g 1,826 895 49% 112310 Chicken E gg Production 399 399 100% 112320 Broilers and Other Meat T yp e Chicken 1,512 287 19% 112330 Turke y Production 29 5 17% 112340 Poultr y Hatcheries 24 5 19% 112390 Other Poultr y Production 574 511 89% 1124 Shee p and Goat Farmin g 26 25 97% 1125 b Animal A q uaculture and other Animal Production 811 754 93% Total Number of NPDES A g ricultural 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 in cur an annualized per-facility compliance cost of $30.49 at a 3% discount rate, or $3 4.19 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 applie d 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 exp ected 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 1119 a 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 1125 b 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 agricul tural 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 1119 a 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 1125 b 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 agricul tural 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 exp ected to incur a cost impact of 1% or greater associated with the annualized compliance costs resulting from th e proposed rule. These results are summarized in Table 5-21 and Table 5-22. Based on the assu mption that facilities affected by the proposed rule but not currently in ICIS-NPDES and PCS ar e 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 agricul tural 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 agricul tural 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 Gove rnments: 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 G overnments: 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, St ate, & Local Governments: Definitions. <http://www.census.gov/govs/definitions/index.html>

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. Population Esti mates: Incorporated Places and Minor Civil Divisions: All Places: 2000 to 2009. <h ttp://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/Publi cations/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: Mark et and Industry Group Summary Federal Reserve Statistical Release: I ndustrial 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/documen ts/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 f acilitate a reduction in pollution to our nation’s waters. More timely, consistent, and accurate data will improve targ eting 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. Sp ecifically, 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 re gulated entities and EPA Regions. It will also help reduce data entry errors, which will re duce the need for processing corrections and reentering data. Additionally, improved NPDES info rmation will be available throughout the U.S. because authorized NPDES programs will be requi red 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 progr ams to manage the NPDES program more efficiently. The public will benefit through in creased access to more complete and timely NPDES information. This section discusses the benefits associ ated with operational efficiency gains that EPA, authorized NPDES programs, regulated entiti es, 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 pr ocess. Note that the savings presented in this section are the total gross savings that regulat ed 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 ma iling 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 elim inating processing of paper DMRs and permits will save state authorized NPDES programs and EPA Regions $13.8 milli on dollars and $503,000

63 annually, respectively.

6.2.2 Data Entry (NOIs, DMRs, and Program Reports) Savings
With existing paper submissions, authorized NP DES programs must manually enter information submitted by regulated entities either into their ow n 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 characteri ze 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 w ill substantially reduce the data entry costs associated with information from NOIs, DMRs, and program reports. However, authorized NPDES programs will still be responsible for enteri ng 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 $344,0 00 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 (AN CR) 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 th e 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 propo sed 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 pr ogram 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 deliv er 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, au thorized 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 effl uent discharges and the applicable limits and limit sets will be available in ICIS-NPDES for ma jor 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 da ta 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 pr ovide the public with a greater understanding of the sources of water pollution in their communiti es. 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 identif ication 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 adequa te data with which to manage authorized NPDES programs. Previously, EPA could not en sure this oversight due to insufficient information. By requiring electronic reporti ng 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 timel y and accurate. Through electronic reporting, regulated entities can be more confident that th eir 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 complia nce status are being characterized correctly. Because the electronic reporting tools will include th e 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 re gulated entities and authorized NPDES programs. Electronic reporting also improves data quality an d 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 inreal 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 ava ilable about NPDES regulated entities under the proposed rule will allow EPA and authorized NPDE S 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 monitori ng data and discharge limits. The additional information about both major and nonmajor regul ated 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-NPD ES 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 pollu tion 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 im prove the efficiency of the various NPDES subprograms. For example, bios olids 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 u sed and could integrate this information into nutrient management plans for land disposal. Si milarly, 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 th eir 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 bene fits of improved NPDES information or improved efficiency for EPA programs due to the wide ra nge of beneficiaries and the nature of the associated benefits. However, EPA has conclude d 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 complia nce by increasing the ava ilability of compliance information to all audiences, thereby incentiv izing 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 regula tory 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 submitt ed 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 NPD ES information be submitted electronically by the regulated entities; this information will be s upplemented by required information regarding NPDES implementation activities by EPA, states, te rritories, and tribes authorized to implement the NPDES program.

The projected burden and cost of the regulation ar e 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 follo wing 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. Th e implementation costs and burdens change into savings and burden reductions in two years afte r 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 res pondents 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 no tice 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 substan tial 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 Busine ss 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 an y "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 ec onomic impact on a substa ntial number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are small businesses (e.g., industrial sectors, electricity generating f acilities, 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 cons idered 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 Sec tion 2). Due to the magn itude and diversity of facilities and sectors affected by this rulemaking, it was not possible to conduct a detailed analysis of parent entity-specific impacts. B ecause small entity status is based on industrial sector, the small entity analysis required data sources where industry sector (NAICS codes) of7-3 28 June 2013 each facility could be identified. Although not a co mplete inventory of a ll 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 si gnificant 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 th at 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 impl ementation 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 th e 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 mi ght significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although this rule will impo se 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, requi re 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 expe nsive equipment, nor will it require significant training (any required training will be offered by th e 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 “mea ningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory polici es 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 powe r and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

According this Executive Order, EPA may not issu e 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 by7-4 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 defi ned as substantial direct effects on states or local governments (individually or collectively), on the relationshi p between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsib ilities among the various levels of government. However, this action will not impose substantia l direct compliance costs on state or local governments, nor will it preempt state law. Thus, th e 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 officials 65 and representatives of state and local governments 66 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 consu ltation 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 de tails of how the rule w ould be implemented.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and lo cal 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 a ppropriate organizations to ensure compliance with this executive order.



### 7.6 Executive Order 13175 – Consultati on 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 trib al 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 “elect ed 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 Citie s, Council of State Governments, International City/County Management Association, National Association of Counties, County Executives of America, and National Associati on 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 consu lt with each of these organizations.

66 “Representatives of State and lo cal governments” include non-elect ed 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 acti on 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 au thorized NPDES program, this rule will impose electronic reporting requirements on tribal fac ilities and on facilities operating on tribal lands.

EO 13175 may apply to this action, and theref ore, 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 re garding an opportunity to participate in two additional tribal outreach efforts in December 2010. Again, during these conference calls, no concerns were raised by partic ipants 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 examin e 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, becau se 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 Tr ansfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transf er 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 sta ndards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodi es. 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 mon itoring or measurement. Consistent with the Agency’s Performance Based Measurement System (“PBMS”), EPA proposes not to require the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods. Rath er, the Agency plans to allow the use of any method that meets the prescribed performance crite ria. The PBMS approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the regulat ed community; it is also intended to encourage7-6 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 con sensus 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 re gulation because it identifies and defines the major areas of enforcement and compliance information th at could be used for the exchange of data among environmental agencies and other entities. Th e purpose of the standard is to provide a common lexicon, so that information about func tionality 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 standard s which were developed by the Exchange Network Leadership Council (ENLC). The ENLC id entifies, prioritizes, and pursues the creation of data standards for those areas where informa tion exchange standards will provide the most value in achieving environmental results. The ED SC 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, Sta ndard 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 info rmation 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 info rmation such as permit name, number, type, organization or facility name and affiliation type.

Facility Site Identification Data Standard, Standard No.: EX00002 0.2, 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, Trib es 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 standa rd helps US EPA, Tribes, and States integrate and share facility information across multiple inform ation systems, programs, and governments.

Contact Information Data Standard, Sta ndard No.: EX000019.2, January 6, 2006. This data standard should be used in this re gulation because it provides information regarding the source of contact. This standard offers data groupi ngs 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, A ffiliation, and Organization. These intermediate data groupings are further defined at the elemen tal 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 info rmation. The standard provides information on the high level, intermed iate and elemental representation of date and time data groupings.

Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standa rd 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 ar e used to exchange latitude/longitude data and information. The purpose of the standard is to pr ovide 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 re gulation 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 Cl assification (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 la w, 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 program s, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the U.S.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule w ill 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 provi ded to human health or the environment.

The rule will not create any new reporting requi rements; it will simply require reports be submitted electronically, which will in turn supp ort 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 adver sely 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 Elem ents not in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127

The proposed rule will increase the number of da ta elements that authorized NPDES programs are required to enter into ICIS-NPDES from th e 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 In formation Permit Type Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Issue Date Facility Basic Permit Informat ion Permit Effective Date Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Modification/Amendment Date Facility Basic Permit Informat ion Permit Expiration Date Facility Basic Permit Information Permit Termination Date Facility Basic Permit Information Pe rmit Major/Minor Status Indicator Facility Basic Permit Information Perm it Major/Minor Status Start Date Facility Basic Permit Information Pe rmit 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 Indica tor Permit Application/NOI Received DateA-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 Indicato r 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 Indi cator Reportable Noncompliance Tracking Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indicator Applicable Effluent Li mitations Guidelines Facility Reissuance Priority Permits Indi cator 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 Informati on 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 A nnual 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 En tire Construction Project Size Facility Construction Stormwater Estima ted Construction Pr oject Start Date Facility Construction Stormwater Esti mated Construction Project End Date Facility Construction Stormwater Low Erosivity Waiver Date Facility Industrial Stormwater To tal 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 DischargesA-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 Goal s 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 Co mpliance Monitoring Program Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Pretr eatment Program Required Indicator Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Pret reatment 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 Signi ficant Industrial User Address Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Si gnificant Industrial User City Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Signi ficant Industrial User State Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Signi ficant Industrial User Zip Code Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Significant Industrial User Subject to Local Limits

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Significant Industrial User S ubject to Local Limits More Stringent Than Categorical Standards Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Industrial User Subject to Ca tegorical Standards Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Applicable Categorical Standards Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Significant Indus trial User Process Wastewater Flow Rate Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Type of Signific ant Industrial User Process Wastewater Flow Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Significant Industr ial User Non-Process Wastewater Flow Rate

Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Type of Significant Industrial User Non-Process Wastewater Flow Facility Pretreatment & SIUs Industr ial 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 Contro l Authority NPDES Permit Number Facility Cooling Water Type of FacilityA-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 Aver age 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 In take 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 Construc tion 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 Elem ents 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 Element s Permitted Feature Latitude Facility Permit Data Elements Permitt ed 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 Permitt ed 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 DateA-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 Compli ance Monitoring Activity Compliance M onitoring Activity Actual End Date Compliance Monitoring Activity Compli ance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Planned End Date Compliance Monitoring Activity Co mpliance Monitoring Activity Comp liance Monitoring Activity State Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activi ty 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 Co mpliance Monitoring Activity Co mpliance Monitoring Action Reason Compliance Monitoring Activity Co mpliance Monitoring Activity Was this a State, Federal or Joint (State/Federal) Inspection? Compliance Monitoring Activity Co mpliance Monitoring Activity Co mpliance Monitoring Agency Type Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activi ty Law Sections Violated

Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Monitoring Activity - Biosolids Deficiencies Identified Through the Biosolids Inspection
Compliance Monitoring Activi ty CAFO Animal Type Compliance Monitoring Activity CA FO 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 CA FO Containment Total Capacity Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO CAFO Designation Date Compliance Monitoring Activi ty 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 CA FO 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 CA FO Mortality Disposal Method Compliance Monitoring Activity CAFO Monitoring Well Data Availability Compliance Monitoring Acti vity CAFO Storage Type Compliance Monitoring Activity CA FO Storage Total Capacity Measure Compliance Monitoring Activity C SS & SSS Sewer Overflow Longitude Compliance Monitoring Activity CSS & SSS Sewer Overflow LatitudeA-6 28 June 2013 Table A-1: Appendix A to 40 CFR 127

Area Sub-Area Data Element Name Compliance Monitoring Activity C SS & SSS Type of Sewer Overflow Compliance Monitoring Activity CSS & SSS Sewer Overflow Cause Compliance Monitoring Activity CSS & SSS Du ration 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 Si te 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 Dis position 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 Du ring Year from Production Area Program Reports CAFOs Discovery Date s of Discharges from Production AreaA-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 Volu me of Discharges from Production Area Program Reports CAFOs Whether NMP Appr oved 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 Re cent Technical Evaluation & or Local Limits Program Reports Pretreatment Local Limits Pollutants Program Reports Pretreatment POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator (Program Report) Program Reports Pretreatment POTW Biosolid s Contamination Indicator (Program Report) Program Reports Pretreatment Remo val Credits Application Status Program Reports Pretreatment Date of Most Recent Removal Credits Approval Program Reports Pretreatment Removal Credits Pollutants Program Reports Pretreatment Industr ial User Name (Program Report) Program Reports Pretreatment Industr ial User Address (Program Report) Program Reports Pretreatment Industr ial User City (Program Report) Program Reports Pretreatment Industr ial User State (Program Report) Program Reports Pretreatment Industr ial User Zip Code (Program Report) Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User SIU Flag Program Reports Pretreatment Indus trial User Control Mechanism Flag Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial Us er 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 Limi ts (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 Administrati ve Orders Issued to IUs (Program Report) Program Reports Pretreatment Civil Suit s Filed Against IUs (Program Report) Program Reports Pretreatment Criminal Su its 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 Dischar ge Contamination Indicator (Program Report)

Program Reports Pretreatment Industrial User Biosolids Cont amination 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 Indus trial User Removal Credits Flag Program Reports Pretreatment Industr ial 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 Ov erflow (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 ev ent (hours) (Sewer Overflow Event Report)

Program Reports CSS and SSS Sewer Overflow Discharge Volu me (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 W eather 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 Ac tion 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 Enforcem ent Action Violation Code Enforcement Action Enforcem ent Action Violation DateA-9 28 June 2013 Table A-1: Appendix A to 40 CFR 127

Area Sub-Area Data Element Name Enforcement Action Final Or ders Final Order Type Enforcement Action Final Orders Violation Code Enforcement Action Final Orders Violation Date Enforcement Action Final Orders Fi nal Order Issued/ Entered Date Enforcement Action Penalty Cash Civil Penalty Amount Assessed Enforcement Action Penalty Cash Civil Penalty Amount Collected Enforcement Action Compliance Sc hedule Compliance Schedule Number Enforcement Action Complianc e Schedule Schedule Descriptor Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule Schedule (Start) Date Enforcement Action Compli ance Schedule Actual Date Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule Report Received Date Enforcement Action Compli ance Schedule Schedule Event Enforcement Action Compliance Schedul e Milestones/ Sub-activities Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule Sub Activity Type Enforcement Action Compli ance 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 Complianc e Monitoring Activity Federal Statute Compliance Monitoring Activity Comp liance Monitoring Activity Programs Compliance Monitoring Activity Co mpliance Monitoring Activity Comp liance Monitoring Activity Name Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Schedule Frequency Compliance Monitoring Activity Compliance Schedule Number of Occurrences or End DateB-1 28 June 2013 

## Appendix B – List of States by Data Entry Type

There are three different methods state authori zed NPDES programs utilize to submit data into ICIS-NPDES or PCS: Direct Entry, Batch Up load 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-N PDES or PCS systems periodically.

Table B-1 lists each state, tribe, and territo ry with its associated data entry type.

Table B-1: States by Data Entry Type

State Data Entry Type

AL Batch AK Direct AS a Direct AZ Batch AR Hybrid AT a Direct CA Direct CO Direct CM a Direct CT Direct CZ a Direct DE Batch DC Direct FL Batch GA Direct GE a Direct GU a Direct GM a 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 NN b DirectB-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 PR a Direct RI Direct SC Direct SD Direct SR b Direct TN Batch TT a Direct TX Hybrid UT Direct VT Batch VI a 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). Specifical ly, the time required of state personnel to enter NPDES data elements, as collected in the att ached 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 cove red 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 a nd the environment, the EPA has expanded the information collected for NPDES. Under the pr oposed 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 Opera tion (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 Nationa l 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, Ta ble 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 re quired 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 w ill be required for data entry.

The following sections are organized by data elem ent families. Please answ er the questions below to the best of your ability.C-2 28 June 2013 Facility Data Element Family
The Facility Data Element Family generally incl udes data elements such as name and address of the facility, and contact name. Several pieces of fa cility 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 informa tion 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 Contac ts Affiliation type Non Government Contacts Individual Title

What is the average amount of time your state would spend enter ing 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 incl udes 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. Da ta elements like DMR non-receipt tracking flags, RNC tracking flags, and applicable effluent guide lines 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 cod es. Under the WENDB requirements, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes were used to designate a facility’s industrial sector. Since then, the North American Industrial Classificati on System (NAICS) has been adopted to more accurately represent commercial activities. These ch anges 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 e ffectively measure the environmental impact ofC-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 disch arges 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 b een 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 fo r 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 ApplicableC-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 QualifierC-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 informa tion associated with inspections such as inspection type, information characterizing the NPDES facility , and dates associated with the inspection.

New compliance monitoring activity data elemen ts have been added to allow EPA to track compliance monitoring activities and monitor ac tivities 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 la titude 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 ApplicableC-6 28 June 2013 Table C-6: New Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Elements

Sub-Area Data Element Name Basic Info Compliance Monito ring 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 includ es self-monitoring effluent data provided by NPDES facilities. This new information is require d to assist EPA with the review of effluent discharges. A new data element has been added fo r concentration and quantity units which can be used by EPA to interpret reported effluent values. Several other data elemen ts 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 Facilit y 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 Ce rtify 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 ge nerally includes program reports submitted for NPDES subprograms such as CAFOS, CSOs, and a pproved local pretreatment facilities. These data elements include locational information such as latitude and longitude for CSOs that improve the Agency’s understanding of wh ere 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 ApplicableC-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 Ye ar 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 fo r 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 gene rally 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 enforcemen t actions. This data element enables EPA to improve its data manage ment 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 Rela ted to Other State Activities

In this section, EPA requests information on ot her activities that states undertake to provide NPDES data.

Note: Please use the following information to conve rt 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 (assu ming a 40 hour work week with 30 days in each month)

1 month every year equals 0.08 FTEs (assu ming 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 qu arterly 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 tim e 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 tim e (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 quarter ly 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 qua rterly 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 possibl y 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 author ized NPDES program from EPA.

Batch data entry Batch data entry in ICIS-NPDES is the transmis sion of eXtensible Mar kup 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 entr y by key punching, often in the case where the State, Tribe or EPA Region is using PCS or ICIS-NPDES as thei r 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 ma nually 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 manua lly 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 availabilit y of eDMR (electronic DMR) tools, such as NetDMR.

ICIS The acronym ICIS stands for the Integrated Co mpliance Information System, developed by EPA to serve as a national multi-media data system.

Major A major facility is defined as follows: a major m unicipal 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, po llutant 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 “m inor” 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 ava ilable to users to track program-specific data on Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), Co mbined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), Pretreatment, Bioso lids, 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 viol ations 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 in clude storm water runoff from industrial and municipal sectors, discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and overflows from combined and sanitary sewer system s (CSOs, SSOs, bypass events). Such sources have been a program priority for EPA’s en forcement and compliance program since 1998.