[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46005-46116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17551]



[[Page 46005]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 146

July 30, 2013

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 40 CFR Parts 122,123,127, et al.





 NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 46006]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 127, 403, 501, and 503

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274; FRL 9818-9]
RIN 2020-AA47


NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a regulation that would require electronic 
reporting for current paper-based NPDES reports. This action will save 
time and resources for permittees, states, tribes, territories, and EPA 
while improving compliance and providing better protection of the 
Nation's waters. The proposed Clean Water Act regulation would require 
permittees and regulators to use existing, available information 
technology to electronically report information and data related to the 
NPDES permit program in lieu of filing written reports. The proposal 
will also allow better allocation and use of limited program resources 
and enhance transparency and public accountability by providing 
regulatory agencies and the public with more timely, complete, 
accurate, and nationally-consistent sets of data about the NPDES 
program and potential sources of water pollution. The benefits of this 
proposed rulemaking should allow NPDES-authorized programs in states, 
tribes, and territories to shift precious resources from data 
management activities to those more targeted to solving water quality 
and noncompliance issues. This in turn may contribute to increased 
compliance, improved water quality, and a level playing field for the 
regulated community.
    Given the large scope of this proposal, EPA commits to offer an 
additional opportunity for transparency and engagement by publishing a 
supplemental notice should we receive comments on the proposed rule 
that require significant changes. States, tribes, territories, 
permittees, and other stakeholders can review and comment on the 
supplemental notice. EPA plans to publish the supplemental notice 
within 180 days after the public comment period for this proposed rule 
has closed.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received on or before 
October 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0274 by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov: 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: docket.oeca@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OECA-2009-0274.
     Mail: Send the original and three copies of your comments 
to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 
Enforcement and Compliance Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2009-0274. In addition, if applicable, please mail a copy of your 
comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 
20503.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, 
EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC, 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the EPA Docket Center's normal 
hours of operation and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2009-0274. EPA's policy is that all comments received by the deadline 
will be included in the public docket without charge, and may be made 
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for 
which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it within the body 
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment, and, if 
applicable, with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket, please visit the EPA Docket 
Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, 
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard-
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard-copy at the 
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 
20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 
for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number 
for the Docket for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 
(OECA) is (202) 566-1752. Docket visitors are required to show 
photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign 
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray 
machine and are subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA 
visitor's badge that must be visible at all times in the building and 
returned upon departure. The ``User Guide to the Docket for the NPDES 
Electronic Reporting Rule [DCN 0010]'' is document that provides easy 
to follow instructions on how to access documents through 
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, please 
contact John Dombrowski, Director, Enforcement Targeting and Data 
Division, Office of Compliance (mail code 2222A), Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 566-0742; email address: 
dombrowski.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

How is this document organized?

    The outline of this notice follows the following format:

I. General Information
II. Background

[[Page 46007]]

III. Purpose and Needs
IV. Discussion of Key Features of This Rule
V. Matters for Which Comments Are Sought
VI. Outreach
VII. Non-Monetary Benefits and Economic Analysis
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic Reporting 
Rule. The proposed rule would substitute electronic reporting for 
paper-based reports, and over the long term save time and resources for 
permittees, states, tribes, territories, and EPA while improving 
compliance and better protecting the Nation's waters. The proposed rule 
would require permittees and regulators to use existing, available 
information technology to electronically report information and data 
related to the NPDES permit program in lieu of filing written reports.
    The purpose and need for the proposed rule was re-confirmed in the 
development of the Clean Water Act Action Plan. Announced by EPA 
Administrator Lisa Jackson in October 2009, the Plan was a 
collaborative effort by EPA and state environmental agencies to explore 
opportunities to improve water quality by emphasizing and adopting new 
approaches that will improve how the NPDES permitting and enforcement 
program is administered. The goals of the Plan include improving 
transparency of the information on compliance and enforcement 
activities in each state, connecting this information to local water 
quality, and providing the public with real-time, easy access to this 
information. The proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule would make 
achievement of these goals possible through the use of available 
technology to electronically report facility locational and operational 
data, and discharge, monitoring, compliance, and enforcement data.
    Historically, EPA and NPDES-authorized states have focused on the 
largest or ``major'' facilities as a way of prioritizing resources for 
permitting, enforcement and data reporting to EPA. Over time, there has 
been a growing recognition that other sources also impact water 
quality. Storm water discharges, concentrated animal feeding 
operations, mines, and raw sanitary sewage overflows are all 
significant contributors to water quality impairment but are not 
currently considered ``major'' facilities under the NPDES program. The 
proposed rule improves data quality for major and nonmajor facilities, 
thereby providing the states, tribes, territories, and EPA with more 
complete and comparable data on a substantial majority of NPDES 
permittees, and allowing targeted action to address the biggest water 
quality problems.
    EPA is proposing this rule under CWA sections 101(f), 304(i), 308, 
402, and 501. EPA notes that the Congressional Declaration of goals and 
policy of the CWA specifies, in CWA section 101(f), ``It is the 
national policy that to the maximum extent possible the procedures 
utilized for implementing this chapter shall encourage the drastic 
minimization of paperwork and interagency decision procedures, and the 
best use of available manpower and funds, so as to prevent needless 
duplication and unnecessary delays at all levels of government.''
    Implementation of information technology that is now a common part 
daily life is an important step toward reaching these aspirations for 
implementation of the CWA. EPA is proposing this rule under the 
authority of CWA section 304(i) that authorizes EPA to establish 
minimum procedural and other elements of State programs under section 
402, including reporting requirements and procedures to make 
information available to the public. In addition, EPA is proposing this 
rule under section 308 of the CWA. Section 308 of the CWA authorizes 
EPA to require information to carry out the objectives of the Act, 
including sections 301, 305, 306, 307, 311, 402, 404, 405, and 504. 
Section 402 of the CWA establishes the NPDES permit program for the 
control of the discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters. EPA is 
proposing this rule under CWA sections 402(b) and (c), which require 
each authorized state, tribe, or territory to ensure that permits meet 
certain substantive requirements, and provide EPA information from 
point sources, industrial users, and authorized programs in order to 
ensure proper oversight. Finally, EPA is proposing to issue this rule 
under the authority of section 501 of the Act, authorizing EPA to 
prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out provisions of 
the Act.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions
    This proposed rule would require that reports submitted in writing 
now (i.e., Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), Notices of Intent to 
discharge in compliance with a general permit, other general permit 
waivers, certifications, and notices of termination of coverage, and 
program reports) be submitted electronically by NPDES-permitted 
facilities to EPA through the National Environmental Information 
Exchange Network or to the authorized state, tribe, or territory NPDES 
program. Importantly, while the proposed rule changes the method by 
which information on NPDES notices of intent for coverage under general 
permits, facility discharges, monitoring of compliance, facility 
reports, and enforcement responses is provided (i.e., electronic rather 
than paper-based), it does not increase the amount of information 
required from NPDES-permitted facilities under existing regulations.
    States, tribes, and territories that are authorized to implement 
the NPDES program are the sources of certain key information regarding 
the regulated facilities. For example, states have facility information 
from NPDES permit applications, permit information including outfalls, 
limits, and permit conditions, compliance determination information 
including that from inspections, and enforcement response information. 
Under this regulation, NPDES permitting authorities are required to 
share this information electronically with EPA.
    To promote transparency and accountability, EPA intends to make 
this more complete set of data available to the public, providing 
communities and citizens with easily accessible information on facility 
and government performance. Such data provides a powerful incentive to 
improve performance by giving government, permittees, and the public 
ready access to compliance information. This can serve to elevate the 
importance of compliance information and environmental performance 
within regulated entities, providing opportunity for them to quickly 
address any noncompliance. It opens the opportunity for two-way 
communication between authorized NPDES programs or EPA and regulated 
facilities to immediately address data quality issues and to provide 
compliance assistance or take other action when potential problems are 
identified. Complete and accurate data also will allow EPA to compare 
performance across authorized programs.
    Key provisions of this proposed rule are identified in the 
implementation schedule in Table IV.3 of the preamble. These include 
the preliminary indication of the anticipated initial recipient of the 
NPDES program data,

[[Page 46008]]

NPDES information submission from states, tribes, and territories 
regarding their implementation activities, program and permit changes, 
and NPDES information submission electronically from regulated 
facilities for their discharge monitoring reports, notices of intent, 
general permit waivers, certifications, or notices of termination, and 
program reports.
    Given the large scope of this proposal, EPA commits to offer an 
additional opportunity for transparency and engagement by publishing a 
supplemental notice should we receive comments on the proposed rule 
that require significant changes. EPA plans to publish the supplemental 
notice within 180 days after the public comment period for this 
proposed rule has closed.
3. Costs and Benefits
    To fully implement this regulation, there will be initial 
investment costs associated with needed changes to information 
technology and infrastructure. EPA plans to develop NPDES electronic 
reporting tools, or states may choose to devote their resources to 
develop their own such tools while meeting the regulatory requirements 
of 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. EPA is committed 
to working with the states, tribes, and territories to develop their 
electronic databases and capabilities in a cost-effective manner.
    The cost of implementing the proposed rule in the first four years 
after the effective date is approximately $50.6 million. The cost is 
estimated to drop to $2.9 million per year after that time period, when 
all regulated facilities will be converted to electronic reporting. 
However, two years after rule promulgation, annual savings greatly 
outweigh annual costs, by approximately $29 million per year.
    EPA anticipates that the proposed rule will save money for states, 
tribes, and territories as well as EPA and NPDES permittees, while 
resulting in a more complete, accurate, and nationally-consistent set 
of data about the NPDES program. By the fifth year of implementation, 
the anticipated savings for the states is $28.9 million annually; for 
the permittees, $1.2 million annually; and for EPA, $0.7 million 
annually.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY13.000

    The electronic submittal of data may result in improved water 
quality and will result in significant cost savings for the states, as 
well as savings for the permittees, tribes and EPA, when the rule is 
fully implemented. The proposal will also reduce the reporting burden 
currently borne by the states, improve overall facility compliance, 
allow better allocation and use of limited program resources, and 
enhance transparency and public accountability by providing the public 
with timely information on potential sources of water pollution.
    Other anticipated benefits for the proposed rule include 
efficiencies and reduced costs of processing paper forms, improved 
quality and accuracy of the data available to regulatory agencies and 
the public, more timely and expanded use of the data to identify, 
target, and address problems, quicker availability of the data for use, 
and increased accessibility and transparency of the

[[Page 46009]]

data to the public. These benefits should allow NPDES-authorized 
programs in states, tribes, and territories to shift precious resources 
from data management activities to those more targeted to solving water 
quality and noncompliance issues. This in turn may contribute to 
increased compliance, improved water quality, and a level playing field 
for the regulated community.
    The proposed rule will also lighten the reporting burden currently 
placed on the states. Upon successful implementation, the proposed rule 
would provide states with regulatory relief from reporting associated 
with the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR), the Annual Non-
Compliance Report (ANCR), the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report, 
and the biosolids information required to be submitted to EPA annually 
by states.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action would include all 
NPDES-permitted facilities, whether covered by an individually-issued 
permit or by a general permit, industrial users located in cities 
without approved local pretreatment programs, and governmental entities 
that have received NPDES program authorization or are implementing 
portions of the NPDES program in a cooperative agreement with EPA. 
These entities would include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPDES-permitted facilities.............  Publicly-owned treatment works
                                          (POTW) facilities, treatment
                                          works treating domestic sewage
                                          (TWTDS), municipalities,
                                          counties, stormwater
                                          management districts, state-
                                          operated facilities, Federally-
                                          operated facilities,
                                          industrial facilities,
                                          construction sites, and
                                          concentrated animal feeding
                                          operations (CAFOs).
Facilities seeking coverage under NPDES  Stormwater management
 general permits.                         districts, construction sites,
                                          CAFOs, publicly-owned
                                          treatment works (POTW),
                                          treatment works treating
                                          domestic sewage (TWTDS),
                                          municipalities, counties,
                                          stormwater management
                                          districts, and state-operated
                                          facilities.
Industrial users located in cities       Industrial facilities
 without approved local pretreatment      discharging to POTWs and for
 programs.                                which the designated
                                          pretreatment Control Authority
                                          is EPA or the authorized
                                          state, tribe, or territory
                                          rather than an approved local
                                          pretreatment program.
State and territorial government.......  States and territories that
                                          have received NPDES program
                                          authorization from EPA, that
                                          are implementing portions of
                                          the NPDES program in a
                                          cooperative agreement with
                                          EPA, or that operate NPDES-
                                          permitted facilities.
Tribal government......................  Tribes that have received NPDES
                                          program authorization from
                                          EPA, that are implementing
                                          portions of the NPDES program
                                          in a cooperative agreement
                                          with EPA, or that operate
                                          NPDES-permitted facilities.
Federal government.....................  Federal facilities with a NPDES
                                          permit and EPA Regional
                                          Offices acting for those
                                          states, tribes, and
                                          territories that do not have
                                          NPDES program authorization or
                                          that do not have program
                                          authorization for a particular
                                          NPDES subprogram (e.g.,
                                          biosolids or pretreatment).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but rather 
provides readers with some examples of the types of entities likely to 
be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this 
table may also be regulated.

C. What should I consider as I prepare comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful when preparing your 
comments to EPA on this preamble and proposed rule:
     To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 
docket identification number (found in the ADDRESSES section of this 
Federal Register notice) in the subject line on the first page of your 
comments or response.
     To help ensure that your submission is routed correctly, 
on the first page of your submission, provide the name of the proposed 
rule; date of the Federal Register notice; and the Federal Register 
citation (e.g., ------ [volume number] FR ------ [page number]) related 
to your comments or response.
     Clearly identify those sections of the preamble or the 
proposed rule on which you are commenting.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, and explain your views 
as clearly as possible.
     Describe clearly any assumptions that you used as a basis 
for your comments.
     Provide any technical information and/or data that you 
used to support your views.
     If you provide any estimate of potential economic burdens 
or costs, please carefully consider the information provided in the 
preamble to this proposed rule, particularly in Sections VII (Non-
Monetary Benefits and Economic Analysis), VIII.A (Regulatory Planning 
and Review), VIII.C (Regulatory Flexibility Act), and IV.D (Data 
Considerations), and provide detailed explanations of how you arrived 
at your estimate.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your comments or 
concerns.
     Clearly identify preferred options and, if applicable, 
offer feasible alternatives that will effectively meet the same goals.
    Submit your comments as directed in the Addresses section of this 
Federal Register notice before the comment period deadline identified 
in the DATES section of this notice.

II. Background

A. Definitions

    Approval Authority: The Approval Authority is responsible for 
authorizing and overseeing approved local pretreatment programs and is 
defined in 40 CFR 403.3(c) as the: ``Director in an NPDES State with an 
approved State pretreatment program and the appropriate Regional 
Administrator in a non-NPDES State or NPDES State without an approved 
State pretreatment program.''
    Authorized state, tribe, or territory: Authorized states, tribes, 
and territories (``authorized states'' or ``authorized programs'') are 
governmental entities that have applied for and received authorization 
from EPA to issue permits, implement, and enforce the NPDES program. 
EPA authorizes state,

[[Page 46010]]

tribal, or territorial NPDES programs to administer NPDES programs 
under state, tribal, or territorial law after EPA determines that the 
state, tribal, or territorial program meets the requirements of CWA 
section 402(b) and conforms with NPDES program regulations at 40 CFR 
part 123 issued by EPA under CWA section 304(i)(2). Some states are 
authorized to implement the basic NPDES program but have not received 
authorization to implement other NPDES subprograms (e.g., pretreatment, 
biosolids programs). See the following EPA Web page for a listing of 
authorized NPDES programs: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestribes/astatus.cfm.
    Batch data entry: The electronic transfer of large amounts of data 
from one location (such as a state database) to another data system in 
a format compatible with the recipient data system. In more technical 
terminology as it applies to this proposed rule, batch data entry in 
the NPDES part of the Integrated Compliance System (ICIS-NPDES) is the 
transmission of eXtensible Markup Language (XML) data files through a 
Central Data Exchange (CDX). In the Permit Compliance System (PCS), 
defined below, batch data entry occurred via upload of fixed format 
data files to the mainframe.
    Biosolids: The organic materials (sewage sludge) resulting as a 
byproduct from the treatment of domestic and industrial sewage in a 
municipal wastewater treatment facility. Sewage sludge is defined in 
more detail at 40 CFR 503.9(w). As defined in the NPDES program, the 
relevant biosolids (sewage sludge) regulations are contained in 40 CFR 
part 501 (State Sludge Management Program Regulations) and in 40 CFR 
part 503 (Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge). The key 
NPDES-permitted facilities covered under the biosolids requirements are 
generally referred to as Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage 
(TWTDS).
    Category I noncompliance: Under 40 CFR 123.45 (a)(2)(ii), the 
following instances of noncompliance by major dischargers are 
considered Category I noncompliance: (1) Violations of conditions in 
enforcement orders (except compliance schedules and reports); (2) 
violations of compliance schedule milestones for starting construction, 
completing construction, and attaining final compliance by 90 days or 
more from the date of the milestone specified in an enforcement order 
or a permit; (3) violations of permit effluent limits that exceed those 
specified in Appendix A to 40 CFR 123.45 ``Criteria for Noncompliance 
Reporting in the NPDES Program;'' and (4) failure to provide a 
compliance schedule report for final compliance or a monitoring report.
    Combined sewer overflow (CSO): This is a discharge from a combined 
sewer system at a point prior to the POTW [as defined in 40 CFR 
403.3(p)]. CSOs are point sources subject to NPDES permit requirements 
including both technology-based and water-quality-based requirements of 
the CWA. CSOs are sewage overflows from sewer systems otherwise 
conveying domestic waste, industrial waste, debris, and stormwater to 
the municipal wastewater treatment plant for treatment. During periods 
of heavy rainfall or snowmelt, these combined sewer systems (CSSs), 
numbering fewer than 800 in the nation, can overflow at various points 
in the sewage system, discharging a combination of untreated sewage, 
industrial waste, and stormwater into nearby water bodies.
    Control Authority: The Control Authority is responsible for 
overseeing compliance by Industrial Users of municipal sewer systems 
and is defined in 40 CFR 403.3(f) as the POTW if the POTW's 
Pretreatment Program Submission has been approved in accordance with 
the requirements of Sec.  403.11; or the Approval Authority if the 
Submission has not been approved.
    Core data: The subgroup of critical, and therefore required, NPDES 
information associated with facility, permit, compliance monitoring, 
and enforcement data types common to all NPDES-regulated facilities. 
Other ``non-core'' information specific to NPDES subprograms (such as 
concentrated animal feeding operations, stormwater, biosolids, 
pretreatment, sewer overflows, etc.) would also be required to be 
submitted electronically under the proposed rule.
    Data element: A specific field or column where data is entered into 
the national NPDES data systems, ICIS-NPDES, or PCS. For example, the 
NPDES permit number is a data element.
    Direct data entry: Entry of data by use of a keyboard into a 
recipient data system. For example, when a state or EPA regional office 
uses PCS or ICIS-NPDES as its primary NPDES program management system, 
employees enter data directly into that data system.
    Direct user state: An authorized state which uses or will be using 
ICIS-NPDES to manage the NPDES program rather than using a state-
designed data system. Direct users enter data into ICIS-NPDES using 
their computer keyboard and a web browser. All states that had formerly 
been direct users of PCS have had their data migrated to ICIS-NPDES.
    Director: This term generally refers to the NPDES permitting 
authority. As defined in 40 CFR 122.2, ``the Regional Administrator or 
the State Director, as the context requires, or an authorized 
representative'' (additional circumstances are also described in that 
definition). As defined in 40 CFR 403.3(g), ``the term Director means 
the chief administrative officer of a State or Interstate water 
pollution control agency with an NPDES permit program approved pursuant 
to section 402(b) of the Act and an approved State pretreatment 
program.''
    Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR): As defined in 40 CFR 122.2, a 
Discharge Monitoring Report ``means the EPA uniform national form, 
including any subsequent additions, revisions, or modifications for the 
reporting of self-monitoring results by permittees.'' The term ``eDMR'' 
refers to a DMR that is electronically submitted by a NPDES-regulated 
facility.
    Effluent limitation: Defined in 40 CFR 122.2 and CWA section 
502(11) as ``any restriction imposed by the Director on quantities, 
discharge rates, and concentrations of pollutants which are discharged 
from point sources into waters of the United States, the waters of the 
contiguous zone, or the ocean.''
    ICIS-NPDES: The Integrated Compliance Information System for the 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program (ICIS-NPDES) is 
one of EPA's two existing NPDES national data systems, designed as an 
effort to modernize and eventually replace its predecessor system, the 
Permit Compliance System (PCS). The ICIS-NPDES system is currently 
operational and, as of December 2012, contains NPDES information for 
all 50 states, 10 EPA regions, 19 territories, and 2 tribes. All States 
have had their NPDES data migrated from PCS into ICIS-NPDES. EPA plans 
to decommission PCS by the third quarter of the federal fiscal year 
2013 (April-June 2013).
    Major facility: According to the definition at 40 CFR 122.2, a 
major facility means ``any NPDES `facility or activity' classified as 
such by the Regional Administrator, or, in the case of `approved State 
programs,' the Regional Administrator in conjunction with the State 
Director.'' For a municipal facility, a major facility has a design 
flow of 1 million gallons per day or more, a service population of 
10,000 or greater, or a significant impact on water quality; industrial 
facilities are considered major facilities based on a

[[Page 46011]]

rating system that allocates points against various factors including 
flow, pollutant loadings, and water quality factors.
    NetDMR: A nationally-available electronic reporting tool, initially 
designed by states and later adapted for national use by EPA, which can 
be used by NPDES-regulated facilities to submit discharge monitoring 
reports (DMRs) electronically to EPA through a secure Internet 
application over the National Environmental Information Exchange 
Network (NEIEN). EPA can then share this information with authorized 
states, tribes, and territories.
    Non-direct user state: An authorized state that uses a software 
system other than ICIS-NPDES to manage the NPDES program. These states 
also submit data to ICIS-NPDES to satisfy national reporting 
responsibilities. These users are expected to rely heavily on 
electronic transfer (batch) using EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) and 
the NEIEN to submit information to EPA from an existing state data 
system.
    Nonmajor facility: A facility in the universe of facilities 
regulated under the NPDES program that does not fall under the 
definition of ``major facilities.'' Nonmajor facilities may also be 
referred to as minor facilities.
    NPDES: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program. 
According to the definition at 40 CFR 122.2 and CWA section 402, this 
is ``the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking and 
reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing 
and enforcing pretreatment requirements . . . .'' Under this system, 
wastewater dischargers must apply to the permitting authority (i.e., 
EPA or authorized states, tribes, or territories) for a permit to 
discharge pollutants to U.S. waters; these permits contain specific 
conditions, reporting requirements, and possibly monitoring 
requirements and applicable numeric or non-numeric limits for 
particular pollutants.
    Permit Compliance System (PCS): PCS was EPA's NPDES national data 
system from 1982 to December 2012. NPDES program data for all 50 
states, 10 EPA Regions, 19 territories, and 2 tribes is now available 
in EPA's newer NPDES national data system, ICIS-NPDES. EPA plans to 
decommission PCS by the third quarter of the federal fiscal year 2013 
(April-June 2013).
    Permit component: A group of ICIS-NPDES data elements which are 
specific to a permit for a particular type of facility or NPDES 
subprogram [e.g., CAFOs, pretreatment, CSOs, Sanitary Sewer Overflows 
(SSOs), biosolids, or municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)]. 
For example, for a permitted facility that is a concentrated animal 
feeding operation (CAFO), the permit component would be a CAFO and 
would include several permit data elements specific to CAFOs, such as 
the type and number of animals at the facility.
    Point source: According to the definition at 40 CFR 122.2 and CWA 
section 502(14), any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, 
including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, 
well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal 
feeding operation, vessel, or other floating craft from which 
pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include 
agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated 
agriculture.
    Pretreatment: The National Pretreatment Program requires industrial 
and commercial dischargers to treat or otherwise control the pollutant 
levels in their wastewater prior to their discharge, usually to a POTW 
or discharge to treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDS). 
Pretreatment, as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(q), ``means the reduction of 
the amount of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant 
properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu of discharging or 
otherwise introducing such pollutants into a POTW.'' Sewage Sludge: 
Under CWA section 405 and EPA regulations at 40 CFR 503.9(w), sewage 
sludge means any solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during 
the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage sludge 
includes, but is not limited to, solids removed during primary, 
secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment, scum, septage, portable 
toilet pumpings, Type III Marine Sanitation device pumpings (33 CFR 
part 59), and material derived from sewage sludge. Sewage sludge does 
not include ash generated during the incineration of sewage sludge or 
grit and screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic 
sewage in a treatment works.
    Single event violation: A violation of an NPDES permit or 
regulatory requirement that is observed or determined by the regulatory 
authority, and is distinct from violations that are identified by the 
data system through comparison of information. Examples of single event 
violations include an unauthorized bypass or discharge, a violation 
detected during an inspection, a narrative requirement of the permit 
not met but reported on a DMR, or a pretreatment implementation 
violation. Note: Effluent limit violations identified from DMR 
submission or compliance schedule violations could be examples of 
system-identified violations, as opposed to single event violations.
    System-required data: Key data that must be entered into PCS or 
ICIS-NPDES in order to submit additional information, create a record, 
or proceed to the next data entry screen.
    Treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDS): TWTDSs include 
POTWs that discharge to surface waters and ``sludge-only'' facilities. 
``Sludge-only'' facilities include POTWs that do not discharge their 
effluent stream to surface waters, but which do in many cases receive 
discharges from industrial users and other sewage sludge preparers, 
such as composting operations, which do not produce an effluent stream.
    Wet weather point sources: Point sources that discharge as a result 
of precipitation events, such as rainfall or snowmelt. Wet weather 
point sources include stormwater discharges from industrial and 
municipal sites, discharges from CAFOs, bypasses, and overflows from 
CSSs and sanitary sewer systems (SSSs).

B. Acronyms

ACWA Association of Clean Water Administrators [formerly known as 
Association of Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA)]
ANCR Annual Noncompliance Report
BMP Best Management Practice
CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
CDX Central Data Exchange
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGP Construction General Permit
CMS Compliance Monitoring Strategy (October 17, 2007)
CROMERR Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CSS Combined Sewer System
CWA Clean Water Act
DMR Discharge Monitoring Report
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
ECOS Environmental Council of the States
eDMR Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report
EMS Enforcement Management System
ENLC Exchange Network Leadership Council
eNOI Electronic Notice of Intent
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act
FY Fiscal Year (Federal)
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
ICR Information Collection Request

[[Page 46012]]

IU Industrial User
LEW Low Erosivity Waiver
MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NEC No Exposure Certification
NEIEN National Environmental Information Exchange Network
NetDMR Net-based Discharge Monitoring Report
NNCR NPDES Noncompliance Report
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OECA EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PCS Permit Compliance System
PIN Personal Identification Number
POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
QA/QC Quality Assurance, Quality Control
QNCR Quarterly Noncompliance Report
RNC Reportable Noncompliance (according to EPA policy and guidance)
SEV Single Event Violation
SNC Significant Noncompliance (according to EPA policy and guidance)
SSL Secure Socket Layer
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SSS Sanitary Sewer System
TLS Transport Layer Security
TWTDS Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage
VGP Vessel General Permit
WENDB Water Enforcement National Data Base
XML eXtensible Markup Language

C. The Clean Water Act

    The 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) and subsequent 
amendments are now commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA). 
The CWA establishes a comprehensive program for protecting and 
restoring our nation's waters. The CWA established the national 
pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit program to 
authorize and control the discharges of pollutants to waters of the 
United States (CWA section 402(a)). This proposed electronic reporting 
rule, which is intended to reduce resource burdens associated with the 
paper-based system and increase the speed, quality, and scope of 
information received by EPA, the states, tribes, territories, and the 
public, echoes the goals of CWA section 101(f).
    EPA is proposing this rule under CWA sections 101(f), 304(i), 308, 
402, and 501. EPA notes that the Congressional Declaration of goals and 
policy of the CWA specifies, in CWA section 101(f), ``It is the 
national policy that to the maximum extent possible the procedures 
utilized for implementing this chapter shall encourage the drastic 
minimization of paperwork and interagency decision procedures, and the 
best use of available manpower and funds, so as to prevent needless 
duplication and unnecessary delays at all levels of government.''
    Implementation of information technology that is now a common part 
daily life is an important step toward reaching these aspirations for 
implementation of the CWA. EPA is proposing this rule under the 
authority of CWA section 304(i) that authorizes EPA to establish 
minimum procedural and other elements of State programs under section 
402, including reporting requirements and procedures to make 
information available to the public. In addition, EPA is proposing this 
rule under section 308 of the CWA. Section 308 of the CWA authorizes 
EPA to require information to carry out the objectives of the Act, 
including sections 301, 305, 306, 307, 311, 402, 404, 405, and 504. 
Section 402 of the CWA establishes the NPDES permit program for the 
control of the discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters. EPA is 
proposing this rule under CWA sections 402(b) and (c), which require 
each authorized state, tribe, or territory to ensure that permits meet 
certain substantive requirements, and provide EPA information from 
point sources, industrial users, and the authorized program in order to 
ensure proper oversight. Finally, EPA is proposing to issue this rule 
under the authority of section 501 of the Act, authorizing EPA to 
prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out provisions of 
the Act.

D. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

    As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program 
protects the nation's waters by controlling the discharge of pollutants 
into waters of the United States. Such discharges are illegal unless 
authorized by an NPDES permit. NPDES permits may be issued by EPA or by 
a state, tribe, or territory authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES 
program. As of October 1, 2011, EPA has authorized 46 states and the 
Virgin Islands to implement the basic NPDES program as well as the 
general permits program; as of that same date, no tribe was currently 
authorized to implement the NPDES program. There are several 
subprograms of the NPDES program that states, tribes, and territories 
may also receive authorization from EPA to administer, including the 
pretreatment and the biosolids programs. As of October 1, 2011, 36 
states are authorized to implement the pretreatment program and eight 
states are authorized to implement the biosolids program as part of the 
NPDES program.
    NPDES permit authorization to discharge may be provided under an 
individual NPDES permit, which is developed after a process initiated 
by the facility submission of a permit application (40 CFR 122.21), or 
under a general NPDES permit (e.g., most oil and gas extraction 
facilities, most seafood processors). See 40 CFR 122.28(a)(2). 
Authorization to discharge under a general NPDES permit typically 
occurs following the submission of a ``notice of intent'' (NOI) by the 
facility seeking authorization to discharge under the permit (40 CFR 
122.28(b)(2)) and approval of that NOI by the permitting authority. 
Submission of a notice of intent is not required for specified types of 
discharges under certain circumstances (40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(v)). 
Approximately 95 percent of NPDES-permitted sources are regulated under 
general permits.
    EPA has developed criteria to determine which sources should be 
considered ``major'' facilities. The distinction was made initially to 
assist EPA, states, tribes, and territories in setting priorities for 
permitting, compliance, and enforcement activities. Historically, EPA 
has placed greater priority on major facilities and has required NPDES-
authorized states, tribes, and territories to provide more information 
about these dischargers. The existing regulations establish annual, 
semi-annual, and quarterly reporting requirements (some of which 
focused on major facilities) that organize violation information, thus 
facilitating EPA's assessment of the effectiveness of authorized 
programs and EPA regional program activities (e.g., permitting, 
compliance monitoring, and enforcement). This information has guided 
EPA in the management and oversight of program activities.\1\ For more 
background information regarding the NPDES program, see DCN 0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 50 FR 34649.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Evolution of the NPDES Program

    In order to support development of appropriate permit limits and 
conditions, issuance of effective permits, compliance monitoring, and 
appropriate enforcement actions, EPA has developed policies, guidance, 
requirements, and expectations to track,

[[Page 46013]]

measure, evaluate, and report on these efforts on a nationwide basis. 
Over the past 25 years, these efforts, focused primarily on major 
facilities, to establish significant pollutant controls have resulted 
in important pollutant discharge reductions from traditional major 
sources.
    Although large municipal and industrial point sources continue to 
be significant sources of pollution, NPDES permits of smaller sources 
show that these point sources also contribute significant amounts of 
pollutants to our nation's waters. About 29,000 nonmajor facilities 
have individual permits which have requirements similar to the permits 
for major facilities. As the understanding of water quality issues has 
grown, the universe of regulated nonmajor sources has also expanded. In 
order to efficiently manage the growing universe of regulated 
facilities, smaller sources are often regulated under general permits 
rather than individual permits. In many cases, nonmajor facilities use 
pollutant control measures based on best management practices in 
operational activities rather than on implementation of pollutant 
control technologies, which are measured with numeric effluent limits 
on pollutant discharges. Several hundred thousand nonmajor facilities 
are covered by NPDES general permits; therefore, the number of nonmajor 
dischargers covered by general permits is very large compared to the 
number of major or nonmajor dischargers covered by individual permits. 
The universe of nonmajor dischargers also includes some large volume 
dischargers (e.g., MS4s) that had not previously been regulated with 
the same types of individual permits used to regulate discharges from 
major facilities.
    The most recent state water quality assessment reports submitted 
under CWA section 305(b) and compiled by EPA in the National Water 
Quality Inventory Reports indicate the growing significance and link 
between nonmajor sources and impairments in water quality of U.S. 
waters, particularly from precipitation-induced or ``wet-weather'' 
point sources of pollutants.\2\ These sources include discharges of 
stormwater associated with construction, concentrated animal feeding 
operations (CAFOs), and overflows from combined sewer systems (CSSs) 
and sanitary sewer systems (SSSs). Stormwater discharges include a 
variety of pollutants, such as sediment, oil and grease, chemicals, 
nutrients, metals, and bacteria. Discharges from CAFOs often include 
bacteria, nutrients, organic matter, pathogens, and trace metals. 
Overflows from combined and separate sanitary sewer systems pose a 
significant threat to public health and the environment due to high 
concentrations of bacteria from fecal contamination, as well as 
disease-causing pathogens. The pollution controls for wet-weather 
sources are often best management practices (BMPs) rather than 
traditional end-of-pipe controls. These wet-weather sources are high 
priorities for the enforcement and compliance programs of EPA, states, 
tribes, and territories and have been for over a decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The link provides access to the 2004 Water Quality Report to 
Congress, which was the last hard-copy version of this report. Since 
2004 these data are made directly via the ATTAINS database (link 
provided at site below). The ATTAINS database provides state 
information showing the water quality impairments and the likely 
causes of impairments. In particular, ``Urban-Related Runoff/
Stormwater'' ranks high among the list of impairment causes. See: 
http://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past, states, tribes, and territories were not generally 
required to consistently report information to EPA on most wet-weather 
sources. Therefore, EPA and the public do not currently have complete 
information on these additional sources of pollution. Electronic 
reporting provides an efficient and cost-effective solution to the 
problem of gaining access to this data, and assists EPA, states, 
tribes, and territories in focusing their limited resources on 
significant water pollution sources and serious violations, whether 
from major or nonmajor facilities.

F. Existing NPDES Program Requirements and Expectations of the States, 
Territories, Tribes, and NPDES-regulated Facilities

    In the context of developing this proposed rule, EPA has reviewed 
the existing NPDES program reporting requirements and expectations (as 
identified in existing statutes, regulations, policy documents, and 
guidance documents) as they apply to states, tribes, and territories, 
and NPDES-regulated facilities. For a detailed description of these 
reporting requirements and expectations, see DCN 0006 and DCN 0007.

G. National NPDES Data Systems: PCS and ICIS-NPDES

    Historically, EPA has used the Permit Compliance System (PCS), a 
national data system developed in 1982, to support the NPDES program. 
As of December 2012, all States have had their NPDES data migrated from 
PCS into ICIS-NPDES, the updated replacement NPDES data system for PCS. 
EPA plans to decommission PCS by the third quarter of the federal 
fiscal year 2013 (April-June 2013).
    The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) serves as the 
repository for multi-media facility, compliance, and enforcement data 
at the federal level. ICIS-NPDES is the incorporation of NPDES program-
specific requirements into ICIS. ICIS-NPDES ensures that the NPDES 
information regarding major facilities remains available, accessible, 
and in a nationally consistent format for analyses. ICIS-NPDES also 
provides means to track and access nonmajor NPDES information that was 
not historically available in PCS (particularly regarding various NPDES 
subprograms). For more background information regarding PCS and ICIS-
NPDES, see DCN 0008. As of December 2012, ICIS-NPDES contains NPDES 
information for all 50 states, 10 EPA regions, 19 territories, and 2 
tribes.

III. Purpose and Needs

A. Purpose: what would this proposed rule do?

    On October 15, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced an 
action plan focused on the revitalization of the Clean Water Act NPDES 
program, with an emphasis on compliance and enforcement (``U.S. EPA 
Administrator Jackson Takes New Steps to Improve Water Quality,'' DCN 
0009). The goals of this Clean Water Act Action Plan include:
     Raising the bar for Clean Water Act enforcement 
performance and ensuring a focus on the most significant sources and 
the most serious violators threatening water quality;
     Improving performance in authorized states and EPA where 
EPA is the permitting authority;
     Improving and enhancing the information available on the 
EPA Web site regarding compliance and enforcement activities in each 
state, tribe, and territory, showing connections to local water quality 
where possible; and
     Providing public access to information in a user-friendly 
format that is easily understandable and useable. See DCN 0042.
    Historically, EPA has relied on its EPA regional offices and 
authorized NPDES programs in states, tribes, and territories to submit 
the information in EPA's national NPDES data systems. As currently 
drafted, and subject to public comment, this proposed rule would 
require, under the authority of sections 304(i), 308, and 402 of the 
CWA, that the unique source of the NPDES information electronically 
submit the

[[Page 46014]]

information identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 to EPA or the 
authorized NPDES program. Accordingly, as the unique source of DMRs, 
NOIs, and program reports, for example, NPDES-regulated facilities 
would be required to electronically submit this information to EPA or 
authorized NPDES programs. As reflected in this proposed rule, EPA is 
considering requiring authorized states, tribes, and territories to 
electronically submit information regarding NPDES implementation such 
as permit issuance, inspections, violation determinations, and 
enforcement through the National Environmental Information Exchange 
Network. EPA, states, tribes, and territories will use electronic 
reporting and 21st century information technology to increase the 
speed, accuracy, quality, and scope of the information that EPA, 
states, tribes, and territories, regulated facilities, and the public 
receive on permits, water pollution, and regulatory agency actions 
implementing the NPDES permitting, compliance, and enforcement program.
    This proposed rule identifies essential NPDES facility-specific 
information that EPA and authorized programs need to receive 
electronically from NPDES-permitted facilities and information that 
NPDES-authorized programs need to submit to EPA. This information would 
be submitted to EPA in a nationally-consistent manner [i.e., using 
national data standards, in a format fully compatible with the NPDES 
national data system (ICIS-NPDES currently), and using consistent units 
of measure].
    Under this approach to electronic reporting, EPA is proposing to 
revise the existing federal regulations addressing state, tribe, and 
territory NPDES program requirements, pretreatment, biosolids 
management, and other parts of NPDES subprograms (such as concentrated 
animal feeding operations, stormwater, and sewer overflows) to change 
the mode by which NPDES information is provided. EPA has identified the 
following NPDES data types for which electronic submission will be 
required from the NPDES-regulated facilities:
     Self-monitoring information as reported on Discharge 
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for major and nonmajor facilities (including 
subprograms as appropriate), and similar self-monitoring pretreatment-
related information submitted by industrial users located in cities 
without approved local pretreatment programs. Facilities are already 
required to report this information via paper reports. It also 
represents the largest current reporting burden on states as they are 
required to report this information to EPA for major facilities;
     General permit reports [Notice of Intent to be covered 
(NOI); Notice of Termination (NOT); No Exposure Certifications (NECs); 
Low Erosivity Waivers (LEWs)], which are required for initial permit 
coverage, permit coverage termination, approval for permit coverage, or 
permit exclusion. These reports would be submitted electronically from 
facilities in relation to coverage under a general NPDES permit (rather 
than an individually-issued NPDES permit);
     Sewer overflow event and bypass event reports for POTWs or 
other sewerage systems with CSOs, SSOs, or bypass events, as required 
by the NPDES permit, and incidents of noncompliance as required by 40 
CFR 122.41(l)(6);
     Annual or more frequent pretreatment reports from 
facilities with approved local pretreatment programs;
     Annual reports from CAFOs;
     Annual reports from NPDES-regulated biosolids generators 
and handlers; and
     Annual reports (or less frequent reports as required by 
the permit) from MS4 permittees.
    Existing federal regulations already require the submission of each 
of these reports; however, most of these reports are submitted on 
paper. As indicated in this proposed rule, EPA is considering requiring 
NPDES-regulated facilities to submit these reports electronically. The 
data types associated with these reports are described in greater 
detail in Section IV.E.
    Under the proposed rule, EPA would continue to require certain 
NPDES information from the authorized states, tribes, and territories, 
particularly information linked to the NPDES-related implementation, 
compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities and responsibilities 
of the states, tribes, and territories. The types of NPDES information 
that EPA proposes to require the NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and 
territories to report would include:
     Facility and permit information for individually-issued 
NPDES permits (much of this information is already reported to EPA and 
resides in national NPDES databases) and for industrial users located 
in cities without approved local pretreatment programs;
     Information associated with general permits (generally to 
be entered by states, tribes, and territories once in the permit cycle, 
and when the permit is modified, and linked to facility-submitted NOI 
information);
     Information regarding compliance monitoring and inspection 
activities;
     Compliance determination information;
     Enforcement action information;
     Other NPDES information required to be submitted 
electronically from permittees but routed by the electronic reporting 
tools to the states, tribes, or territories rather than to EPA; and
     Other NPDES information covered by this proposed rule but 
submitted by the permittee to the state, tribe, or territory in paper 
form under an approved temporary waiver.
    Each of these NPDES data types to be submitted by NPDES-authorized 
programs is described in Section IV.F. In addition, upon the successful 
implementation of this rule and the significant use of electronic 
reporting tools for submission of NPDES information from permittees and 
regulated entities, EPA would also plan to phase out the state, tribe, 
and territory responsibilities for several existing authorized program 
reporting requirements to EPA, including those associated with: (1) The 
Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR) regarding major facilities (40 
CFR 123.45(a)); (2) the semi-annual statistical summary report 
regarding major facilities (40 CFR 123.45(b)); (3) the Annual 
Noncompliance Report (ANCR) regarding nonmajor facilities (40 CFR 
123.45(c)); and (4) the annual authorized program biosolids reports (40 
CFR 501.21). Proposed changes to these reporting requirements are 
described in more detail in Section III.B.6 and Sections IV.F.5 of the 
preamble.

B. Need for the Proposed Rule

    In the sections that follow, EPA presents information regarding 
practical examples of the feasibility of electronic reporting, the 
benefits of improved NPDES program transparency, the utility of NPDES 
information gathered, and the advantages of a central data system.
1. Why require electronic reporting?
    As information technology has advanced, electronic reporting of 
information, as well as other electronic transactions, has become 
relatively commonplace in government, business, and everyday life. 
Moving many of the NPDES program's reporting requirements to electronic 
submission will likely provide significant benefits, specifically by:
     Saving permittees, states, tribes, territories, and EPA 
time and money and freeing up resources to tackle the most serious 
water pollution problems;

[[Page 46015]]

     Improving water quality through a better basis for 
targeting of resources;
     Improving facility compliance by creating a new awareness 
of a facility's compliance status for the facility, the regulated 
community, the public, and across all levels of government;
     Empowering the public by improving transparency and 
accountability through the provision of more complete and accurate 
information about sources of water pollution in their communities;
     Improving EPA-state relationships by focusing on 
performance rather than on data quality or completeness issues;
     Improving the basis for decision-making by states and EPA 
due to more accurate, timely and complete information about the NPDES 
program; and
     Enabling EPA, states, tribes, and territories to better 
develop compliance monitoring approaches to target the most serious 
problems.
    Furthermore, these benefits will accrue sooner if electronic 
reporting of NPDES information is required, has significant national 
consistency, and happens in a timely manner. Development and 
implementation of a consistent set of electronic reporting tools would 
significantly help make required electronic reporting feasible, 
practical, and cost-effective.
    Electronic reporting implemented in some states has significantly 
improved its data quality and data availability while reducing its 
costs. Requiring electronic reporting is an efficient way to achieve 
complete data on the expanded NPDES regulated universe in an efficient 
and cost-effective manner. Better nationally-available information will 
help improve the NPDES program overall.
2. Feasibility of Electronic Reporting
    Electronic reporting is not a new concept. Identified below are 
three practical examples of the use of electronic reporting by or 
within (1) state government (Ohio's experience with electronic DMRs); 
(2) federal government (the Internal Revenue Service); and (3) the 
regulated community (an industry perspective). Additional examples 
[such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of 
Corporate Finance (regarding possible hardship exemptions for 
electronic reporting), medical records, the Toxic Release Inventory, 
recent EPA air rules, and NetDMR] are described in Section VII and DCN 
0011.
a. Ohio's DMR Case Study
    A case study of the efforts of the Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency (Ohio EPA) to require electronic reporting of DMRs highlights 
how a successful implementation of a mandatory electronic reporting 
system can dramatically improve the way a state, tribe, or territory 
manages its NPDES program.\3\ As of 2011, Ohio has achieved a 99 
percent electronic reporting rate for DMRs. Ohio's system uses 
electronic reporting to allow permittees to report their discharge 
measurements quickly and easily online. The automated compliance tools 
within the state's eDMR system inform permittees if their discharges 
exceed their authorized permit limits or if there are data errors. As a 
result, errors have dropped by 90 percent (from approximately 50,000 
per month to 5,000 per month), giving the Ohio EPA more accurate and 
complete data. This improved data quality allows Ohio EPA to better 
allocate its resources to respond to significant noncompliance and 
water quality concerns, further improving Ohio's enforcement and 
compliance program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA 305-F-10-001, see DCN 0011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to use of its eDMR, Ohio EPA needed five full-time staff 
members to support the DMR program. By switching to an eDMR program, 
however, Ohio EPA was able to shift its staffing responsibilities to 
run the program without any full-time staff members, effectively 
redirecting its resources to address the most important water pollution 
problems in Ohio.
b. Internal Revenue Service
    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides tax payers and 
preparers the option of filing their tax forms electronically. After a 
tax return is complete and signed by the appropriate person, tax 
preparation software approved by the IRS for electronic filing provides 
the necessary instructions to electronically submit the return and 
authorize the filing via IRS e-file. During this process, the 
electronic return data is converted into the format defined by IRS for 
electronic filing. IRS-authorized e-file providers or taxpayers may 
transmit directly to IRS or use a third party transmitter. Transmitters 
use the internet to transmit electronic return data to the IRS 
Modernized e-File system (MeF). MeF is a web-based system that allows 
electronic filing of corporate, partnership, exempt organization, and 
excise tax returns through the Internet. MeF uses the widely accepted 
extensible Markup Language (XML) format and provides benefits including 
more explicit identification of errors, faster acknowledgements, and an 
integrated payment option.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See: http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=146364,00.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2011, 79 percent of all individual Federal tax returns were e-
filed, a noticeable increase over prior years. Both preparer and self-
prepared e-file rates increased, which IRS officials attributed to 
different factors. IRS officials said an e-file mandate was one key 
factor in the growth of preparer e-filing. Several preparers also noted 
that they now find that e-filing helps their business--for example, by 
reducing the time needed to file returns (see DCN 0012).
c. Industry Perspective: Integration With Environmental Management 
Systems
    In recent years, environmental management software solutions have 
become the standard for any organization seeking to craft a 
streamlined, effective and proactive environmental management system 
(see DCN 0013). These tools allow facilities to ensure their regulatory 
compliance, conform to widely accepted environmental management 
standards (e.g. ISO 14001) \5\, and conserve resources. These 
environmental management system software tools provide the means for 
electronic storage of facility performance data, and the use of these 
data to analyze environmental metrics and leverage quantifiable data 
into cost savings, risk avoidance, or opportunities for revenue 
generation. Environmental management system software tools also store 
NPDES compliance monitoring information and allow facilities to more 
easily report this information to their regulatory agency. Currently, 
some of these environmental management system software tools allow 
regulated facilities to easily export DMR data into state eDMR tools or 
NetDMR. EPA is also exploring an ``open platform e-file'' option, which 
could allow third-party commercial software providers the opportunity 
to provide electronic reporting services to their clients (e.g., NPDES-
permitted facilities). See ``Proof of Concept Demonstration for 
Electronic Reporting of Clean Water Act Compliance

[[Page 46016]]

Monitoring Data,'' June 23, 2011 (76 FR 36919).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The ISO 14000 is an international voluntary standard that is 
used by organizations to continually minimize how their operations 
(processes etc.) negatively affect the environment and to improve 
their compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and other 
environmentally-oriented requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Development of Electronic Reporting Tools

    EPA intends to work with states, tribes, territories, and third-
party software vendors to develop and have in place all of the 
electronic reporting tools and National Environmental Information 
Exchange Network protocols required to implement this regulation prior 
to the effective date of the final rule. EPA is not proposing that 
NPDES-regulated facilities must use an EPA-developed electronic 
reporting tool. Rather, EPA is providing the flexibility for facilities 
to have a range of options including an EPA electronic reporting tool, 
a tool developed by a state authorized to implement the NPDES program, 
or potentially tools developed by third-party vendors, if such tools 
meet the requirements of this proposed rule. EPA is proposing this 
flexibility because it recognizes that many states, tribes, and 
territories have their own electronic data systems and reporting tools 
for managing NPDES data. For example, EPA is aware that, as of October 
2011, 24 states have a working version of an electronic DMR (eDMR), 10 
states have an eDMR system planned, and eight states have some form of 
electronic NOI (eNOI \6\). For states that elect to use their own data 
systems and electronic reporting tools to collect this NPDES 
information, this proposed rule would require the states to transmit 
the federally-required data (identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 
127) to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA has developed its own eNOI system for federally-issued 
general permits. These state systems do not utilize EPA's eNOI 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the electronic reporting tools, whether already existing or 
to be developed (by EPA, state, or third-party software vendors), 
utilized to support this regulation would need to be compliant with 
EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) \7\ (see 40 
CFR part 3) if they transmit the information to EPA. All tools would 
need to flow data to data systems of states, tribes, and territories 
and to ICIS-NPDES, provide some capacity for the entry and retrieval of 
state-specific data in addition to the federally-required data, and 
have internal administration, user management, and email notification 
infrastructure. These tools would use the National Environmental 
Information Exchange Network's Central Data Exchange (CDX) services for 
the different electronic ICIS-NPDES exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA's Office of Environmental Information is examining ways 
to streamline the CROMERR approval process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA, states, tribes, territories, and third-party software vendors 
could choose to build these tools through incremental approaches such 
that each tool implementation would benefit from the existing framework 
and intellectual capital established during the previous phase of tool 
implementation. In addition, users and regulatory authorities would 
experience familiar, repeatable processes and activities when 
interacting with tools developed using this framework. The tools to be 
developed for the electronic submission of the information would 
support regulated users who are applying for coverage under a general 
permit, or submitting information required by EPA regulations (e.g., 
DMRs, biosolids and pretreatment data). Section IV.I of the preamble 
and 40 CFR 127.27 describe the process for determining the point of 
first contact for electronic data submissions (EPA or authorized 
program), compliance dates for electronic reporting, and the available 
electronic reporting tools. In particular, EPA intends to provide 
notice to regulated entities on its Web site of the available tools for 
electronically reporting data; the point of first contact for 
electronic data submissions; compliance dates for each state, tribe, 
and territory; and the data source (e.g., DMR, NOI, five different 
program reports, and implementation and enforcement data from the 
state, tribe, or territory).
    One of the goals of this regulatory effort is to increase 
electronic reporting from NPDES-regulated entities. Simplifying the 
process for preparing these reports would help to promote and increase 
electronic reporting. One option for simplifying the preparation of 
reports is to build electronic reporting into software which is 
available for use by the reporting entity. For example, several 
facilities currently use software to compile information used in 
preparing required reports, such as DMRs.
    EPA could utilize an open platform option similar to the IRS model 
for electronic reporting, which uses third-party software vendors for 
tax data collection and transmission (e.g., TurboTax, TaxACT, or 
others) \8\. Under this option, EPA would specify the required data for 
collection and the requirements necessary for exchanging data (e.g., 
data delivery protocols, standards, guidelines, and procedures will 
likely include CROMERR requirements) for each NPDES data flow. There 
are benefits to this open platform model as compared with tools built 
and maintained solely by EPA (closed platform system), including that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Note: References to specific products are for informational 
purposes only. EPA and the federal government do not endorse any 
specific product, service, or enterprise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     This open platform model also builds on the ``good 
government'' recommendations from the White House Forum on Modernizing 
Government. In particular, the report from this forum strongly 
encouraged federal agencies to ``consider available technology 
solutions before defaulting to costly, long-term system development 
efforts'';\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``White House Forum on Modernizing Government: Overview and 
Next Steps'' March 2010--http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/modernizing_government, p. 8, DCN 0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Open market competition would give software vendors a 
stake in client satisfaction, with the result that they would strive to 
develop and maintain software that is easy and user-friendly, provide 
additional support, and integrate with other data management systems. 
These data management systems, developed to be used by regulated 
entities, will likely need to be certified or approved by EPA before 
use;
     Software vendors would likely have a good understanding of 
the business needs of their clients;
     Software vendors would likely compete with one another 
through tiered services, which would keep costs lower for those clients 
who want minimum data management and reporting capabilities. Software 
vendors could also provide other services (e.g., technical assistance 
to clients with other program challenges) or offer competitive prices 
for smaller entities;
     Competition between vendors would enhance the quality of 
the electronic data collection tool in terms of creating greater 
utility from the data, which could improve facility operations and lead 
to better environmental performance;
     Software vendors are better equipped at quickly adapting 
new technologies and other opportunities for efficiencies and cost 
savings; and
     Finally, the open platform concept would lead to faster 
adoption of new software and technologies (e.g., new personal computer 
operating systems).
    EPA solicits comment on this open platform option of allowing 
software vendors to offer their clients federal electronic reporting 
services compliant with the final rule and on potential methods for 
determining whether third-party software vendors meet the minimum 
federal electronic reporting requirements. EPA would need to

[[Page 46017]]

certify or approve the methods used by the software to authenticate, 
encrypt, and send compliance monitoring and other data.

D. Transparency Improvements That Would Accrue From the Rule

    EPA shares with the public NPDES information that is currently 
available (except for that information which is specifically exempted 
from disclosure by statute, or confidential enforcement and business 
information), but recognizes that increased transparency of NPDES 
program implementation and compliance is essential. This proposed rule, 
in combination with efforts by EPA and the authorized programs to make 
facility compliance information readily available and accessible, and 
parallel efforts by EPA, states, tribes, and territories to provide 
more information regarding their implementation efforts, would enable 
the public to be better informed on local and national problems and on 
efforts being made to address those problems. To keep pace with program 
and technology changes, this proposed rule seeks to increase the 
transparency and utility of reporting requirements and to facilitate 
the ability of EPA, states, tribes, and territories to focus on the 
problems of greatest concern to protect human health and water quality. 
Increased information may also help the public to press for improved 
performance from the regulated community, federal, state, tribal, and 
territorial governments, and for better protection of human health and 
the environment. EPA has received feedback from states and public data 
users that they find the existing terminology and nomenclature for 
categorizing violations to be confusing. The proposed changes to 
noncompliance reporting would provide clarity for categorizing 
violations.
    Among the many benefits of the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting 
Rule would be the opportunity to enhance EPA's existing publicly 
accessible NPDES information. EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History 
Online (ECHO) Web site currently provides online access to compliance 
monitoring and enforcement data for approximately 800,000 regulated 
facilities across the United States. The information provided is an 
integrated compilation of federal and authorized program environmental 
inspections, violation determinations, enforcement actions, and other 
environmental records collected pursuant to the Clean Water Act, Clean 
Air Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The 
information collected/reported by EPA, state, and local environmental 
agencies or facilities is submitted through EPA's national and federal 
databases, such as PCS and ICIS. The web interface ultimately provides 
the public, government officials, investors, with environmental reports 
and compliance information.
    The proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule would enhance the 
features of ECHO in several ways, for example:
     The proposed rule would provide a complete inventory of 
NPDES-permitted facilities which can be included in ECHO; All 
violations identified through inspections and other compliance 
monitoring activities by EPA, states, tribes, and territories would be 
made available through public search. Currently, the EPA PCS Policy 
Statement (as amended) states that state NPDES programs must enter 
inspection related violation determinations into EPA's data system for 
facilities with NPDES permits designated as majors and pretreatment 
related violations associated with POTWs that have an approved 
pretreatment program. States are not currently expected to enter any 
other inspection related violation determinations into EPA's data 
system;
     Compliance information would become available from smaller 
facilities, such as DMRs and program reports, closing important 
knowledge gaps;
     Information on enforcement actions and associated 
penalties would be more complete;
     Documents related to noncompliance (e.g., the proposed 
NPDES Noncompliance Report) would be more accessible, resulting in 
increased efficiency in tracking and resolving noncompliance status;
     Comparative analysis would be made easier by utilizing a 
national consistent set of data (i.e., Appendix A to part 40 CFR part 
127);
     Timeliness of data would improve; and
     Integration of permit and water quality assessment 
information would also be improved through better linkage of facility 
locational data (e.g., latitude and longitude data) and information on 
the receiving waters (e.g., receiving waterbody name for permitted 
feature).
    In conclusion, the requirement of electronic reporting of NPDES 
information is expected to result in greater availability of timely and 
complete information to the public because of reliance on electronic 
transmission and retrieval of information. Tracking data electronically 
is less expensive, more efficient, more accurate, and better able to 
support program management decisions than is paper tracking. 
Furthermore, electronic tracking allows more information to be shared 
with the public. This eliminates transaction costs for the public and 
for permitting authorities previously involved in obtaining or 
exchanging information kept only in hard-copy format.

E. EPA Uses of NPDES Data

    In the development of this proposed rule, and particularly in the 
identification of required NPDES data, EPA has identified several key 
EPA uses for the NPDES information. These include:
     Permitting, compliance, and enforcement decisions 
affecting individual facilities or watersheds;
     Informing national program decisions and rulemakings;
     Managing and overseeing national and state, tribal, or 
territorial program performance, management and oversight;
     Leveling the playing field between dischargers, and 
between states, tribes, and territories, regarding availability of 
compliance information;
     Establishing program performance indicators;
     Developing trend data on facility compliance and 
government performance; and
     Preparing for and responding to emergencies.
    Each of these EPA uses of NPDES information is described in more 
detail in DCN 0015. Better availability and consistency of NPDES 
information through electronic reporting will enhance the usefulness of 
this data for a variety of purposes.

F. Key Characteristics for Data

    Congress and the public expect environmental program managers at 
every level of government--local, state, tribal, territorial, and 
federal--to design and implement programs that deliver environmental 
results. In order to target the most important pollution problems and 
most serious noncompliance, to better ensure environmental protection 
and public health, and to enable more integrated program assessment and 
planning at the national level, data used by EPA should have the 
following characteristics:
     The data should be current. Recent data are more likely to 
be representative of current conditions. Although historical data may 
be useful in identifying trends and patterns, data that are not 
representative of current conditions are not as reliable for drawing 
conclusions as to the current condition of the environment or the 
compliance status at permitted facilities, or for making plans for 
improvements.

[[Page 46018]]

     The data should generally be comparable in format, 
reporting units, frequency, etc. In order to aggregate and compare data 
across the states, tribes, and territories for national program 
planning and reporting purposes, it is important that the data from the 
individual states, tribes, and territories be reported in a similar 
format (e.g., the reporting units are the same, the metric being 
measured must be defined identically) and with the same frequency 
(e.g., annual reports required for certain types of NPDES-regulated 
facilities). For example, for a national statement to be made regarding 
the volume of waste discharged by publicly owned treatment works, those 
providing the data would need to consistently provide data to EPA, 
share the same definition of publicly-owned treatment works, the same 
definition of volume (per day, per week, per month) and express the 
measure in the same units (gallons, million gallons, cubic feet, 
liters, etc.) However, states can certainly institute more stringent 
reporting requirements than does EPA (if data remain nationally 
consistent).
     The data should be complete. Incomplete, inaccurate data 
can lead to wrong conclusions. For example, the significant 
noncompliance rate for major facilities is a key indicator of the 
health of the NPDES compliance and enforcement program. This rate is 
derived in large part from effluent data self-reported in DMRs to EPA, 
the states, tribes, and territories by major facilities. These data are 
then entered into or provided to PCS or ICIS-NPDES by the states, 
tribes, territories, or EPA. Incomplete compliance data in PCS or ICIS-
NPDES prevent EPA from adequately assessing industry, state, and 
national noncompliance rates and identifying any potential corrective 
actions. Consequently, program planning and authorized program 
evaluation resulting from such incomplete data can be unreliable.
    Similarly, incomplete data may result in inaccurate conclusions as 
to noncompliance rates for nonmajor permittees. EPA found through the 
Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR) (see DCN 0016) \10\ for NPDES 
Nonmajor Permittees that the reported noncompliance rate for serious 
violations is much higher for those authorized NPDES programs with 
detailed compliance data in EPA's national data systems than it is for 
authorized NPDES programs that only provide only summary data. Based on 
2008 data, states, tribes, and territories with DMR information for 
nonmajor permittees in the national data systems report a 60 percent 
Category I noncompliance \11\ rate, whereas states, tribes, and 
territories that did not routinely provide the facility-specific 
compliance data to EPA's national data systems reported a national 
Category I noncompliance rate of just less than 18 percent. The 
findings presented in the 2008 ANCR suggest that instances of 
noncompliance may be higher than reported by states, tribes, and 
territories that non-electronically review and report data and do not 
routinely provide facility-specific compliance data to EPA's national 
data systems. The proposed rule would ensure that DMR information from 
facilities would be received electronically, making that information 
more readily available for identification of violations by the data 
system while at the same time reducing the burden on states, tribes, 
territories, and EPA to independently identify effluent violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 2008 ANCR, available at http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/docs/ancr_report_2008.pdf.
    \11\ Category I noncompliance is defined in Section II.A. of the 
preamble; examples of Category I noncompliance are identified in 
existing federal regulations at 40 CFR 123.45(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The data should be made available so that the basis for 
EPA program evaluation and subsequent planning is transparent and 
reproducible. The bases for EPA's planning and conclusions about the 
status of program implementation need to be readily available to those 
affected, including the regulated community, the general public, 
Congress, federal, state, tribal, and territorial agencies. For 
example, the data that EPA needs to evaluate the performance of an 
authorized program should be readily available to EPA from the state, 
tribe, or territory (and readily available from EPA to the state, 
tribe, or territory) and the state, tribe, or territory should be able 
to easily duplicate EPA's analysis.
    The above examples demonstrate the need for a shared definition and 
central management of the information necessary to manage the NPDES 
program, ready access to that information by states, tribes, 
territories, and EPA, and assurance that the data across the states, 
tribes, and territories are complete, accurate, and timely-reported. 
The proposed rule would provide definitions for the shared data, ensure 
the accessibility of that information, and provide the basis for 
ensuring that the data are nationally consistent, complete, accurate, 
and timely.

G. The National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN)

1. Purpose
    Today, the NEIEN is making environmental protection more efficient 
and helping to improve the quality of the environmental decision-making 
processes. The proposed rule utilizes the NEIEN for sharing NPDES 
program data between regulated entities; NPDES permit programs, and 
EPA. This information sharing network helps facilitate the reporting 
and information sharing requirements in the proposed rule.
    Many environmental problems cross jurisdictions. The business of 
managing and solving these problems has become very information-
intensive. Environmental policymakers and other stakeholders need 
access to timely, accurate, and consistent data that present a holistic 
picture of the environment in order to make better decisions.
    Previous approaches to environmental information exchange were 
often inefficient. Currently, most environmental data are stored in 
electronic data management systems. Electronic data sharing between 
agencies is not a simple and automatic process; because, many of these 
systems are incompatible with each other. Even similar systems can have 
difficulties exchanging information when the data are not identically 
structured.
    The National Environmental Information Exchange Network (``NEIEN'') 
supported by EPA uses eXtensible markup language (XML), web services, 
and common data standards to overcome system incompatibility, allowing 
partners to securely and automatically exchange environmental data. The 
NEIEN is helping participants to reduce costs, save time, and overcome 
delays in making better informed decisions and responding to 
environmental emergencies.
    For example, states in the Pacific Northwest are using the NEIEN to 
share ambient water quality data to improve decision-making for the 
protection of water quality.\12\ Laboratories are able to quickly share 
sampling results with regulators, allowing real-time monitoring of 
drinking water for public health and homeland security concerns. 
Governments and industry are seamlessly sharing reporting data, 
realizing savings, and improving environmental protection. State, 
tribal, and territorial environmental agencies

[[Page 46019]]

and the EPA can fulfill regulatory and reporting requirements 
efficiently through automated processes that reduce the need for non-
electronic or duplicative data entry directly into national data 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See: http://www.exchangenetwork.net/data-exchange/pacific-northwest-water-quality-exchange/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Enhancements to the NEIEN
    Where authorized programs elect to electronically receive data from 
reporting entities, they should work with EPA to ensure that their data 
systems can automate data transfers to EPA of the data required in the 
new 40 CFR part 127 and Appendix A to part 127 developed for this 
proposed rule, rather than having NPDES-regulated facilities in their 
state, tribe, or territory electronically report directly to EPA. 
Likewise, EPA intends to work with states to ensure that any data 
collected by EPA on behalf of an authorized NPDES program can be shared 
with the state, tribe, or territory via an automated process in a 
timely manner. These EPA-to-authorized-program and authorized-program-
to-EPA data exchanges are expected to use the National Environmental 
Information Exchange Network. Using the NEIEN and an automated data 
flow between EPA and the states, tribes, and territories would allow 
states, tribes, and territories to benefit from electronic reporting in 
the event they have not yet developed their own electronic reporting 
tools or choose not to develop them.
    The NEIEN options for electronically flowing permit data from 
states, tribes, and territories to EPA were made available at the end 
of February 2011 and the NEIEN options to transfer enforcement and 
compliance data to ICIS-NPDES are under development as of October 2011. 
States and EPA are meeting regularly as an Integrated Project Team 
(IPT) to jointly discuss the design of the remaining components of the 
ICIS-NPDES data flow and the ongoing transition from the Permit 
Compliance System (PCS) to the modernized ICIS-NPDES data system. 
Authorized programs are encouraged to participate in the IPT to keep 
abreast of development timelines and progress. When the ICIS-NPDES 
compliance and enforcement data flows are complete and all state data 
has been migrated from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, the PCS data system is 
expected to be retired by EPA (in 2013, prior to full implementation of 
this rule).

H. Relation to the Clean Water Act Action Plan

    As mentioned earlier in Section III.A, on October 15, 2009, EPA 
Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the Clean Water Act Action Plan 
focused on the revitalization of the Clean Water Act NPDES program, 
with an emphasis on compliance and enforcement (see DCN 0009). EPA 
Administrator Jackson also then announced to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of 
Representatives that, as part of the CWA Action Plan, she was directing 
her staff to ``quickly develop a proposed rule requiring electronic 
reporting from regulated facilities, to replace the current paper based 
system.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. EPA, 2009. ``Testimony of Lisa P. Jackson, 
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Before the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House 
of Representatives, 15 October 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CWA Action Plan recognizes that EPA lacks nationally consistent 
and complete information on the facilities, permits, pollutant 
discharges, and compliance status of most NPDES-regulated 
facilities.\14\ This information gap affects the ability of EPA, 
states, tribes, and territories to identify violations, target their 
actions, connect violations to water quality impacts, and share 
information with the public. This proposed rule would use technology to 
address this gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See: http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/water/documents/policies/actionplan101409.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electronic reporting is identified as a key component of the new 
system envisioned by the CWA Action Plan and would greatly reduce the 
burden on states, tribes, territories, EPA, and regulated facilities of 
submitting and processing paper forms. Under the CWA Action Plan, EPA 
intends to find innovative, resource-efficient ways of collecting, 
using, and making available to the public information about where 
pollution sources are located, what pollution they produce, their 
relationship to water quality, and where violations are most severe.
    Through the Clean Water Act Action Plan Discussion Forum, EPA 
solicited ideas from the public that encompassed a broad range of 
perspectives (DCN 0017). Outreach to states, tribes, territories, 
community groups, industry, and environmental organizations ensured an 
opportunity for participation in the forum.
    As currently drafted, and subject to public comment, this proposed 
NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule would help to achieve the CWA Action 
Plan goals. By requiring reports to be submitted electronically by 
regulated facilities, EPA would be able to provide more complete, 
accurate, and timely information to both regulators and the public. 
This would improve transparency and accountability, and help EPA, 
states, tribes, and territories to monitor compliance with NPDES 
permits.

I. Relation to the State Burden Reduction Initiative

    In an effort to address state concerns over escalating reporting 
requirements, EPA and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) 
launched the Burden Reduction Initiative in October 2006.\15\ This 
initiative aimed to identify and reduce high-burden reporting 
requirements for various media (e.g., air, water, waste).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See http://www.ecos.org/section/projects/?id=3683.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA asked states to identify their top five reporting requirements 
with potential for streamlining or elimination. Thirty-nine states 
responded to the October 2006 data call by EPA, recommending more than 
200 ways to reduce reporting frequency and level of detail, increase 
electronic data entry, and standardize regional differences in 
reporting requirements to the greatest extent possible.
    Several states identified NPDES compliance reporting as a priority 
area for burden reduction. Specifically, those states recommended that 
reporting requirements for three NPDES reports required under EPA's 
NPDES regulations (40 CFR 123.45) be reduced or eliminated. They 
recommended that EPA reduce the reporting frequency for the Quarterly 
Noncompliance Report (QNCR) required under 40 CFR 123.45(a) and 
eliminate the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary, required under 40 CFR 
123.45(b), and the Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR), required under 
40 CFR 123.45(c). States suggested the elimination of these reports to 
reduce their burden of implementing the NPDES program.
    The QNCR is a quarterly report regarding major NPDES-regulated 
facilities in noncompliance; under 40 CFR 123.45(a), this report is 
required to be submitted to EPA by states, tribes, and territories 
authorized to implement the NPDES program. These reports are used by 
EPA, states, tribes, and territories to track progress and assess the 
effectiveness of NPDES compliance monitoring and enforcement 
activities.
    The ANCR is an annual report submitted to EPA by states, tribes, 
and territories authorized to implement the NPDES program; in this 
report, as required under 40 CFR 123.45(c), the states, tribes, and 
territories provide information regarding the total number of nonmajor 
NPDES-regulated facilities that have been reviewed for the purpose of 
making compliance determinations, the number of non-complying nonmajor

[[Page 46020]]

permittees, the number of enforcement actions taken against these 
nonmajor NPDES-regulated facilities, and the number of permit 
modifications extending compliance deadlines for these nonmajor NPDES-
regulated facilities.
    The semi-annual statistical summary report is a semi-annual report 
regarding major NPDES-regulated facilities exhibiting a particular type 
of noncompliance; under 40 CFR 123.45(b), this report is required to be 
submitted to EPA by states authorized to implement the NPDES program.
    As part of the proposed rule, EPA is seeking comment on changes to 
40 CFR 123.45, entitled ``Noncompliance and program reporting by the 
Director.'' The purposes of these changes would be to: (1) Reduce the 
state reporting burden by phasing out reports that can be produced 
automatically by EPA from a national data system--(such as the QNCR); 
(2) provide a more accurate and comprehensive report of known 
violations using a more complete set of noncompliance data that would 
flow to EPA as a result of this proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting 
Rule; (3) improve EPA's ability to analyze, track, and manage 
violations and ensure that the full universe of NPDES sources is 
considered in tracking, analyzing, and managing compliance and 
enforcement programs; and (4) establish a better process to ensure EPA 
is focused on the appropriate pollutants and can keep pace with changes 
to the permitting program and new limit types.
    EPA is proposing to establish a new public inventory, the NPDES 
Noncompliance Report (NNCR), of all reported violations. The proposed 
changes to the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 123.45 are discussed in 
greater detail in Section IV.F.5 of the preamble.
    As currently drafted, and subject to public comment, the proposed 
rule should allow EPA to eliminate the state, tribe, and territory 
reporting requirements within the existing QNCR, semi-annual 
statistical summary report, and ANCR requirements because the proposed 
rule would enable EPA to generate this report directly from information 
in its federal data systems based on facility, state, tribe, and 
territory reporting. The regulatory changes would eliminate the 
requirements that states, tribes, and territories submit the QNCR, 
semi-annual statistical summary report, and ANCR by a date certain 
after rule implementation. EPA would then take over the obligation of 
generating all summary reports currently covered by 40 CFR 123.45 and 
generate the new NNCR, reducing the reporting burden on states, tribes, 
and territories.
    For more detailed information on the State Burden Reduction 
Initiative, please visit www.epa.gov/burdenreduction.

J. Issues Related to Critical Infrastructure Security Information

    EPA and the Department of Defense (DOD) wish to clarify how this 
rule will intersect with recent amendments to the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) as enacted in The National Defense Authorization 
Act of 2012 (NDAA). Under NDAA, the Department of Defense (DOD) may 
designate ``critical infrastructure security information'' that can be 
withheld from release under FOIA (see 10 U.S.C. 130e). If DOD receives 
a FOIA request for information on NPDES-regulated federal facilities, 
it may designate particular data as critical infrastructure security 
information that is then withheld from public release in response to 
the FOIA request. NPDES program data designated as critical 
infrastructure security information in response to a FOIA request will 
also be withheld from public release under this rule. DOD will contact 
EPA and identify the specific data elements for specific NPDES-
regulated entities that are to be withheld from public disclosure under 
a FOIA request because it has been designated as critical 
infrastructure security information.
    EPA will not release information that has been designated as 
critical infrastructure security information in response to a FOIA 
request to the public. The critical infrastructure security information 
designation is expected to be used rarely for the type of information 
required to be electronically reported by this rule and any 
determination by DOD to withhold information from public release will 
be made at the data element level (see Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) 
for each DOD facility. Additionally, the DOD process for designating 
particular data as critical infrastructure security information (see 
DCN 0067) is prospective and does not affect data already publicly 
available (i.e., the DOD process will not be used to withdraw data that 
is already available to the public). In the instance where an NPDES 
program data element for a particular facility is designated as 
critical infrastructure security information in response to a FOIA 
request, a separate filtered set of data without the redacted 
information will be shared with the public; however, all NPDES program 
data will continue to be provided to EPA and the authorized state, 
tribe, or territorial NPDES program.

IV. Discussion of Key Features of This Rule

A. Overview of Existing Regulation Citations Impacted by the Proposed 
Rule

    As indicated in the proposed rule, and subject to public comment, 
EPA is considering amendments to the current NPDES regulations to 
require electronic reporting by NPDES-regulated facilities for many of 
the existing NPDES reporting requirements, to require electronic 
reporting of NPDES information by the states, tribes, and territories 
to EPA, and to eliminate some existing reporting requirements, 
particularly those for states, tribes, and territories. Under this 
approach, in addition to the creation of a new 40 CFR part 127, the 
affected regulations would include:
     40 CFR 122.22. Signatories to permit applications and 
reports;
     40 CFR 122.26(b)(15), (c)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii). 
Stormwater discharges (applicable to State NPDES programs, see 40 CFR 
123.25);
     40 CFR 122.28(b)(2). General Permits (applicable to State 
NPDES programs, see 40 CFR 123.25);
     40 CFR 122.34(g)(3). Reporting [as related to small 
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)];
     40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i). Monitoring reports [Discharge 
Monitoring Reports];
     40 CFR 122.41(l)(6). Twenty-four hour reporting;
     40 CFR 122.41(l)(7). Other noncompliance;
     40 CFR 122.41(m)(3). Notice [as related to Bypass];
     40 CFR 122.42(c). Municipal separate storm sewer systems 
[as related to medium or large systems];
     40 CFR 122.42(e)(4). Annual reporting requirements for 
CAFOs;
     40 CFR 122.43. Establishing permit conditions (applicable 
to State NPDES programs, see 40 CFR 123.25);
     40 CFR 122.44(i). Monitoring requirements;
     40 CFR 122.48(c). Requirements for recording and reporting 
of monitoring results (applicable to State NPDES programs, see 40 CFR 
123.25);
     40 CFR 122.63(f). Minor modifications of permits.
     40 CFR 122.64(c) Termination of permits (applicable to 
State NPDES programs, see 40 CFR 123.25);
     40 CFR 123.22. Program description.
     40 CFR 123.24(b)(3). Memorandum of Agreement with the 
Regional Administrator;

[[Page 46021]]

     40 CFR 123.25(a). Requirements for permitting;
     40 CFR 123.26. Requirements for compliance evaluation 
programs;
     40 CFR 123.41(a). Sharing of information;
     40 CFR 123.43(d). State data-transmission of information 
from states to EPA;
     40 CFR 123.45. Noncompliance and program reporting by the 
Director;
     40 CFR 403.10(f). State Pretreatment Program requirements;
     40 CFR 403.12(e). Periodic reports on continued compliance 
[Pretreatment program reports for Categorical Industrial Users];
     40 CFR 403.12(h). Reporting requirements for Industrial 
Users not subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards [Pretreatment 
program reports for Significant Industrial Users not subject to EPA 
categorical pretreatment standards];
     40 CFR 403.12(i). Annual POTW reports [Pretreatment 
program report];
     40 CFR 501.21. Program Reporting to EPA (State Sludge 
Management Program);
     40 CFR 503.18. Reporting [Biosolids annual program report 
for land application];
     40 CFR 503.28. Reporting [Biosolids annual program report 
for surface disposal];
     40 CFR 503.48. Reporting [Biosolids annual program report 
for incineration].

B. Derivation of Required NPDES Data Elements

    From FY 2002 through FY 2007, EPA and the states worked to identify 
the data needed for permitting authorities to successfully implement 
and manage the NPDES program. Various iterations of critical data 
elements were discussed by the state and EPA members of the PCS 
Steering Committee, the PCS Modernization Executive Council, and the 
Expanded PCS Steering Committee, which added representatives from the 
Environmental Council of States (ECOS) and the Association of Clean 
Water Administrators (ACWA).\16\ Those efforts led to the April 2007 
issuance by EPA of a draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement that included 
the list of NPDES data elements that states, tribes, and territories 
would report to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Formerly known for 50 years as the Association of State and 
Interstate Water Pollution Control Agencies (ASIWPCA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After receipt of numerous comments on the draft ICIS-NPDES Policy 
Statement from the states, EPA began to develop a federal regulation 
that would require electronic reporting of specific NPDES information 
from the regulated permittees, states, tribes, and territories. In 
2010, EPA initiated an effort to carefully review the data needs and 
uses (as described in Section III), identify the types of information 
and specific data elements that would allow EPA to meet those needs and 
uses, and evaluate whether the information should be sought directly 
from NPDES-regulated facilities or from states, tribes, and 
territories. This was done with full acknowledgement that for certain 
activities (such as permit issuance, inspections, compliance 
determinations, and issuance of enforcement actions), the states, 
tribes, and territories are the unique source of the identified NPDES 
information.
    During summer 2010, EPA conducted a series of concurrent technical 
analyses of various data types and facility types which examined the 
feasibility of electronic reporting, the existing regulatory data and 
reporting requirements, key considerations, and preliminary information 
regarding costs and benefits (see DCN 0018, 0019, 0020, 0021, 0022).
    EPA then conducted extensive examinations of the data elements 
list. The result of these efforts is this proposed rule, as currently 
drafted and subject to public comment, and the list of minimum set of 
federal NPDES data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). EPA invites comment 
on the data identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127.

C. NPDES Data Groups

    EPA has identified several data groups of NPDES information based 
on the source of the information. These ``NPDES Data Groups'' are 
defined and listed in 40 CFR 127.2(c) and in Table 1 to Appendix A of 
40 CFR part 127. As defined in 40 CFR 127.2(c), the term NPDES data 
group means the group of related data elements identified in Table 1 in 
Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. These NPDES data groups have similar 
regulatory reporting requirements and have similar data sources. The 
proposed rule uses the NPDES Data Groups to identify the minimum set of 
data elements for each type of NPDES reporting (e.g., DMRs, NOIs, 
program reports) and to help permittees and regulated entities identify 
the initial recipient of electronic NPDES data submissions.

D. Data Considerations

    Based on EPA's national program management needs, the approach 
taken by EPA in the proposed rule, as currently drafted, identifies a 
variety of NPDES data that permittees would be required to provide 
electronically to states or EPA and that states, tribes, and 
territories would be required to submit to EPA on a regular basis. 
These data are supported by existing collection requirements and are 
essential to successfully manage, implement, and enforce the NPDES 
program. EPA notes that other required data submissions that are not 
proposed to be collected electronically (e.g., NPDES permit 
applications) are also essential to successfully manage, implement, and 
enforce the NPDES program, even though they remain unchanged by this 
proposed rule. This section of the preamble discusses the reasons for 
each required electronic data submission (e.g., DMRs, general permit 
reports, program reports) covered by this proposed rule, as currently 
drafted and subject to public comment.
    A large number (over 60 percent) of these required NPDES data are 
specific to particular NPDES subprograms (e.g., pretreatment, 
biosolids, CAFO, MS4, sewer overflow and bypass events). Additionally, 
it is unlikely that there is any NPDES-permitted facility that has a 
permit that covers all subprograms, meets all of the conditions that 
would require reporting of all of the conditional data elements 
(described later), and has also had enforcement actions that included 
compliance schedules, milestones, and penalties. In addition, certain 
types of data may not be generally expected for certain types of 
facilities. Therefore, any potential workload or burden estimates for 
reporting burden or data entry burden based on the entire list of NPDES 
required data would be incorrect and very misleading if applied to the 
entire NPDES-regulated universe.
    A number of other considerations associated with these required 
data are described below.
1. Data Entry/Reporting Frequency
    The frequency at which data would be required to be reported 
electronically is a key consideration in estimating workload or burden 
estimates of data entry. In this proposed rule, as currently drafted 
and subject to public comment, the required data entry frequency would 
vary considerably based upon the data type.
    Data that has already been entered into PCS or ICIS-NPDES would not 
need to be re-entered by EPA, states, tribes, or territories unless 
that data has changed. NPDES information has been migrated from PCS to 
ICIS-NPDES for all states as of December 2012.
    Under the approach described in the proposed rule, states, tribes, 
and territories would still need to update or change particular 
facility or permit information as permits are modified or

[[Page 46022]]

when the permits are re-issued, generally every five years. A similar 
timeframe would apply to facilities electronically submitting a NOI to 
be covered under a NPDES general permit. States, tribes, and 
territories would also have a similar reporting frequency for providing 
EPA with information regarding the general permit, such as limits, 
permitted features, etc.
    The required data entry frequency for inspection-related 
information would be linked directly to the inspection. The inspection 
frequency itself may vary considerably depending on the type of 
inspection and the type of facility. For example, major NPDES-regulated 
facilities might be inspected every two years, whereas nonmajor NPDES-
regulated facilities might be inspected once every five years. Under 
the approach described in the proposed rule, information related to 
inspections, violations, and enforcement actions, would be entered 
after those events occur.
    Electronic submissions of NPDES data (e.g., DMRs, program reports, 
NOIs) by NPDES-regulated entities would be linked to the required 
reporting frequency specified in the regulations or in the permit, and 
may therefore vary across permittees and type of reports (e.g., may be 
reported semi-annually, quarterly, or monthly).
2. Conditionally-Required Data
    Conditionally-required NPDES data must be reported when certain 
rare circumstances occur. For example, as currently drafted, this 
proposed rule requires POTWs to report in their Pretreatment Program 
Annual Report [see 40 CFR 403.12(i)] information regarding their 
administration of pollutant removal credits. In practice, POTWs would 
rarely be required to report these data as there are only four POTWs 
nationwide that have removal credits authority, as of October 1, 2011.
3. Programs Broader in Scope
    NPDES data entry/availability requirements specified in this 
proposed rule would not apply to those particular portions of a state, 
tribal, or territorial program which are broader in scope than the 
minimum requirements of the approved NPDES program. States, tribes, and 
territories are welcome to track these additional aspects, but this 
proposed rule does not require that such additional information be 
reported to EPA. Under the proposed rule, state, tribal, and territory 
programs have the option to use EPA's data collection tools, which 
would be capable of both collecting data that are in addition to the 
minimum set of federal NPDES data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) and 
passing these data to state, tribal, and territory NPDES data systems.
4. Appropriate Linkages Between NPDES Data Groups by the Permitting 
Authorities
    As previously noted, under the approach described in this proposed 
rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, EPA, states, 
tribes, and territories would submit the minimum set of federally-
required NPDES data (see Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). Having this 
minimum set of federally-required NPDES data would ensure that the 
appropriate linkages are made between the data for permitting, 
compliance monitoring, violations, and enforcement actions within EPA's 
NPDES information system. For example, an inspection would be linked to 
all violations identified during the inspection, which in turn would be 
linked to any resulting enforcement action, penalty, or enforcement 
compliance schedule. Such linkages would ensure that the compliance 
status of the facility would show whether the violations have been 
addressed and resolved. In another situation, it would also be possible 
to link the information in EPA's NPDES data system for an unpermitted 
facility that subsequently becomes an NPDES permittee (e.g., an 
inspection might discover an unpermitted discharge and the resolution 
would be to issue a permit to this discharger).
5. Major and Nonmajor Designations
    In PCS, some of the designated Water Enforcement National Data Base 
(WENDB) data applied to every facility regardless of whether the NPDES 
permittee was a major or nonmajor facility. Other WENDB data elements 
in PCS only applied to major NPDES-regulated facilities (see DCN 0023). 
For the purposes of this proposed rule, few distinctions would be made 
in data entry requirements between major and nonmajor NPDES facilities 
(e.g., the proposed rule requires the electronic submission of DMRs 
from major and nonmajor NPDES facilities). There are only a few 
examples where the major and nonmajor status, or facility size, of a 
permittee would affect reporting based on existing regulations (e.g., 
MS4 and biosolids program reports).
6. Facilities Without NPDES Permits
    The NPDES information described in the proposed rule would 
generally not be required for facilities without NPDES permits, with 
the following exceptions:
     Unpermitted facilities that have been subject to a formal 
enforcement action, an administrative penalty order, or an informal 
enforcement action (if such informal action addressed significant 
noncompliance);
     Unpermitted facilities that have been inspected; and
     Industrial users located in cities without approved local 
pretreatment programs.
    For the first two types of exceptions identified above, EPA, 
authorized states, tribes, and territories would be expected to 
electronically provide the following information: basic facility 
information; inspection-related information; and, if applicable, 
violations, and information regarding enforcement actions. For the 
first two exceptions, there would not be any expectation for data to be 
submitted to EPA regarding narrative permit conditions, permitted 
features, permit limit sets, permit limits, DMRs, or program reports.
    Facilities included in the third exception would be operating under 
a control mechanism, which may or may not be a permit (see 40 CFR 
403.8). These indirect discharging facilities would also electronically 
submit to EPA, authorized states, tribes, or territories their bi-
annual compliance reports, which are similar to DMRs for direct 
dischargers. Authorized states, tribes, and territories would be 
expected to provide to EPA the following information for these indirect 
dischargers: basic facility information, basic permit or control 
mechanism information (the latter would apply to industrial users 
located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs) 
(possibly including, if applicable, information regarding permit 
issuance, narrative conditions, limits, limit sets, permitted features, 
etc.), inspection-related information, and violations and information 
regarding enforcement actions, if applicable.
7. Retroactive Data Entry
    Due primarily to an increased focus on the various NPDES 
subprograms (e.g., CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, sewer overflow event 
reports, MS4 program reports), the required data set as defined by this 
proposed rule, as currently drafted, is more comprehensive than what 
was previously identified as WENDB. For inspections and enforcement 
actions that occur prior to the effective date of this rulemaking, the 
proposed rule does not require states or permittees to submit the data 
not covered by WENDB in the minimum set of federal NPDES data (Appendix 
A to 40 CFR part 127) However, under the approach described in the 
proposed rule, EPA is considering requiring states, tribes, and 
territories to

[[Page 46023]]

provide information to EPA regarding the existing permits before the 
beginning of the required electronic reporting from permitted 
facilities, even if that permit was issued prior to effective date of 
the final rule. EPA will work closely with states, tribes, and 
territories to ensure that states, tribes, and territories report all 
WENDB data for all permits into ICIS-NPDES prior to the effective date 
of this rulemaking. Additionally, the data in PCS have been migrated to 
ICIS-NPDES, and would not need to be re-entered into ICIS-NPDES.

E. Electronic Reporting by NPDES Regulated Entities

1. What Data From Which Regulated Entities
    As described in Section IV.B, EPA has spent considerable time and 
effort in analyzing the data needs and uses of information, the types 
of data that would meet those needs and uses, and the technical, legal, 
and economic considerations associated with obtaining that information. 
Based on these efforts, EPA solicits comment on the following NPDES 
data types for electronic submission from NPDES-regulated facilities or 
other regulated entities:
     Self-monitoring information as reported on Discharge 
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for major and nonmajor facilities (including 
subprograms as appropriate), and similar self-monitoring pretreatment-
related information submitted by industrial users located in cities 
without approved local pretreatment programs;
     General permit reports [Notice of Intent (NOI) to 
discharge; Notice of Termination (NOT); No Exposure Certification 
(NEC); and Low Erosivity Waiver (LEW)], which are required for initial 
permit coverage, permit coverage termination, or consideration for 
permit exclusion.\17\ These reports will come from facilities in 
relation to coverage under a general NPDES permit (rather than an 
individually-issued NPDES permit);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ It is important to note that EPA general permit regulations 
(40 CFR 122.28) do not require all general permit covered facilities 
to submit NOIs for all general permits issued by EPA and authorized 
state NPDES programs. Some general permits provide for automatic 
coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Annual reports from concentrated animal feeding operations 
(CAFOs);
     Sewer overflow or bypass event reports for POTWs with 
combined sewer overflow (CSO), sanitary sewer overflow (SSO), or bypass 
events;
     Annual or more frequent pretreatment reports from 
facilities with approved local pretreatment programs;
     Annual reports from NPDES-regulated biosolids generators 
and handlers; and
     Program reports (annual or less frequent reports as may be 
indicated by the permit) from municipal separate storm sewer system 
(MS4) permittees.
    Existing federal regulations already require each of these reports 
to be submitted to the permitting authority. Currently, most of these 
compliance reports are submitted on paper. EPA is soliciting comment on 
switching the submission of these reports from paper reporting to 
electronic reporting. Each of the data types associated with these 
reports is described in more detail in Section IV.
    EPA notes that some NPDES permits require additional reports from 
NPDES-regulated entities than the reports identified in the proposed 
NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 127) (e.g., engineering 
construction completion reports, large-scale construction blue prints). 
Reports that are not specifically listed in the NPDES Electronic 
Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 127) are not required to be electronically 
submitted under EPA regulations, and NPDES-regulated entities should 
continue to report these documents as required by the NPDES-authorized 
program.
    EPA is soliciting comment on the minimum set of NPDES program data 
that NPDES-regulated facilities or other regulated entities would 
electronically submit to their authorized programs and the process for 
the authorized programs receiving these electronic data to forward 
these data electronically to EPA. The minimum set of NPDES program data 
is provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. This proposed rule does 
not expand the reportable data from NPDES-regulated facilities or other 
regulated entities beyond what is required by existing regulations.
    EPA is soliciting comment on the minimum set of data to be reported 
electronically to ensure that there is consistent and complete 
reporting nationwide, and to expedite the collection and processing of 
the data, thereby making it more timely, accurate, and complete. EPA 
notes that authorized states, tribes, and territories may also require 
permittees to submit additional data electronically (data in addition 
to the minimum set of data provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). 
EPA's electronic reporting tools would be flexible to allow the 
collection and transfer of these additional data to authorized NPDES 
programs. This is consistent with EPA's requirements for approving 
NPDES program authorizations, in which state forms need to collect at 
least the same basic information as the forms used by EPA (e.g., 40 CFR 
123.22).
    Taken together, electronically reporting the information described 
above would save the states, tribes, and territories considerable 
resources, make reporting easier for permittees, make it easier for the 
states and EPA to exchange data with each other and to provide it to 
the public, and enable better environmental decision-making.
a. Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Data
i. Background
    EPA's regulations require reporting of samples and measurements 
taken for the purpose of compliance monitoring at intervals specified 
in the NPDES permit [40 CFR 122.41(j) and (l)(4)]. When self-monitoring 
results are reported to the permitting authority, they are compared 
with current permit limits and any existing enforcement orders to 
determine facility compliance. The sample collection and analytical 
results required by the NPDES permit must be reported to the permitting 
authority through the submission of Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) 
[40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i)]. It is extremely important that the data 
reported on the DMR is timely, accurate, complete, and legible to 
ensure that the facility's compliance status is correctly reflected; 
electronic reporting will likely improve each of these qualities.
    As of October 1, 2011, there are approximately 63,000 facilities 
submitting DMRs to their permitting authorities; the majority of these 
are individually-permitted facilities that directly discharge to 
surface waters. The universe of NPDES-regulated facilities has grown 
since the passage of the Clean Water Act and some facilities in these 
new sectors (e.g., some regulated stormwater discharges and vessels) 
are required to submit DMRs.
    The DMR submission process that is most frequently used requires 
the permittee to mail a hard-copy form of a pre-printed form (OMB 
Control No. 2040-0004) to the authorized NPDES permitting authority. 
After receiving the hard copy version of the DMR, the authorized NPDES 
permitting authority enters this data into an electronic database 
(ICIS-NPDES or state database system). When a state, tribe, or 
territory applies for and obtains the authority to implement the NPDES 
permitting and enforcement program, the state, tribe, or territory is 
required to have a system for evaluating all DMRs [40 CFR 123.26(e)].

[[Page 46024]]

ii. Existing Reporting Requirements and Expectations
    The permittee is responsible for understanding and meeting all 
permit requirements and submitting timely, accurate, complete, and 
legible self-monitoring data in accordance with the CWA and its 
implementing regulations. The sample collection and analytical results 
required by the NPDES permit must also be reported to the permitting 
authority through the submission of DMRs at the frequency specified in 
the permit [see 40 CFR 122.41(j) and (l)(4)]. DMRs must be signed and 
submitted to the permitting authority by the date specified in the 
permit [40 CFR 122.41(k) and (l)(4)]. All facilities must submit DMRs 
at least annually [40 CFR 122.44(i)(2)], at the frequency specified in 
the permit.
    EPA's PCS Policy Statement (as amended) created the expectation 
that the permitting authority enter facility information for all 
permitted facilities and DMR information from major facilities into 
ICIS-NPDES. About half of NPDES-authorized states also transmit DMR 
data for nonmajor facilities to ICIS-NPDES. EPA also notes that some 
NPDES permits require the electronic reporting of baseline monitoring 
data on DMR forms [e.g., EPA's Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)], as 
baseline monitoring and effluent monitoring both relate to wastewater 
discharges and the same data elements as DMRs. Authorized states, 
tribes, and territories currently report DMR data to EPA (ICIS-NPDES) 
by one of the following means:
     Collecting paper-based DMR forms, manually entering the 
information into the state, tribe, or territory database, and entering 
the expected federal data into ICIS-NPDES either on the web or through 
Batch eXtensible Markup Language (XML) files.
     Developing and using a customized state, tribe, or 
territory electronic DMR (eDMR) tool that allows regulated entities to 
enter and electronically submit DMR data into a web-based application. 
The DMR data is then sent to the state, tribe, or territory database 
and the state, tribe, or territory is responsible for entering the 
expected federal data into ICIS-NPDES either on the web or through 
Batch XML files.
     Sending data directly from the regulated entity to ICIS-
NPDES through a customized installation of NetDMR, which is the federal 
eDMR tool.
     Allowing regulated entities to enter data into the 
National Installation of NetDMR.
    Because there is a significant burden on states, tribes, or 
territories associated with manually entering DMR data into a data 
system, some states, tribes, or territories found that they were not 
able to meet their regulatory requirement [see 40 CFR 123.26(e)] to 
evaluate all DMR data for violations (see 2008 and 2009 Clean Water Act 
Annual Noncompliance Reports, DCN 0016 and 0025) or meet EPA's ICIS-
NPDES data entry policy expectations (see DCN 0026). As documented in 
the Agency's 2008 Annual Noncompliance Reports, eight states reported 
reviewing less than 50 percent of their nonmajor facilities for 
noncompliance (see DCN 0016). The lack of an automated, searchable 
NPDES data tracking system for each authorized state, tribe, or 
territory contributes to this gap in compliance oversight and 
environmental protection.
    To address such problems, 34 states (as of October 1, 2011) have or 
are planning to use electronic reporting tools where the permittee 
transfers DMR data over the internet into state or Federal databases. 
These tools include NetDMR, EPA's current eDMR tool, which was released 
in June 2009. NetDMR allows NPDES-regulated facilities to enter and 
electronically submit DMR data through EPA's CDX to ICIS-NPDES as an 
alternative to the paper-based DMR submission process. NetDMR and other 
comparable state, tribe, or territory tools essentially reproduce the 
pre-printed DMR in electronic format. Some of these tools allow for a 
properly formatted file [e.g., comma-separated value file or Extensible 
Markup Language (XML) file] to be shared between EPA, states, tribes, 
and territories, which is an important step towards more efficient data 
sharing. Most of these state, tribe, or territory DMR tools submit data 
to the state, tribe, or territory data system, which in turn sends the 
data to either ICIS-NPDES. These electronic reporting tools provide a 
successful model for transforming the paper-driven process with e-
reporting.
    The adoption rate, or percent of permittees that use electronic 
reporting, in the states where electronic reporting of DMRs is an 
option as of October 1, 2011, is generally less than half. EPA believes 
this is because electronic reporting is not required, and/or release of 
electronic reporting tools is relatively recent (see DCN 0027). 
However, as described in more detail in Section III.B.1, Ohio is an 
example of a state that has been able to achieve close to 100 percent 
of electronic reporting of DMRs by implementing a phased approach for 
requiring permittees to use the eDMR system and by providing 
comprehensive training. EPA believes the Ohio experience validates the 
position that national electronic reporting of DMRs is feasible.
iii. What Data Would be Required to be Submitted Electronically and Why
    EPA is soliciting comment on having NPDES-regulated facilities 
electronically submit DMRs in accordance with the proposed 40 CFR 
122.41(l)(4), which would reference the need for these submissions to 
be compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. Some permitting 
authorities may require baseline monitoring discharge data to also be 
reported on DMR forms. The data elements specific to DMRs are listed in 
Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 
122.41(l)(4)(i) to include electronic reporting requirements.
iv. Additional Considerations
    EPA intends to expand the current NetDMR system and encourage the 
expansion of state, tribe, and territory eDMR systems to include DMRs 
for the existing and anticipated NPDES-regulated community. To support 
the requirements under the proposed rule, EPA will expand NetDMR by the 
effective date of this rule to include all facilities that report DMRs 
and to add functionality, streamline overlapping system functionality, 
and provide a more robust platform for permitting authorities to manage 
and submit DMR data, including the addition of state-specific data that 
is not listed in the minimum set of federal data (Appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 127).
    EPA is also exploring the development of an ``open platform'' 
option that would allow NPDES-regulated facilities to use third-party 
software for electronically submitting NPDES program data (e.g., DMRs) 
to the state, tribe, territory, or EPA in compliance with 40 CFR part 
3, 122.22, and part 127 (see June 23, 2011; 76 FR 36919). As previously 
discussed in Section III.B.1 of this preamble, this open platform 
option would be similar to the IRS model for electronic reporting, 
which uses third-party software vendors (e.g., TurboTax, TaxACT, or 
others) for tax data collection and transmission.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Note: Any references to specific products are for 
informational purposes only. EPA and the federal government do not 
endorse any specific product, service or enterprise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46025]]

b. General Permit Reports: Notice of Intent (NOI) to discharge; Notice 
of Termination (NOT); No Exposure Certification (NEC); Low Erosivity 
Waiver (LEW)
i. Background
    EPA and authorized states, tribes, and territories issue general 
permits to cover multiple similar facilities under a single permit. 
Where a large number of similar facilities require permits, a general 
permit allows the permitting authority to allocate resources in a more 
efficient manner and provide more timely permit coverage than would 
occur if individual permits had to be issued to each similar facility. 
States, tribes, and territories must seek EPA approval to administer 
general permits.\19\ EPA's regulations governing the General Permit 
Program are located at 40 CFR 122.28. EPA and authorized programs have 
issued over 700 general permits nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    General permits typically share common elements: \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 40 CFR 122.28(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sources that involve the same or substantially similar 
types of operations;
     Sources that discharge the same types of wastes or engage 
in the same types of sludge use or disposal;
     Sources that require the same effluent limitations or 
operating conditions, or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal; 
or
     Sources that require the same monitoring where tiered 
conditions may be used for minor differences within a class (e.g., size 
or seasonal activity).
    The regulations at 40 CFR 122.28(a)(1) provide for general permits 
to cover dischargers within an area corresponding to specific 
geographic or political boundaries such as the following:
     Designated planning area;
     Sewer district; and
     City, county, or state boundary.
    The process for developing and issuing NPDES general permits is 
similar to the process for individual permits; however, there are some 
differences in the sequence of events. For general permits, the 
permitting authority first identifies the need for a general permit and 
collects data that demonstrate that a group or category of dischargers 
has similarities that warrant a general permit. In deciding whether to 
develop a general permit, permitting authorities consider whether:
     A large number of facilities will be covered;
     The facilities have similar production processes or 
activities;
     The facilities generate similar pollutants; and
     Whether uniform water quality-based effluent limits 
(WQBELs) (where necessary) will appropriately implement water quality 
standards.
    The remaining steps of the general permit process are the same as 
for individual permits. The permitting authority develops a draft 
permit that includes effluent limitations (if applicable), monitoring 
conditions, special conditions, and standard conditions. The permitting 
authority then issues a public notice and addresses public comments, 
coordinates with EPA as appropriate in the review process, completes a 
CWA section 401 certification process, develops the administrative 
record, and issues the final permit. The final permit will also 
establish the requirements for the specific information that must be 
submitted by a facility that wishes to be covered under the general 
permit.
    After the final general permit has been issued, there are several 
general permit reports that facilities must submit to their permitting 
authority, including:
     Notice of Intent (NOI) to discharge: This is the initial 
submission seeking coverage under a general permit [40 CFR 
122.28(b)(2)(i) and (ii)];
     Notice of Termination (NOT): A request by the permittee to 
terminate their coverage under an existing permit (40 CFR 124.5);
     No Exposure Certification (NEC): A certification from a 
facility indicating that coverage under an existing stormwater general 
permit is not necessary due to certain facility-specific conditions [40 
CFR 122.26(g)(1) and (4)]; and
     Low Erosivity Waiver (LEW): A certification from a 
facility indicating that coverage under an existing construction 
stormwater general permit is not necessary due to certain facility-
specific or climate conditions [40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)].
    It is important to note that EPA general permit regulations (40 CFR 
122.28) do not require all general permit covered facilities to submit 
NOIs for all general permits issued by EPA and authorized state NPDES 
programs. Some general permits provide for automatic coverage.
    This means that neither EPA nor the authorized state, tribe, or 
territory programs will have information regarding exactly which 
facilities are regulated under these general permits. General permits 
cover a wide range of facility types that range from the very large 
(e.g., offshore oil and gas facilities, seafood processors) to very 
small discharges. Discharges from facilities covered under general 
permits include a variety of pollutants, such as total suspended 
solids, biochemical oxygen demand, oil and grease, bacteria, nutrients, 
hydrocarbons, metals, and toxics. The following table presents an 
estimate of several types of general permit covered facilities:

      Table IV.1--Estimate of Facilities Covered by General Permits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Current        Estimated
                                             number of     total number
           General permit type              facilities    of  facilities
                                               \21\        over  5 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Stormwater.................         222,000  \22\ 1,010,000
Industrial Stormwater...................         100,000         171,000
CAFO....................................          11,600          14,000
Small Municipal Separate Stormwater                6,300           8,000
 Sewer Systems..........................
Vessel General Permit \23\..............          69,000         100,000
Pesticide Applicators \24\..............         365,000         645,000
Other Industrial General Permits (e.g.,           31,800          40,000
 oil and gas extraction, seafood
 processors)............................
Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs)...........              38              38
Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs)...........           1,900           1,900
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................         816,138       1,989,938
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 46026]]

    Finally, EPA notes that POTWs with approved pretreatment programs 
can use general control mechanisms, such as general permits, to 
regulate the activities of groups of significant industrial users 
(SIUs). Provided that the POTW has the necessary legal authority, it 
may issue a general control mechanism for a group of SIUs that meet 
certain minimum criteria for being considered substantially similar [40 
CFR 403.8(f)(1)(A)(1)]. Pretreatment reporting is discussed in Section 
IV.E.1.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As of October 2011.
    \22\ Although EPA anticipates the need to manage data flows for 
approximately 1 million CGP permittees over the next 5 years, due to 
rapid turnover there will only be approximately 202,000 permittees 
at any given time.
    \23\ Not covered in this proposed rule; the reasons are 
described in Section IV.E.6.c.
    \24\ Not covered in this proposed rule; the reasons are 
described in Section IV.E.6.d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Existing Reporting Requirements
    In general, there is significantly less data in ICIS-NPDES on 
facilities covered by general permits than facilities regulated under 
individual permits due to reduced state reporting requirements for non-
major facilities. Most facilities covered by general permits are 
classified as non-majors. States, tribes, territories, and EPA regions 
are required to enter data concerning the general permit and some 
limited data regarding general permit covered facilities. Limited data 
on general permit covered facilities impedes an accurate assessment of 
this part of the NPDES program. .
    In particular, there are significantly less DMR data and linkages 
to receiving waters for these facilities as compared to facilities 
controlled by individual permits. EPA estimates that approximately 90 
percent of general permit covered facilities regulated by a non-
stormwater general permit are required to submit DMRs. However, most of 
the general permit covered facilities are nonmajors and their DMR data 
is not yet incorporated into ICIS-NPDES. This lack of data 
significantly inhibits public transparency on discharge data and 
compliance with permit effluent limits, as roughly 95 percent of all 
NPDES-regulated entities are covered by general permits.
iii. What data would be required to be submitted electronically and 
why?
    EPA is soliciting comment on having facilities electronically 
submit NOIs and NOTs for permit coverage or requesting the termination 
of permit coverage in accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i) and (ii), 
122.41(l), 122.26(b)(15) and (g)(4), and 124.5, which are proposed to 
be updated to reference the need for these submissions to comply with 
40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. Similarly, as required, NECs and 
LEWs are to be completed and submitted electronically by the facility 
in accordance with 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15) and (g)(4), which references 
the need for these submissions to comply with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, 
and part 127. The data elements specific to these general permit 
reports are listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127.
    In addition to notifying the permitting authority of a facility's 
desire to obtain, waive, or terminate permit coverage, the general 
permit reports submitted by facilities also provide EPA, the state, 
tribe, or territory with data about the facility and its operations. 
These data include: information identifying the facility; a description 
of the facility's processes, wastewater volumes, and pollutant 
characteristics; discharge point locations, including the name of the 
receiving water body; projected start and end dates of permit coverage; 
effects of discharge on threatened or endangered species; certification 
statements; and other site-specific data. Although each general permit 
can impose slightly different reporting requirements, the process is 
consistent and may include some of the following types of data:
     Facility information (e.g., ownership, name, address, 
location, non-government contacts);
     Permit information (e.g., NPDES ID, permit number, permit 
type, various permit dates, permitted flow information, information 
about permit status, industry category and codes, permit limits, and 
permittee address information);
     Certain information for cooling water intake structures 
and thermal variances where applicable (e.g., intake type, number of 
intakes, design intake flow);
     Report information associated with NOTs, NECs, and LEWs;
     Biosolids information, where applicable (e.g., sewage 
sludge production and disposal information);
     CAFO information, where applicable (e.g., animal types and 
numbers, confinement types and capacity, storage types and capacities);
     Stormwater discharge information, where applicable (e.g., 
receiving water body name, project size, residual designation 
information, MS4 data, project termination data);
     CSO information, where applicable (e.g., incorporated 
controls, population served, information on collection system and 
satellite systems);
     Pretreatment information, where applicable (e.g., program 
indicators and dates, receiving POTW, streamlining dates, control 
authority); and
     POTW information, where applicable (e.g., population 
served, and satellite collection system information).
    EPA is soliciting comment on a minimum set of data (see Appendix A 
to 40 CFR part 127) be submitted electronically to ensure consistent 
and complete reporting nationwide and to expedite the collection and 
processing of the data, thereby making it more timely, accurate, 
complete, and available to the public. EPA estimates that the 
electronic submission of these general permit reports will save the 
states, tribes, and territories considerable resources, make reporting 
easier for NPDES-regulated entities, streamline permit renewals (as 
permit writers typically review previous noncompliance events during 
permit renewal), ensure full exchange of NPDES general permit data 
between states, tribes, territories, and EPA to the public, and improve 
environmental decision-making. The standard minimum data elements are 
provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. This proposed rule does not 
expand the reporting requirements for permittees beyond what is 
required by existing regulations.
    In most cases, a business or facility will only be required to 
submit such forms once during each permit cycle. Most of these general 
permit reports are currently being received by the states, tribes, 
territories, or EPA in hard-copy form (i.e., printed on paper) for 
distribution within the permitting authority for approval processing 
and management. In addition to the four general permit reports (i.e., 
NOIs, NOTs, LEWs, and NECs), facilities operating under some general 
permits are also required to electronically submit other NPDES data 
(e.g., DMRs).
iv. Additional Considerations
    During the implementation period, EPA will address variations in 
the four general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs, LEWs, NECs) across 
the different authorized NPDES programs. EPA's goal is to implement a 
general permit reporting system that can capture general permits data 
nationally. For example, EPA currently operates an electronic reporting 
system for NOIs and a Vessels One Time Report supporting four EPA-
issued general permits: Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) \25\;

[[Page 46027]]

Construction General Permit (CGP) \26\; Vessels General Permit (VGP) 
\27\; and the Pesticides General Permit (PGP). The MSGP and CGP 
regulate facilities where EPA is the permitting authority (e.g., in 
non-authorized states, tribes, and territories) and the VGP is a 
nationwide permit administered by EPA. On October 31, 2011, EPA issued 
a final NPDES Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for point source 
discharges from the application of pesticides to waters of the United 
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp.cfm.
    \26\ See http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp.cfm.
    \27\ http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/vgpermit.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All state, tribe, and territory MSGPs and CGPs should be collecting 
similar data, but some states, tribes, and territories might be 
collecting additional data elements for their own needs. For these 
general permits, EPA believes a reporting tool based on the federal 
MSGP and CGP, which includes a number of definable data fields can 
accommodate the full range of state, tribe, or territory variability. 
In essence, the reporting tool could merge the EPA data fields with 
other definable fields to produce a ``customized'' general permit 
reporting tool specifically for use by permittees within that state, 
tribe, or territory. EPA anticipates a certain amount of data 
commonality that will help limit the number of truly unique fields on 
reporting forms.
    Several factors could reduce the number of unique reporting tools 
that would be needed. First, substantial portions of all general 
permits are quite similar-such as the data identifying the facility and 
its owners and operators. In addition, many of the general permit types 
would be tracked by multiple states, tribes, or territories and may be 
similar due to common permittee operations, discharges, or monitoring. 
Several states, tribes, or territories have either developed general 
permits for specific industries, or have developed a more generic 
general permit that includes an industry as a subset under a broader 
category. Where common general permit data are identified across 
states, tribes, and territories, a limited number of industry-specific 
templates, each of which includes a limited number of definable fields, 
might be able to accommodate the full range of variability among non-
EPA issued general permits. EPA solicits comment on how to best address 
the variability of general permits issued by EPA, states, tribes, and 
territories. There are a number of scenarios as states, tribes, and 
territories move toward the electronic submission of general permit 
reports.
     Permits Covered by State, Tribal, and Territory General 
Permit Electronic Reporting Tools--As of October 1, 2011, approximately 
15 states use an electronic reporting tool for NOIs for at least some 
of their permit types (see DCN 0027). EPA expects these states to 
continue using their existing NOI electronic reporting tools. EPA will 
review these tools to determine if they comply with 40 CFR part 3, 
122.22, and part 127 (see 40 CFR 127.27). States, tribes, and 
territories will also be required to share with EPA the minimum set of 
federal data (Appendix A to CFR part 127). EPA will provide the states, 
tribes, and territories with information on how to provide the data to 
EPA's CDX node on the Exchange Network, which will provide the data to 
ICIS-NPDES.
     States, Tribes, and Territories Opting to Use EPA's 
General Permit Report System- Some states, tribes, and territories do 
not have an electronic reporting system for general permit reports and 
would prefer not to develop one. States, tribes, and territories have 
the option to adopt EPA's electronic reporting tool for general permit 
reports. EPA's electronic reporting tool would allow users to enter 
their general permit report data into a fillable PDF electronic form 
and then electronically sign and submit the form to the authorized 
NPDES program. The appropriate authorized NPDES program will approve or 
deny the form, and approved forms would be sent to ICIS-NPDES by the 
tool through CDX. EPA's electronic reporting tool for general permit 
reports will also offer users the capability of sending the approved 
general permit data to a particular state, tribe, and territory NPDES 
data system.
    When a state, tribe, or territory notifies EPA that they intend to 
use EPA's tools to allow their permittees to electronically submit 
general permit reports, the EPA system administrator will set up a 
general permit report workspace within the federal tool for use by EPA 
regions and authorized state, tribe, or territory programs. After that 
workspace has been set up, the tool will solicit essential general 
permit data and monitoring requirements from ICIS-NPDES via CDX to 
populate electronic forms. EPA regions and authorized state, tribe, or 
territory programs will also have the capability of creating new 
general permits in the new federal tool. These forms would be 
accessible to facilities through the workspace. An authorized NPDES 
program administrator would be responsible for approving general permit 
reports from users, establishing the limit monitoring requirements for 
an approved NOI, and submitting the data to ICIS-NPDES.
    The authorized NPDES program user would be responsible for 
confirming that ICIS-NPDES has processed the data and would either 
communicate errors back to the facility user or generate a confirmation 
letter for the facility user along with a permit identifier that has 
been assigned by ICIS-NPDES. The new federal tool will provide an easy 
means for the authorized NPDES program to manage these general permit 
data without requiring direct access to ICIS-NPDES.
    As noted in the implementation section (see Section IV.K), 
facilities seeking coverage, waiver, or termination from a general 
permit would be required to submit the information required by this 
rule electronically. If the general permit does not require electronic 
reporting, then these facilities would be required to submit paper copy 
general permit reports to their permitting authority for approval and 
(unless the permitting authority is EPA) also report electronically to 
EPA under Sections 304(i) and 308 of the Clean Water Act. If that 
general permit requires electronic reporting, it must be compliant with 
40 CFR part 3 (CROMERR) and 40 CFR part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting 
Rule), including submission to the appropriate initial recipient, as 
identified by EPA, and as described in Section IV.I.
c. CAFO Program Reports
i. Background
    Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are animal feeding 
operations where animals are kept and raised in confinement, as defined 
at 40 CFR 122.23(b)(2), and that meet certain regulatory criteria or 
are designated by the permitting authority or Regional Administrator. 
In the absence of facility-specific data, EPA's Office of Water 
estimates there are approximately 14,400 large or medium CAFOs 
nationwide. The Office of Water estimates that of this universe, 
approximately 8,300 CAFOs have NPDES permits. Of the remaining large 
and medium CAFOs, it is unknown how many of them discharge and need 
permit coverage (see DCN 0029). Failure to properly manage manure, 
litter, and process wastewater at CAFOs can negatively impact the 
environment and public health. Discharges of manure and wastewater from 
CAFOs have the potential to contribute pollutants such as nitrogen, 
phosphorus, organic matter, sediments, pathogens, heavy metals, 
hormones, and ammonia to surface waters.

[[Page 46028]]

ii. Existing Reporting Requirements
    Under the existing NPDES regulations, pursuant to 40 CFR 
122.23(d)(1), every CAFO that discharges must apply for either an 
individual NPDES permit or seek coverage under a general permit, if 
available. NPDES-permitted CAFOs are required to submit an annual 
report to the State Director or Regional Administrator pursuant to 40 
CFR 122.42(e)(4). The annual report must include: (1) The number and 
type of animals, whether in open confinement or housed under roof; (2) 
estimated amount of total manure, litter, and process wastewater 
generated by the CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons or gallons); (3) 
estimated amount of total manure, litter, and process wastewater 
transferred to other persons by the CAFO in the previous 12 months 
(tons or gallons); (4) total number of acres for land application 
covered by the CAFO's nutrient management plan; (5) total number of 
acres under control of the CAFO that were used for land application of 
manure, litter, and process wastewater in the previous 12 months; (6) 
summary of all manure, litter, and process wastewater discharges from 
the production area that have occurred in the previous 12 months, 
including date, time, and approximate volume; (7) a statement 
indicating whether the current version of the CAFO's nutrient 
management plan was developed or approved by a certified nutrient 
management planner; and (8) specified supporting agricultural data and 
calculations including the actual crop(s) planted and actual yield(s) 
for each field, and the actual nitrogen and phosphorus content of the 
manure, litter, and process wastewater.
iii. What Data Would Be Required To Be Submitted Electronically and 
Why?
    EPA is soliciting comment on requiring CAFO permitted facilities 
electronically submit CAFO annual reports in accordance with 40 CFR 
122.42(e)(4), which references the need for these submissions to be 
compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. The data elements 
specific to these annual reports are listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 127. EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4) to include 
electronic reporting requirements.
    The electronic submission of annual reports would help permitting 
authorities collect and process CAFO information more efficiently, and 
aid in the evaluation of the compliance status of NPDES-permitted 
CAFOs. Electronic annual reports would provide the data elements 
already required under 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4) in a more efficient and 
accessible form, allowing EPA, the states, tribes, territories, and the 
public to obtain updated information such as how many permitted CAFOs 
there are in the U.S., how many animals of each animal type are being 
raised at permitted CAFOs, how many permitted CAFOs have had discharges 
within the previous year, the type and amounts of manure generated by 
permitted CAFOs in the previous year, and the requirements and controls 
on these CAFOs.
    Electronic reporting of CAFO annual reports will also improve 
compliance monitoring. EPA, states, tribes, and territories rely on the 
information contained in annual program reports to augment inspections 
and effectively monitor compliance. The electronic submittal of annual 
reports will supply basic information on permitted CAFOs as well as 
more detailed discharge information.
    Finally, EPA is soliciting comment on eliminating the reporting of 
``time'' of discharge from the annual report [see 40 CFR 
122.42(e)(4)(vi)]. EPA estimates that the reporting of the ``date'' of 
a discharge is sufficient for permitting and compliance determinations. 
EPA solicits comment on this proposed change.
iv. Additional Considerations
    EPA recognizes that electronic reporting could be impracticable for 
some CAFO facilities, particularly those that do not have broadband 
access to the internet. In general, electronic reporting tools require 
faster Internet connection speeds to work most effectively. Taking into 
account the limitations of broadband availability and technological 
capabilities, EPA is considering providing a temporary exception to the 
electronic reporting requirements for certain CAFO facilities or other 
facilities lacking broadband capability or high-speed Internet access 
and solicits comment on such an exception. See 40 CFR 127.15. In that 
section, EPA solicits comment on whether to allow such facilities to 
receive a temporary waiver from electronic reporting, and temporarily 
be required to submit their NPDES compliance information on paper-based 
forms.
d. Sewer Overflow and Bypass Reports
i. Background
    This section of the preamble discusses CSOs and SSOs (together 
referred in this proposal as ``sewer overflow events''), and wastewater 
treatment works bypasses. CSO discharges generally occur at known 
outfall locations and are covered by an NPDES permit. SSOs generally do 
not occur at designated locations, but can occur from various locations 
in the system (e.g., manholes). A bypass at a POTW is an intentional 
diversion of wastewater from any portion of the treatment facility. See 
40 CFR 122.41(m)(l).
ii. Existing Program Reporting Requirements
    Reporting requirements for sewer overflows and bypasses in NPDES 
permits are to be at least as stringent as specified in the ``standard 
conditions'' applicable to all NPDES permits [40 CFR 122.41(l), and 
(m)(3)] or the CSO Control Policy [59 FR 18688, April 19, 1994)] The 
following summarizes the current reporting requirements for sewer 
overflows and bypasses.
    Combined Sewer Overflows
    Under Section 402(q)(1) of the Clean Water Act, NPDES permits for 
combined sewer system discharges shall conform to EPA's 1994 CSO 
Control Policy.\28\ The CSO Control Policy calls for a phased approach 
to permitting. In Phase I permits, all permittees with combined sewer 
systems were initially required to immediately implement Best Available 
Technology/Best Control Technology, which at a minimum includes the 
``nine minimum controls'' as determined on a Best Professional Judgment 
(BPJ) basis by the permitting authority and develop a long-term CSO 
control plan that will ultimately result in compliance with the 
requirements of the CWA, including water quality standards. Phase II 
permits contain requirements for implementing the permittees' long-term 
CSO control plans (LTCPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See EPA's Web site at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The nine minimum controls are measures to reduce the prevalence and 
impacts of CSOs and include two information-related measures. 
Permittees are required to provide ``public notification to ensure that 
the public receives adequate notification of CSO occurrences and CSO 
impacts,'' and to conduct ``monitoring to effectively characterize CSO 
impacts and the efficacy of CSO controls.'' Development and 
implementation of the LTCPs entails the following, which include 
monitoring and reported activities:
     Characterizing, monitoring, and modeling of the combined 
sewer system (see CSO Control Policy Section II.C.1);
     Prohibiting new or significantly increased overflows to 
sensitive areas, which requires monitoring and

[[Page 46029]]

assessment of the CSO events (see CSO Control Policy Section II.C.3.a);
     Conducting an evaluation of CSO controls based on 
frequency, duration, volume, location, treatment, and compliance with 
water-quality standards (see CSO Control Policy Section II.C.4);
     Conducting a cost and performance analysis of the LTCP 
based on characterization, monitoring, and modeling data (see CSO 
Control Policy Section II.C.5);
     Maximizing treatment at the existing POTW treatment plant 
based on characterization, monitoring, and modeling data (see CSO 
Control Policy Section II.C.7); and
     Conducting a post-construction compliance monitoring 
program, according to a plan which details the monitoring protocols to 
be followed, such as the necessary effluent, ambient, and other water-
quality monitoring, which must be approved by the NPDES authority (see 
CSO Control Policy Section II.C.9).
    The characterization, monitoring, modeling, and reporting measures 
help the permittee and the NPDES permitting authority determine the 
appropriate controls to be implemented and the effectiveness of the 
controls selected in the LTCP in meeting CWA requirements and achieving 
applicable water quality standards. The NPDES permitting authority uses 
CSO monitoring and assessment data from the permittee in order to 
develop appropriate permit conditions and demonstrate compliance with 
the CSO Control Policy. NPDES permits must identify the CSO outfalls 
and permitted discharges. All discharges from these outfalls, whether 
dry or wet-weather discharges, are subject to reporting requirements 
under NPDES permits. CSO discharges from CSO permitted outfalls (dry or 
wet-weather) that constitute noncompliance are required to be reported 
under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7). CSO discharges from CSO permitted 
outfalls (wet-weather) that do not result in noncompliance can be 
reported on DMRs [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i)] at the frequency identified 
by the permit, and are subject to public notification requirements, one 
of the nine minimum measures under the CSO Control Policy. However, one 
of the nine minimum measures is to prohibit CSO discharges during dry 
weather. Therefore, EPA regulations require that these and other 
noncompliance events must be reported under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and 
(7).
Sanitary Sewer Overflows
    Separate sanitary sewer systems, unlike combined sewer systems, are 
designed to carry only domestic sewage. SSOs are generally unplanned 
and can occur anywhere in a collection system, although generally they 
are due to excessive infiltration and inflow during and following wet 
weather events. SSOs, including those that do not reach waters of the 
United States, may be indicative of improper operation and maintenance 
of the sewer system and thus may violate NPDES permit conditions 
requiring proper operation and maintenance [40 CFR 122.41(e)]. These 
noncompliance events are required to be reported to the NPDES 
permitting authority in compliance with EPA's standard permit 
conditions [40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)]. POTWs must provide an oral 
report within 24 hours for any overflow event that ``may endanger 
health or the environment'' and follow-up the oral report with a 
``written submission'' within 5 days of the permittee's discovery of 
the overflow event [see 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)]. All other overflows are 
required to be reported by the permittee with the next regularly 
scheduled monitoring report [40 CFR 122.41(l)(7)].
Bypass Events
    EPA regulations [40 CFR 122.41(m)] prohibit ``bypassing'' any 
portion of a treatment facility. If the permittee knows that a bypass 
will occur, it is required to submit notice to the permitting 
authority, if possible at least ten days in advance of anticipated 
bypass events [see 40 CFR 122.41(m)(3)(i)]. If a bypass is 
unanticipated, permittees must provide an oral report within 24 hours 
and follow-up the oral report with a ``written submission'' within 5 
days of the permittee's discovery of the bypass event [see 40 CFR 
122.41(m)(3)(ii) which references 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)]. Where a POTW 
has a combined sewer system, and the permit includes an approved 
anticipated bypass, the permit should specify monitoring and reporting 
related to the bypass. This proposed rule does not change the reporting 
requirements for bypass events related to non-POTW facilities 
(industrial facilities).
iii. What data would be required to be submitted electronically and 
why?
    EPA is soliciting comment on requiring POTWs to report sewer 
overflow, sanitary sewer overflow, and bypass reports in compliance 
with permit conditions implementing 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4),(6), and (7), 
(m)(3), and CSO Control Policy would be required to be completed 
electronically. These data submissions would be subject to 40 CFR part 
3, 122.22, and part 127. The data for these reports would be based on 
current reporting requirements and listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 
127. EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7), and 
(m)(3)(i) to include electronic reporting requirements for sewer 
overflows and bypass events.
    With respect to CSOs, this proposed language would only require 
electronic reporting for noncompliant combined sewer overflows. EPA is 
not proposing to require the electronic submission of LTCPs as these 
reports are unique to each POTW. EPA solicits comment on this approach. 
In addition, under section 402(q), permits issued to POTWs with 
combined sewer systems must require monitoring and reporting of wet-
weather CSO events in accordance with the CSO Control Policy. As 
previously noted, wet weather CSO discharges 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. EPA is soliciting comment on 
amending 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4) to require the same data that would be 
required to be reported under proposed section 122.41(l)(6) and 
Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 be reported electronically by such POTWs 
in their DMRs.
    With respect to unanticipated bypasses, EPA is soliciting comment 
that the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(m)(3)(ii) would also 
be changed from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting as this 
section cross-references section 122.41(l)(6), which EPA is proposing 
to amend as above. This proposed rule would not change the reporting 
requirements for bypass events related to non-POTW facilities 
(industrial facilities).
    The collection, management, analysis, and reporting of data from 
the sewer overflow and bypass reports, which have been identified for 
conversion from paper-based to electronic reporting under the proposed 
rule, would aid EPA oversight of state NPDES programs as well as 
provide the public with better access to this data. CSO, SSO, and 
bypass events are of special concern with respect to public health 
because they can expose the public to bacteria, viruses, intestinal 
parasites, and other microorganisms that can cause serious illness such 
as cholera, dysentery, hepatitis, cryptosporidiosis, and giardiasis. 
Precipitation and snowmelt entering combined and separate sanitary 
sewer systems may result in sewer overflow events, which in turn may be 
responsible for beach closings, swimming and fishing advisories, and 
habitat degradation. Sewer overflows contribute to 15 percent of 
impaired

[[Page 46030]]

rivers and streams, 6 percent of impaired lakes, and 33 percent of 
impaired bays and estuaries.\29\ The Office of Water's (OW) 2004 Report 
to Congress on ``Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs'' estimated the 
annual CSO and SSO discharge volumes of untreated wastewater at 850 
billion and three to ten billion gallons per year, respectively.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ U.S. EPA, 2009. ``FY 2010 Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance (OECA) National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance, 
April 23, 2009, DCN 0044.
    \30\ U.S. EPA, 2004. '' Report to Congress: Impacts and Control 
of CSOs and SSO,'' EPA 833-R-04-001, August, DCN 0045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of this proposed rule, EPA, states, tribes, and 
territories would be able to better estimate the location, frequency, 
magnitude, and duration of sewer overflows, the environmental and 
public health impacts, and the potential causes. This sewer overflow 
data would provide the public with meaningful information on the number 
and frequency of sewer overflows in their communities. This data could 
also be used to prioritize decisions on how best to upgrade aging 
infrastructure and could be integrated with health warnings by local 
municipalities to protect public health.
    EPA also solicits comment on whether these sewer overflow reports 
should be limited to sewer overflows at a threshold volume or include 
de minimis releases (minor volumes associated with routine operation 
and maintenance). Finally, EPA also solicits comment on whether the 
list of minimum federal data for sewer overflows and bypasses (Appendix 
A to 40 CFR part 127) provide sufficient distinction between the 
different types of sewer overflows and bypasses.
e. Pretreatment Program Reports
i. Background
    POTWs receive wastewater from households (domestic waste), as well 
as from a wide variety of commercial and industrial facilities, 
referred to as industrial users (IUs). The types of IUs range widely, 
from small restaurants to hospitals to large and complex organic 
chemical manufacturers. EPA has further identified some IUs as 
categorical industrial users (CIUs), i.e., IUs subject to EPA's 
pretreatment standards developed for particular industrial categories, 
and significant industrial users (SIUs), i.e., IUs that are either CIUs 
or discharge process wastewater above the thresholds set in 40 CFR 
403.5. EPA has developed a comprehensive pretreatment program 
implemented through EPA Regions, state, tribes, territories, and POTWs 
to control IU discharges of pollutants that might pass through or 
interfere with POTW treatment processes or contaminate sewage sludge, 
thereby posing a threat to human health or the environment. POTWs with 
approved pretreatment programs are required to develop, implement, and 
enforce pretreatment program elements through provisions written into 
their NPDES permits or waste discharge requirements. POTWs with 
approved pretreatment programs are also required to annually report 
biosolids compliance monitoring data to EPA or an authorized state 
program. NPDES regulations also require POTWs to disclose information 
to the Director of the permitting authority about IU discharges into 
their collection system and to identify when these discharges 
substantially change [see 40 CFR 122.42(b) and 122.44(j)(1)].
    The pretreatment program primarily focuses on controlling 
pollutants from IUs that: (1) Have the potential to cause the POTW to 
violate its NPDES permit discharge limits; (2) may pose a safety 
concern to the POTW or its workers; or (3) affect the POTW's sewage 
sludge disposal method. [See 40 CFR 403.3(i).] The pretreatment program 
also has several other equally important regulatory requirements and 
initiatives. First, the pretreatment program ensures implementation and 
compliance with the technology-based categorical pretreatment standards 
(see 40 CFR 403.6). Second, the pretreatment program contains 
regulatory provisions for preventing sewer blockages and collection 
system overflows due to fats, oils, and grease.\31\ Finally, municipal 
pretreatment programs are the source of significant pollution 
prevention and innovation initiatives. For example, such efforts 
include best management practices and controls for dental mercury and 
unused pharmaceuticals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ U.S. EPA, 2007, ``Controlling Fats, Oils, and Grease 
Discharges from Food Service Establishments,'' EPA-833-F-07-007, 
July, DCN 0046.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the pretreatment program regulations at 40 CFR part 403 and 
requirements within the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR part 122, EPA and 
approved state pretreatment programs directly oversee and regulate over 
1,500 approved pretreatment programs. These approved pretreatment 
programs, in turn, oversee approximately 20,000 SIUs [see 40 CFR 
403.8(f)]. The total number of SIUs is approximately three times the 
number of NPDES major dischargers.
    The pretreatment program is considered a component of the NPDES 
program; however, in a larger sense, its regulatory framework is as 
comprehensive as the NPDES permit program itself. As with the NPDES 
permit program, EPA can authorize states to implement and enforce the 
NPDES pretreatment program. EPA has authorized pretreatment programs in 
36 states as of October 1, 2011. The pretreatment program has 
additional complexity as authorized states, tribes, and territories 
(approval authorities) can further authorize pretreatment program 
authority to local governments. This complexity is reflected in the 
different types of compliance monitoring reporting, the associated 
report preparers and reviewers, and report timing.
ii. Existing Program Reporting Requirements
    EPA identified 23 different pretreatment program reports as 
candidates for electronic reporting; these reports are currently 
managed in hard-copy format between industrial users, control 
authorities, and approval authorities. See Table IV.2. In general, 
these reports fall into the following categories:
     Approval Authority Reports: Program reports from approval 
authorities to EPA;
     Control Authority Reports: Program reports from control 
authorities to approval authorities (states or EPA Regions); and
     Industrial User Reports: Program reports from industrial 
users to control authorities (local POTWs, authorized states, tribes, 
territories, or EPA Regions in cities without approved programs).

                                Table IV.2--List of Pretreatment Program Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Regulation                    Report           Reporting entity    Receiving entity      Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 403.6..................  Categorical             CIU/POTW..........  Approval           Once per request.
                                 Determination Request.                      Authority.
40 CFR 403.7..................  Removal Credit          Control Authority.  Approval           Once per request.
                                 Authorization and                           Authority.
                                 Compliance Monitoring.

[[Page 46031]]

 
40 CFR 403.09.................  POTW pretreatment       Control Authority.  Approval           Once per request.
                                 programs and/or                             Authority.
                                 authorization to
                                 revise pretreatment
                                 standards: Submission
                                 for approval.
40 CFR 403.10.................  Application and         Approval Authority  EPA..............  Once per request.
                                 Reporting
                                 Requirements for
                                 States to Seek
                                 Approval from EPA to
                                 Run Their State
                                 Pretreatment Program.
40 CFR 403.11.................  Removal Credit          Control Authority.  Approval           Case by Case.
                                 Authorization.                              Authority.
40 CFR 403.12 (b).............  Baseline Monitoring     CIU...............  Control Authority  Once per EPA
                                 Report.                                                        categorical
                                                                                                standard
                                                                                                rulemaking.
40 CFR 403.12 (d).............  Initial report on       CIU...............  Control Authority  Once per EPA
                                 Compliance with                                                categorical
                                 Categorical                                                    standard
                                 Pretreatment Standard.                                         rulemaking.
40 CFR 403.12 (e).............  Periodic Reports on     CIU...............  Control Authority  Biannually.
                                 Continued Compliance
                                 for CIUs.
40 CFR 403.12 (f).............  Notice of Potential     IU................  Control Authority  Case by Case.
                                 Problems, Including
                                 Slug Loading.
403.12(g)(2)..................  24 hour notification    SIU...............  Control Authority  Case by Case.
                                 of violations, 30 day
                                 re-sampling.
40 CFR 403.12 (h).............  Periodic Reports on     SIU...............  Control Authority  Biannually.
                                 Continued Compliance
                                 for Non-CIUs.
40 CFR 403.12 (i).............  Annual POTW Reports...  Control Authority.  Approval           Annually.
                                                                             Authority.
40 CFR 403.12 (j).............  Notification of         IU................  Control Authority  Case by Case.
                                 Changed Discharge.
40 CFR 403.12 (k).............  Compliance Schedule     Control Authority.  Approval           Once per event.
                                 for POTWs.                                  Authority.
40 CFR 403.12 (p).............  Hazardous Waste         IU................  Control Authority  Case by Case.
                                 Notification and BMP
                                 Certification.
40 CFR 122.42(b)..............  POTW Disclosure         POTW..............  NPDES Program      Case by Case.
                                 Requirements on IU                          Director.
                                 Discharges for NPDES
                                 Permitting.
40 CFR 122.44(j)(1)...........  SIUs, identify in       POTW..............  NPDES Program      Case by Case.
                                 terms of volumes and                        Director.
                                 character of
                                 pollutants.
40 CFR 403.12 (q).............  Annual Certification    CIU...............  Control Authority  Annually.
                                 by Non-Significant
                                 Categorical
                                 Industrial Users.
40 CFR 403.13.................  Variances from          IU, POTW, or Other  Approval           Case by Case.
                                 categorical             Interested Person.  Authority and
                                 pretreatment                                EPA.
                                 standards for
                                 fundamentally
                                 different factors.
40 CFR 403.15.................  Net/Gross calculations  IU................  Control Authority  Case by Case.
40 CFR 403.16.................  Upset.................  CIUs..............  Control Authority  Case by Case.
40 CFR 403.17.................  Bypass................  IUs...............  Control Authority  Case by Case.
40 CFR 403.18.................  Modifications of POTW   Control Authority.  Approval           Case by Case.
                                 pretreatment programs.                      Authority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: EPA's pretreatment regulations (40 CFR part 403) also require other reports (e.g., reports required by
  administrative orders). These reporting requirements are case-by-case events.

    These reports are submitted in hard-copy format to local 
pretreatment programs, authorized states, tribes, territories, or EPA 
Regions. Key data from these reports are not generally standardized, 
publicly available, or shared because these data are mostly in hard-
copy format and reported in different forms.
    Currently, authorized states, tribes, territories, or EPA Regions 
enter or otherwise transfer basic POTW data (e.g., POTW name, address, 
latitude and longitude, POTW NPDES ID, POTW effluent limits, name of 
receiving waterbody) into ICIS-NPDES (see DCN 0031). Pretreatment 
program audits and compliance inspection summary data, collected by the 
authorized states, tribes, territories, or EPA, is entered into ICIS-
NPDES; similar summary data on POTW performance actions is submitted 
annually by the POTW [in accordance with NPDES permit conditions and 
also 40 CFR 403.12(i)], but is not necessarily entered into state or 
federal data systems. EPA limited the number of WENDB pretreatment data 
elements as a means of reducing the reporting burden on states, tribes, 
and territories. Consequently, ICIS-NPDES pretreatment data only 
provide very general information about pretreatment programs and do not 
contain programmatic or compliance information on individual 
significant industrial users.
    In the absence of approved local pretreatment programs, EPA, state, 
tribe, or territory functions as the control authority with the direct 
responsibility of overseeing these industrial users. EPA estimates that 
there are approximately 1,400 industrial users located in cities 
without approved local pretreatment programs. Failure to track and 
enforce compliance of IUs for which states, tribes, territories, or EPA 
are the control authority was cited as a weakness by EPA's Office of 
Inspector General (see DCN 0032). Some states and EPA Regions acting as 
control authorities have entered some information regarding industrial 
users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs, 
but such data is very limited in the national NPDES data systems.
    There are also inconsistencies in data entry between the state, 
tribe, territory, and Regional pretreatment programs. EPA recently 
reviewed pretreatment data in PCS and ICIS-NPDES and

[[Page 46032]]

interviewed EPA Regional pretreatment data entry staff. In doing this, 
EPA identified considerable inconsistencies in data entry, including 
use of database codes, types of data entered, and whether the data is 
entered at all. This lack of timely, accurate, and complete data limits 
EPA's oversight of the pretreatment program at the national level. 
Finally, there is limited public access to pretreatment data in ICIS-
NPDES.
iii. What data would be required to be submitted electronically and 
why?
    EPA solicits comment on having certain pretreatment program reports 
submitted electronically in accordance with 40 CFR 403.12(e), (h), and 
(i), which references the need for these submissions to be compliant 
with 40 CFR part 3, part 127, and 403.12(l). The data elements for 
these reports are listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA notes 
that these reporting requirements do not apply to facilities solely 
regulated under state, tribe, and territory pretreatment statutes and 
regulations (i.e., facilities that are exempt from EPA regulations but 
are regulated under more stringent state, tribe, and territory statutes 
or regulations).
    EPA reviewed all pretreatment reports in Table IV.2 as potential 
candidates for electronic reporting. EPA evaluated the feasibility and 
necessity of converting paper-based pretreatment program reports to 
electronic reports against the following factors: (1) The ability to 
standardize a pretreatment report; (2) the frequency of the 
pretreatment report; (3) the need to collect and manage data from the 
pretreatment report on a national basis for measuring programmatic and 
compliance activities; and (4) what summary data from various paper-
based reports could be combined into another existing reporting 
requirement. EPA proposes that reports that are not identified for 
electronic reporting in this proposed rulemaking would remain as paper-
based reporting requirements unless future regulations are implemented. 
Additionally, the pretreatment program reports that are not identified 
for electronic reporting in this proposed rulemaking may still be good 
candidates for being managed as electronic documents (e.g., searchable 
PDFs) and for posting on EPA, state, tribe, territory, or local 
government Web sites. Making these documents available to the public 
will increase the transparency of the pretreatment program. For the 
reports not identified in this proposed rule for electronic submission, 
EPA solicits comment on which other pretreatment reports (if any) EPA 
should require for electronic submission as electronic documents (e.g., 
searchable PDFs).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Missouri DNR Web site is an example of such a PDF 
repository of static searchable documents. See http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/wpcpermits-issued.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annual POTW Report
    Using the criteria described above, EPA identified the Annual POTW 
Report [40 CFR 403.12 (i)], as a pretreatment report that could be 
converted from a paper-based report to an electronic submission 
compliant with 40 CFR part 3, part 127, and 403.12(l). In developing 
this proposal, EPA noted that summary data (e.g., the number of slug 
loadings) from the following reports are already included in the 
existing Annual POTW Report [40 CFR 403.12(i)] requirements:
     40 CFR 403.7 Removal credits;
     40 CFR 403.12(f) Notice of potential problems including 
slug loadings;
     40 CFR 403.12(j) Notice of change in Industrial User 
discharge;
     40 CFR 403.12(p) Hazardous waste notification and BMP 
certification;
     40 CFR 403.12(q) Annual certification by Non-significant 
CIUs;
     40 CFR 122.42(b) POTW disclosure requirements to NPDES 
Director;
     40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) POTW identification of industrial 
users;
     40 CFR 403.16 Upset notification; and
     40 CFR 403.17 Bypass notification.
    The data elements that comprise the Annual POTW Report are provided 
in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 
403.12(i) to include electronic reporting requirements.
Industrial User Reports
    Using the criteria cited previously, EPA also identified that the 
following industrial user reports could be collected electronically for 
SIUs and CIUs in cities without approved pretreatment programs(EPA 
notes that SIUs and CIUs in cities with an approved pretreatment 
programs will continue to send their reports to their control 
authority; such reports may or may not be electronic submissions).
     40 CFR 403.12(e) Periodic reports on continued compliance 
for CIUs; and
     40 CFR 403.12(h) Periodic reports on continued compliance 
for Non-CIUs.
    This will facilitate tracking and enforcing compliance of SIUs and 
CIUs for which states, tribes, territories, and EPA are the control 
authorities. Standardizing and electronically collecting these reports 
will help address deficiencies in EPA's National Pretreatment Program 
that were identified by EPA's Office of Inspector General (see DCN 
0032). The data elements that comprise these industrial users reports 
in cities without approved pretreatment programs are provided in 
Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 and in the rulemaking record (see DCN 
0022). EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h) to include 
electronic reporting requirements. EPA is not proposing to require 
electronic reporting from IUs that are not SIUs or CIUs as these 
facilities discharge smaller volumes of process wastewater and the 
number of IUs far exceeds the number of SIUs and CIUs. EPA solicits 
comment on whether it should require electronic reporting from IUs that 
are not SIUs or CIUs located in cities where EPA, the state, tribe, or 
territory is the control authority.
    EPA solicits comment on making changes to 40 CFR 403.10 to require 
approved state, tribe, or territory pretreatment programs to 
incorporate the electronic reporting changes and submit their programs 
to EPA for review and approval. This state, tribe, or territory 
submission must require that the approval authority regularly notify 
each control authority that it must electronically submit its annual 
report in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, part 127, and 403.12(l) 
(including the requirement for the control authority to identify the 
initial recipient for electronic submissions). EPA considers these 
state tribe, territory, and local pretreatment program submissions to 
be a non-substantial modification, which means that the approval 
authority has 45 days to either approve or disapprove the modification. 
Where the approval authority does not notify the POTW within 45 days of 
its decision to approve or disapprove the modification or to treat the 
modification as substantial, the POTW may implement the modification as 
if it were approved by the Approval Authority. The proposed rule would 
make changes to 40 CFR 403.10(f)(2) to add the following language: 
Regularly notify all Control Authorities of electronic submission 
requirements of 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127.
iv. Additional Considerations
    Due to the extensive number of entities either implementing or 
regulated under the National Pretreatment Program--approximately 1,600 
approved pretreatment programs nationwide oversee approximately 20,000 
SIUs--EPA is not proposing to convert paper-based reports between all

[[Page 46033]]

IUs and POTWs to electronic submissions at this time. EPA is first 
focusing its efforts on collecting annual reports electronically from 
control authorities, acknowledging that these reports include summary 
data from IU reports, and collecting compliance reports electronically 
from IUs in cities without pretreatment programs. EPA solicits comment 
on whether EPA should re-examine this decision for the final 
rulemaking. Local pretreatment programs on their own initiative may 
convert these other paper-based reports to electronic submissions.
f. Biosolids Program Reports
i. Background
    Wastewater treatment necessarily produces the end products 
effluent, sewage sludge, methane and other gases for energy, and water 
for reuse. Sewage and wastewater generated in homes, businesses, 
industries, and other venues that are conveyed to wastewater treatment 
plants are treated to allow effluent discharges or beneficial uses. The 
National Research Council has identified that compliance with EPA 
standards can promote the effective treatment and safe return of sewage 
sludge to the environment (see DCN 0034). Sewage sludge treatment 
usually involves a variety of processes and factors (e.g., aerobic or 
anaerobic microbial degradation, time and temperature, high pH, lime 
stabilization and dewatering). Without proper controls, biosolids 
(sewage sludge) can present health hazards and cause water quality 
impairments.
    Based upon the 2008 Clean Watershed Needs Survey (CWNS) Report to 
Congress, there are now 14,780 POTWs, which would represent an updated 
universe of sewage sludge (biosolids) generators. Note that the same 
2008 CWNS Report (updated with more accurate data from the states) to 
Congress indicates that the 14,780 POTWs annually serve 73.7 percent of 
the U.S. population (226,302,213) and treat over 32 billion gallons of 
wastewater. Biosolids incinerators and septage removed from the 
numerous onsite/decentralized treatment systems are also covered by the 
40 CFR part 503 requirements.
    In almost equal amounts, these biosolids are either beneficially 
re-used or disposed (e.g., municipal landfill, incineration). This 
volume of biosolids production will continue to increase with 
population growth and more stringent treatment requirements (e.g., 
nutrient removal). The most recent national survey estimated that over 
seven million tons (dry weight) of biosolids were nationally generated 
by POTWs in 2004.\33\ Also, there are currently 218 sewage sludge 
incineration (SSI) units in the United States and Puerto Rico.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ North East Biosolids and Residual Association, 2007. A 
National Biosolids Regulation, Quantity, End Use & Disposal Survey, 
July 20, DCN 0034.
    \34\ U.S. EPA, 2010. Standards of Performance for New Stationary 
Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge 
Incineration Units. Fact Sheet, DCN 0047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 405 of the CWA sets the statutory framework for regulating 
sewage sludge (biosolids). EPA has established a protective regulatory 
framework to manage the use and disposal of biosolids at 40 CFR part 
503. Part 503 is a ``self implementing'' rule, which means that 
entities producing biosolids are regulated whether or not these 
requirements are included in a permit. Depending on use or disposal 
practice, EPA's sewage sludge regulations require monitoring and 
control of up to 10 metals and pathogen indicators.
    Limited biosolids data can be found in national databases such as 
ICIS-NPDES or the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). More detailed 
information on monitoring and biosolids management is provided in 
annual reports submitted by Class I sewage sludge management 
facilities, POTWs with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one 
million gallons per day, and POTWs that serve 10,000 people or more. 
Class I sewage sludge management facilities are facilities that have an 
approved pretreatment program or are in one of the five states that 
have assumed direct pretreatment responsibilities under 40 CFR 
403.10(e). EPA and authorized states, tribes, and territories can also 
identify other sewage sludge management facilities as Class I 
facilities because of the potential for their sewage sludge use or 
disposal practices to affect public health and the environment 
adversely.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See: 40 CFR 503.9 (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vast majority of biosolids annual reports are submitted in 
hard-copy format to EPA's regional offices. These reports document the 
measures taken to protect human health and watersheds from the 
mismanagement of biosolids. Key data from these reports are not 
generally standardized, publicly available, or shared because these 
data are mostly in hard-copy format and are reported in different 
forms. The following quote provides a good example of the effort 
required to complete a one-time assessment of the biosolids program, 
which mostly relies upon non-standardized hard-copy reports: 
``Consistent data on biosolids management is difficult to obtain and 
compile . . . With no centralized data collection and storage system 
yet in place, disparate pieces of data from various states and EPA 
regions must be painstakingly collected and interpreted to produce a 
useful national picture.'' \36\ As of October 1, 2011, eight states are 
authorized to carry out the biosolids program under the NPDES program 
for EPA relative to at least part of the biosolids management practices 
under Part 503. Not all authorizations are complete (e.g., Michigan has 
authorization for land application only). Some states incorporate EPA's 
biosolids regulations in other state programs outside of their NPDES 
program (e.g., solid waste management programs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See DCN 0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Existing Program Reporting Requirements
    EPA's ICIS-NPDES data system has data fields for collecting and 
reporting some biosolids data. Some of these data fields were 
identified as required data elements for entry into EPA's data system 
(i.e., WENDB). \37\ It is the responsibility of the biosolids 
regulatory authority to enter these WENDB data elements into ICIS-
NPDES. A review of these two databases shows that currently there are 
comparatively few biosolids data in either ICIS-NPDES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ U.S. EPA, 1994. ``WENDB Data Elements for Sludge. 
Memorandum from Carol Galloway, Chief, Compliance Information 
Evaluation Branch, and Richard Kuhlman, Acting Branch Chief, Policy 
Development Branch, January 25, DCN 0048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated previously, EPA's sewage sludge regulations (40 CFR 
part 503) require certain POTWs to submit to the authorized state or 
EPA region an annual biosolids report. POTWs that must submit an annual 
report include POTWs with a design flow rate equal to or greater than 
one million gallons per day, POTWs that serve 10,000 people or more, 
and Class I sewage sludge management facilities. In general, Class I 
sewage sludge management facilities must report annually to the 
permitting authority biosolids monitoring data, quantity of biosolids 
managed, ultimate end use or disposal of the biosolids, end use or 
disposal location(s), and vector and pathogen reduction measures. The 
most recent national review of state management of biosolids data found 
a variety of data collection, management, and reporting activities.\38\ 
Ten states are able to efficiently produce data on biosolids management 
projects in their state. Nine states require extensive help

[[Page 46034]]

to collect and analyze their state data on biosolids management 
projects.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See DCN 0034.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are no data collection requirements on sludge removal from 
septic systems, which is also regulated by EPA (Part 503). 
Additionally, there are no existing reporting requirements for smaller 
POTWs without approved local pretreatment programs (e.g., design flow 
rate less than one million gallons per day and serving less than 10,000 
people) and treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDS) that are 
not identified by EPA or the authorized state, tribe, or territory as 
Class I sewage sludge management facilities.
iii. What data would be required to be submitted electronically and 
why?
    EPA solicits comment on having POTWs electronically submit their 
biosolids annual reports in compliance with existing biosolids 
reporting requirements at 40 CFR 503.18, 503.28, and 503.48. The 
standard data elements for these annual biosolids reports are provided 
in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA solicits comment on standardizing 
biosolids reporting in the following areas:
     Type and amount of biosolids generated and managed;
     Sampling and analytical methods;
     Location of biosolids disposal and management practices;
     Land application data;
     Surface disposal data; and
     Incineration data.
    EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 503.18, 503.28, and 503.48 to 
include electronic reporting requirements.
    The electronic collection, management, analysis, and reporting of 
data from these annual biosolids reports would aid EPA oversight of 
state, tribe, and territory biosolids programs as well as providing the 
public with better access to biosolids data. The improved accessibility 
to biosolids data, in accordance with the proposed rule, would provide 
the public with useful information on how well POTWs and other 
biosolids generators are managing their biosolids. These data could 
also be used to prioritize decisions on EPA, state, tribe, and 
territory inspections in order to best protect public health and the 
environment.
g. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Reports
i. Background
    EPA and authorized programs issue NPDES permits to municipal 
separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) which require MS4s to reduce 
pollutants in stormwater discharges and which prohibit illicit 
discharges pursuant to CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii). The Phase I 
Stormwater Rule, issued in 1990, requires MS4s serving populations of 
100,000 or more to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater 
discharges (55 FR 47990). The Phase II Rule, issued in 1999, requires 
small MS4s in urbanized areas, as well as small MS4s outside the 
urbanized areas that are designated by the permitting authority, to 
obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. 
Individual permits tend to cover Phase I MS4s and general permits cover 
most Phase II MS4s.
    Stormwater discharges, including discharges from municipal separate 
storm sewers, industrial facilities and construction sites, can have a 
significant impact on water quality (DCN 0070, 0071, and November 16, 
1990; 55 FR 47991). Such discharges are responsible for beach closings, 
swimming and fishing advisories, and habitat degradation. Several 
studies reveal that stormwater discharges from urban areas can include 
a variety of pollutants, such as turbidity, pathogens, organic 
nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, oil and grease, and debris. Stormwater 
picks up a variety of pollutants such as sediment, debris, pesticides, 
petroleum products, chemicals, solvents, asphalts and acids on its way 
over streets, buildings, landscaping, construction sites, and 
industrial areas, and in extreme cases it can alter the pH of the 
receiving stream or river. These pollutants can harm the environment 
and public health.
    As of October 1, 2011, EPA estimates that there are approximately 
6,600 MS4 permits nationwide. Approximately 280 Phase I MS4 permits 
cover approximately 1,000 permittees in total (many MS4 permits include 
two or more co-permittees). According to ICIS-NPDES (including data for 
34 states, plus territories and tribes), 1,673 permits are designated 
as having MS4 requirements (i.e., with an MS4 permit component). Due to 
system limitations in PCS, permits that include MS4 requirements are 
unable to be identified and evaluated easily for compliance and 
enforcement rates.
    Many MS4 permits contain requirements to implement stormwater 
management programs to prohibit illicit (non-stormwater) discharges in 
order to reduce pollutants discharged to the ``maximum extent 
practicable'' (MEP). EPA regulations require that permit language for 
MS4s include the development and implementation of stormwater 
management plans (SWMPs), which incorporate the use of best management 
practices (BMPs) to meet these pollutant reduction and illicit 
discharge elimination requirements. See 40 CFR 122. 26(d)(2)and 122.34. 
Phase I MS4 permit applications must include estimated reductions in 
pollutant loadings expected from implementation of the SWMP [see 40 CFR 
122.26(d)(2)(v)]. To be covered by a general permit, Phase II MS4 
applications and notices of intent must include ``measurable goals'' 
for each of the BMPs to be implemented through the MS4's SWMP [see 40 
CFR 122.34(d)(ii)]. Measurable goals are objectives and milestones that 
quantify the progress of program implementation and the performance of 
the MS4 BMPs, which EPA can use to track the progress and effectiveness 
of SWMPs in reducing pollutants to the MEP.
    EPA has recommended that measurable goals include, where 
appropriate, the following three components: (1) The activity, or BMP, 
to be completed; (2) a schedule or date of completion; and (3) a 
quantifiable target to measure progress toward achieving the activity 
or BMP.\40\ Measurable goals that include these three components and 
are easily quantifiable would allow EPA, states, tribes, territories, 
and MS4 operators to assess the level of progress in reducing 
pollutants to the MEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Web-based Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II MS4s, 
available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/measurablegoals/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Existing Program Reporting Requirements
    EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.42(c) require operators of large or 
medium MS4s and municipal separate storm sewer systems that have been 
designated by the Director of the regulatory authority under Sec.  
122.26(a)(1)(v) to submit an annual program report. However, because 
state-issued MS4 permits vary significantly nationwide in areas such as 
the breadth and specificity of annual report requirements and because 
SWMPs are developed and implemented by different MS4s, there is 
tremendous variability in the content and quality of annual program 
reports. Additionally, these program reports are a mix of narrative and 
numeric information. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.34(g)(3) require 
less information to be reported for small MS4s than for large and 
medium MS4s, and, except for the initial permit term for small MS4s, 
the regulation specifies small MS4 reporting to be every two years 
rather than the annual reporting frequency required for large or medium 
MS4 permittees.

[[Page 46035]]

iii. What would be required under the proposed rule and why?
    EPA solicits comment on having MS4 permittees electronically submit 
their reports in a standardized format using divisible data elements 
(e.g., not PDF files) in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, part 127, and 
122.22. EPA is soliciting comment on changing 40 CFR 122.34(g)(3) and 
122.42(c) to require regulated entities to electronically submit their 
MS4 reports in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. 
Specific data elements proposed to be required for the MS4 reports are 
provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127.
    EPA is also not proposing to change the frequency of MS4 program 
reporting. Some MS4 permits may also include numeric benchmarks or 
numeric parameters that are not themselves effluent limits, but help to 
determine whether narrative effluent limits are met or whether BMPs are 
working effectively. Enhancements to NetDMR to include unscheduled 
reporting would allow for electronic collection of DMR effluent 
reporting from MS4s; currently, ICIS-NPDES provides for unscheduled DMR 
data to be manually entered in the database. Finally, EPA is proposing 
to allow states, tribes, and territories to add their own unique set of 
data elements, including document attachments (e.g., PDF) as needed.
    The MS4 program report should document the MS4 actions during the 
previous year, evaluate program results, and describe planned changes 
towards continuous improvement. Although generally program reports are 
written for the permitting authority, they can also be written for 
members of the community as a way of divulging progress made towards 
meeting water quality goals. Electronically collecting these program 
reports would allow compliance monitoring data to be more easily shared 
with EPA, states, tribes, territories, and the public. These changes 
would provide the public with the opportunity to observe and examine 
the progress made by various MS4 programs towards controlling 
stormwater discharges. In particular, collecting MS4 program report 
data electronically would enable EPA, states, tribes, territories, and 
the public to more readily evaluate the effectiveness of MS4 stormwater 
control programs. Additionally, electronic collection of data would 
help permitting authorities to identify and share information on the 
most effective BMPs for controlling stormwater discharges and avoiding 
associated violations. Improved data availability through electronic 
reporting should improve the control of stormwater discharges by more 
quickly exchanging knowledge amongst permitting authorities and MS4s.
iv. Additional Considerations
    In concert with state, tribe, and territory NPDES permit programs, 
EPA will likely need to adapt ICIS-NPDES to reflect current MS4 
permitting practices. Specifically, some EPA Regions and states issue 
an individual MS4 permit to regulate multiple MS4s in a geographic 
area. For example, an MS4 permit issued to the San Francisco Bay Area 
covers multiple municipalities. Consequently, compliance for individual 
municipalities cannot adequately be tracked in ICIS-NPDES due to 
geospatial limitations. EPA would likely need to modify ICIS-NPDES to 
reflect a data structure more akin to a general permit, which allows 
for one permit to cover multiple facilities. This is particularly 
important when one MS4 permit includes multiple urban areas 
contributing to multiple different urban waters.
2. Where an NPDES-Regulated Facility Should Send Its Data
    As previously noted, EPA is also soliciting comment on changing its 
regulations governing the standard conditions applicable to all NPDES 
permits by adding a new standard permit condition [see 40 CFR 
122.41(1)(9)] that would require NPDES-regulated facilities to ensure 
that, for each type of electronic NPDES submission, the information is 
sent to the appropriate initial recipient, as identified by EPA, and as 
defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b). Authorized NPDES programs would include 
this requirement in all permits and control mechanisms. See Section 
IV.K for the implementation plans for the proposed rule. The new 
standard permit condition at 40 CFR 122.41(1)(9) would ensure that 
NPDES-regulated facilities know where to send their NPDES compliance 
data electronically.
    The proposed rule also would require EPA to publish on its Web site 
and in the Federal Register a listing of the initial recipients for 
electronic NPDES information from NPDES regulated entities by state, 
tribe, and territory, and by NPDES data group. Some states, tribes, and 
territories are not authorized to implement all aspects of the NPDES 
program (e.g., pretreatment, biosolids) so not all states, tribes, and 
territories are capable of being the initial recipient of these 
electronic submissions (in addition to electronic reporting readiness 
on part of the state, tribe, or territory). EPA would update this 
listing on its Web site and in the Federal Register if a state, tribe, 
or territory gains authorization to administer a NPDES program and is 
also approved by EPA to be the initial recipient of NPDES electronic 
data submissions for that NPDES data group. See 40 CFR 127.27.
3. Electronic Data Collection Tools
    The proposed rule would allow authorized NPDES programs to use 
their own electronic reporting tools provided that the tools meet all 
of the minimum federal reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, 
and part 127. States, tribes, and territories would be required to 
share the minimum set of federal NPDES data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 
127) that are collected through these electronic state reporting tools 
with EPA. This sharing of information could be easily accomplished 
through the NEIEN and EPA's Central Data Exchange. States, tribes, and 
territories would be able to elect to use EPA's electronic reporting 
tools or EPA-approved third-party software provider tools. NPDES 
regulated entities would be required to use an EPA-approved tool to 
electronically submit their data. When authorized NPDES programs or 
their electronic reporting tools are not compliant with EPA's 
electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127) 
then NPDES regulated entities in that state, tribe, or territory would 
be required to electronically send their NPDES data to EPA. Regardless 
of whether a state's, tribe's, territory's, or EPA's, or a third-party 
electronic reporting tool is used, NPDES program data would be included 
in ICIS-NPDES and made available to the public through EPA's Web site.
4. Signature and Certification Standards for Electronic Reporting
    EPA seeks to ensure that electronic reporting has at least the same 
level of legal defensibility and dependability as information that EPA 
would obtain through hard-copy paper submission. The Cross-Media 
Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR), promulgated October 13, 
2005, provides the legal framework for electronic reporting 
requirements established under all EPA environmental regulations (40 
CFR part 3). CROMERR establishes signatory, certification, and security 
standards for information systems that receive reports and other 
documents electronically (including email, but excluding disks, CDs, 
and other magnetic and optical media). CROMERR establishes the 
electronic reporting criteria that must be met in order to ensure that 
a particular electronic reporting tool can provide

[[Page 46036]]

electronic information to EPA that meets EPA's needs.
    CROMERR applies to (a) regulated entities that electronically 
submit reports and other documents directly to EPA under Title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, and (b) states, tribes, and local 
governments that administer or seek to administer EPA-authorized 
programs under Title 40 and provide electronic information to EPA. 
Regulated entities should ensure that they use the electronic reporting 
tools designated by EPA, states, tribes, and territories to receive the 
specified information and meet the other CROMERR criteria set out in 40 
CFR 3.10. NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and territories (and local 
governments) that wish to continue or begin using electronic reporting 
of NPDES information to EPA must revise or modify those authorized 
programs and their electronic reporting tools, if applicable, as 
appropriate to incorporate CROMERR criteria, and apply for and receive 
CROMERR approval by EPA under 40 CFR part 3.
    At this time, several states have already developed or are 
developing electronic reporting tools for use by NPDES-regulated 
facilities. EPA has also developed electronic reporting tools, notably 
NetDMR. These electronic reporting tools, and other tools to be 
developed in the future, whether by EPA, states, tribes, territories, 
or the competitive marketplace, need to be CROMERR-compliant to ensure 
that they meet EPA's data needs and requirements.
    EPA developed a CROMERR system checklist \41\ that EPA, states, 
tribes, and territories and other electronic tool developers can use to 
identify the key features to be included in an electronic reporting 
system for it to be CROMERR-compliant. The checklist contains, among 
other things, requirements for a registration process which identity-
proofs the registrant, to ensure that the individual using the 
electronic tool and signing the electronic documents has been 
determined with sufficient legal certainty, and to establish a 
subscriber agreement or electronic signature agreement. The CROMERR 
checklist also contains requirements for the signature process, the 
submission process, and the creation of a copy of record. Additional 
details may be found in the CROMERR checklist, or in the regulatory 
text or preamble of CROMERR itself (40 CFR 3.10; 70 FR 59848). 
Recently, EPA has initiated a workgroup with states to streamline the 
CROMERR approval process. EPA also notes that the transaction cost for 
authentication has dropped from tens of dollars per user to less than 
pennies per user (e.g., DCN 0035).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ CROMERR System Checklist, available at http://www.epa.gov/cromerr/tools.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NetDMR is an example of a CROMERR-compliant electronic reporting 
tool, described previously in Section IV.E.1.a in the context of DMRs. 
Among other features ensuring CROMERR compliance by this tool, NetDMR 
utilizes a subscriber agreement with a designated signatory authority 
for the NPDES permittee, a password, required responses to security 
questions, and Secure Socket Layer (SSL) communications.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Originally developed by Netscape, SSL is an internet 
security protocol used by online banking sites, internet browsers 
and web servers to transmit sensitive information. SSL later became 
part of an overall security protocol known as Transport Layer 
Security (TLS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One person should be clearly designated as the signatory authority 
for the electronic reporting of particular NPDES information. The 
federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.22 describe the appropriate 
management level for anyone designated as a signatory authority for 
permit applications and reports. If the signatory authority plans to 
have someone else sign and submit the electronic DMRs, for example, 
then this individual must be a duly authorized representative of that 
signatory authority in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22(b). Under CROMERR, 
electronic systems that accept electronic signatures must be able to 
effectively prove that those electronic signatures are valid and were 
created with an electronic signature device that was not compromised. 
The use of a personal identification number (PIN) or password in 
combination with a requirement for the user to answer one or more 
security questions (e.g., a ``challenge'' question from a set of 
questions for which the user provided answers previously [e.g., during 
registration]) helps to ensure that the person submitting the 
information is who they claim to be and that the data is being sent on 
behalf of the appropriate NPDES permittee. The use of SSL 
communications, or the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS), is 
another key way of ensuring the integrity of the information. TLS and 
SSL make significant use of certificate authorities and provide the 
means to check that the certificate comes from a trusted party, is 
currently valid, and has a relationship with the site from which it is 
being sent.
5. Temporary Waivers or Exemptions From Electronic Reporting for NPDES-
Regulated Facilities
    A key decision in this proposed rule is determining whether 
electronic reporting requirements would be relatively easy to meet for 
most of the NPDES-regulated universe of facilities. For example, 50 
percent of rural residents have broadband (see DCN 0030). Although not 
a necessity, broadband access makes it easier to submit NPDES reports 
that would be required under this proposed rule. Therefore, broadband 
access or other measures of the availability of sufficient upload speed 
may serve as reasonable indicators regarding possible computer access 
difficulties, particularly in the more remote rural areas.
    In the development of this proposed regulatory requirement for 
electronic reporting by NPDES-regulated facilities, EPA has considered 
a number of alternatives (described in the paragraph below) for 
possible temporary waivers or exemptions based on certain criteria. 
Such a waiver or exemption from electronic reporting of NPDES 
information would be temporary in that it would remain valid only until 
the condition(s) meriting the exemption changed or for one year, 
whichever occurs first, during which time the permittee would still 
have the requirement to submit the required NPDES information non-
electronically to EPA, the authorized state, tribe, or territory. EPA 
is proposing that these temporary waivers may be granted by EPA, 
states, tribes, and territories that have received authorization to 
implement the NPDES program. EPA solicits comment on the granting and 
duration of these temporary waivers.
    For example, EPA has considered, and is seeking comment on, whether 
to automatically grant temporary waivers from NPDES electronic 
reporting requirements to each NPDES-permitted facility that is 
physically located (i.e., not just a post office box) within one of the 
counties or zip codes for which less than 10 percent of the households 
have broadband access, based on the aforementioned February 2010 FCC 
report or subsequent similar official reports.
    As another alternative, EPA has considered whether it should grant 
temporary exemptions for each NPDES-permitted facility which meets 
criteria demonstrating that such electronic reporting of NPDES 
information would pose an unreasonable burden or expense to the NPDES-
permitted facility; this is the same concept that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC) [17 CFR

[[Page 46037]]

232.202(a)] has applied to its (rare) granting of continued hardship 
exemptions for electronic filing. The process of applying to the SEC 
for a continued hardship exemption is described in 17 CFR 232.202. This 
process requires the submission of a written request made at least ten 
business days before the required due date of the submission. As 
identified in 17 CFR 232.202(b), this written request shall include, 
but not be limited to:
     The reason(s) that the necessary hardware and software are 
not available without unreasonable burden and expense;
     The burden and expense associated with using alternative 
means to make the electronic submission or posting, as applicable; and/
or
     The reasons for not submitting the document, group of 
documents or Interactive Data File electronically, or not posting the 
Interactive Data File, as well as the justification for the requested 
time period.
    The application for the continued hardship exemption is not deemed 
granted until the SEC notifies the applicant.
    Although the SEC has successfully required electronic reporting 
from various size companies for the majority of its reports since 1993, 
it is still possible that a certain subset of NPDES-permitted 
facilities might claim that they either do not have computers on-site, 
do not have computer-savvy individuals available, or are a considerable 
distance away from a location where they could get computer access. EPA 
is considering the possible use of temporary waivers from electronic 
reporting of NPDES information for such facilities, although 
technological advances and computer access are such that there may be 
few valid instances of such situations. EPA may consider establishing a 
similar procedure for such temporary waivers if the criteria for such 
temporary waivers are broadened, in response to comments, beyond that 
in the proposed rule.
    In addition to these possible temporary continued hardship 
exemptions for NPDES-regulated facilities from electronic reporting, 
EPA also recognizes that there may be a need for incident-specific one-
time waivers or other adjustments for situations that are beyond the 
control of the reporting facility (e.g., tornados, floods, EPA or state 
data system failures). In 17 CFR 232.201, the possibility of a 
temporary hardship exemption from electronic reporting to the SEC is 
described. In the SEC regulations, under this temporary hardship 
exemption, the electronic filer may instead file a written copy of the 
report. The SEC also will encourage the use of a one-time change to the 
filing due date rather than rely upon a temporary hardship exemption 
where the situation is beyond the control of the filer. EPA proposes to 
utilize one-time changes to due dates rather than waivers from 
electronic reporting in these types of emergency situations.
    At this time, EPA solicits comment on the need for such temporary 
waivers or exemptions as well as which criteria should apply for the 
granting of such temporary exemptions. This proposed rule includes 
provisions for temporary waivers extending up to a maximum of one year, 
but comments are sought on all of these options or any other viable 
options which might be suggested during the official comment process. 
For comparison, EPA's recently proposed rule (August 13, 2010) 
regarding Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Reporting 
Modifications did not include a provision for waivers or exemptions 
from electronic reporting; however, the preamble for that proposed rule 
did request comment on whether there are any circumstances in which a 
company may not have Internet access to report the required data 
electronically. EPA also solicits comment on whether EPA should also 
grant waivers to NPDES regulated entities with religious objections to 
using modern innovations such as electricity and computers.
6. EPA Consideration of Other Electronic NPDES Reporting by Permittees, 
but Not Included in This Proposed Rule
    As described in more detail in Section IV.B, during summer 2010, 
EPA conducted concurrent technical analyses, which examined various 
aspects of possible electronic reporting of NPDES information for 
NPDES-permitted facilities. Based on these analyses, EPA decided what 
should and should not be included as requirements in this proposed 
rule.
    Among the NPDES reporting requirements that EPA considered but did 
not include in this proposed rule are the following:
     Electronic submission of applications for individually-
issued NPDES permits;
     Electronic submission of annual compliance certifications;
     Electronic submission of certain program reports for 
vessels;
     Electronic submission of program reports for pesticide 
applicators;
     Electronic submission of all follow-up reports required 
under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7).
    Each of these is discussed briefly below.
a. Electronic Permit Application Information and Possible Electronic 
Permit Generation
    EPA examined the feasibility of requiring permit application 
information to be submitted electronically and of electronically 
creating the NPDES permit. This analysis focused on the individually-
issued NPDES permits rather than on NPDES general permits; therefore, 
approximately 46,000 facilities would comprise the universe of 
facilities that might be covered by such a requirement to 
electronically submit permit application information.
    EPA has developed particular permit application forms to be 
completed by facilities seeking individual EPA-issued NPDES permits. 
However, there is considerable state, tribe, and territory variability 
in permit application forms, data sought, ``boilerplate'' language, and 
templates used in the creation of the permit. There are extensive 
attachments to the permit application forms, including maps, flow 
charts, monitoring information, etc. Furthermore, the permit 
application information is not the only information used in 
constructing a permit. The complex permit writing process utilizes a 
variety of additional information, such as water quality information 
and background pollutant concentration data, beyond that provided in 
the permit application itself; such information would have to be 
integrated in or easily accessible by an electronic permit writing 
tool.
    Given the complexity of the permitting process, the significant 
degree of state, tribe, and territory variability, and the extensive 
attachments that accompany permit application forms, it would be 
difficult to economically construct and maintain an electronic tool for 
permit application form submittals that would be nationally-consistent 
and could create an individual NPDES permit. The Office of Water 
previously attempted to develop such a national electronic-permitting 
(i.e., e-permitting) tool. That effort was adversely impacted by high 
costs to develop and maintain the tool and by the significant state, 
tribe, and territory variability that must be addressed.
    Based on EPA's analysis for this proposed rule, EPA has decided not 
to include in this proposed rule (1) requirements for electronic 
submission of nationally-consistent permit application information from 
facilities, and (2) implementation relying upon the availability of a 
nationally-

[[Page 46038]]

consistent electronic tool to generate individual NPDES permits by the 
states, tribes, territories, or EPA Regions. Therefore, for facilities 
covered by individually-issued NPDES permits, EPA would require 
authorized states, tribes, and territories to provide EPA with the key 
facility and permit information. Comment is sought on the feasibility 
of developing a nationally-consistent electronic tool that can be used 
by multiple states, tribes, and territories to obtain permit 
application information electronically from the permittees and to 
generate the individual NPDES permit. Comment is also sought on whether 
EPA should require electronic submission of the EPA-developed permit 
application forms from facilities seeking coverage under EPA-issued 
individual NPDES permits. In addition, EPA seeks comment on the 
feasibility of third-party software vendor development of such tools.
b. Consideration of Annual Compliance Certifications
    Not every facility covered by a NPDES permit has an existing 
requirement to submit self-monitoring information in the form of a DMR 
or similar report. Furthermore, not every facility covered by a NPDES 
permit has an existing requirement to submit a program report regarding 
its compliance status (e.g., industrial stormwater, active construction 
sites) (see DCN 0021). Annual compliance certifications could help 
address facilities that do not have a requirement to submit self-
monitoring information, or a program report regarding its compliance 
status. This would constitute new regulatory requirements for reporting 
and recordkeeping, and would require new Information Collection 
Requests (ICRs) identifying the estimated burden hours to submit, 
process, and analyze these certifications; therefore, EPA has not 
included this new requirement in the proposed rule. However, comment is 
sought on the usefulness of this concept of electronic submission of 
annual compliance certifications by permitted facilities that do not 
have DMR submission requirements and program report submission 
requirements.
c. Vessels Program Reports
    EPA's NPDES vessels program regulates incidental discharges from 
the normal operation of vessels. The centerpiece of the NPDES vessel 
program is the EPA Vessel General Permit (VGP). The VGP is a general 
permit that is issued and implemented by EPA. The 2008 VGP regulates 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels operating in a 
capacity as a means of transportation (see 29 December 2008; 73 FR 
79473). All vessel-related requirements are in the VGP. EPA estimates 
that approximately 61,000 domestically-flagged commercial vessels and 
approximately 8,000 foreign-flagged vessels may be affected by this 
permit.
    The 2008 VGP identifies information that must be sent to EPA. These 
requirements include:
     The Notice of Intent (NOI) form (see Appendix E of the 
VGP);
     Annual report of noncompliance (see section 4.4.1 of the 
VGP);
     Additional reporting (noncompliance which may endanger 
health or the environment) (see section 4.4.3 of the VGP); and
     A one-time permit report (see section 4.4.4 of the VGP).
    EPA collects the NOI information for vessels electronically, and 
has built a system to collect the one-time vessel permit report 
electronically. The 2008 VGP does not require the use of the eNOI 
system, nor does it require any DMRs or one-time reports to be 
submitted electronically. Although the vessel eNOI information EPA 
currently receives is not available through ICIS-NPDES or PCS, EPA 
plans to adapt ICIS-NPDES and ECHO to make such information available 
to the public.
    EPA's 2008 VGP currently contains monitoring, reporting, 
inspection, operation and maintenance requirements pertaining to 
vessels. EPA is not proposing to use this proposed rule to make any 
changes to NPDES regulations that would be specific to the vessels 
program. EPA anticipates that any electronic reporting for vessels 
would be required through a new version of the VGP. EPA solicits public 
comment on this approach.
d. Pesticide Applicators Program Reports
    On October 31, 2011, EPA issued a final NPDES Pesticide General 
Permit (PGP) for point source discharges from the application of 
pesticides to waters of the United States. While the permit 
requirements must be met as of October 31, 2011, operators will be 
covered automatically under the PGP without submitting a Notice of 
Intent (NOI) for any discharges before January 12, 2012. To continue 
coverage after January 12, 2012, those Operators who are required to 
submit NOIs will need to do so at least 10 days (or 30 days for 
discharges to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources 
of Concern) prior to January 12, 2012. For the first 120 days that the 
permit is in effect, EPA will focus on providing compliance assistance 
and education of the permit requirements, rather than on enforcement 
actions.
    The Agency's final PGP covers Operators that apply pesticides that 
result in discharges from the following use patterns: (1) Mosquito and 
other flying insect pest control; (2) weed and algae control; (3) 
animal pest control; and (4) forest canopy pest control. The permit 
requires permittees to minimize pesticide discharges through the use of 
pest management measures and monitor for and report any adverse 
incidents. Some permittees are also required to submit NOIs prior to 
beginning to discharge and implement integrated pest management (IPM)-
like practices. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements will provide 
valuable information to EPA and the public regarding where, when, and 
how much pesticides are being discharged to waters of the U.S. 
Pesticide application use patterns not covered by EPA's Pesticide 
General Permit may need to obtain coverage under an individual permit 
or alternative general permit if they result in point source discharges 
to waters of the U.S.
    This general permit will provide coverage for discharges in the 
areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority, which include four 
states (Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico), Washington, 
DC, most U.S. territories and Indian country lands, and many federal 
facilities (for details, click here (PDF) (5 pp, 239K)). In the 
remaining 46 states (and the Virgin Islands), the states are authorized 
to develop and issue the NPDES pesticide permits.
    At this time, prior to the effective date of the requirement for 
these discharges from pesticide applications to be covered under a 
NPDES permit, EPA does not envision the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 
making any changes to NPDES regulations that would be specific to such 
discharges. Given the various implementation approaches, compliance and 
reporting requirements that may be contained in EPA's final PGP as well 
as in the NPDES-authorized state-, tribe-, or territory-issued permits, 
any changes that EPA might make with respect to electronic reporting 
for discharges from pesticide applications could be made through the 
notice and comment process of the pesticide general permit. EPA 
solicits public comment on this approach.
e. Electronic Reporting of All 5-Day Non-Compliance Reports Identified 
in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)
    NPDES regulations require permittees to report any noncompliance 
which may

[[Page 46039]]

endanger health or the environment. See 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6). These 
regulations require both an oral report and written report within 24 
hours and 5 days, respectively, from the time the permittee becomes 
aware of the circumstances. Existing NPDES regulations also require 
permittees to report all instances of noncompliance not otherwise 
reported elsewhere at the time monitoring reports are submitted. See 40 
CFR 122.41(l)(7).
    This proposed regulation amends the existing regulation at 40 CFR 
122.41(l)(6) for combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, 
and bypass incidents to require these follow-up reports to be submitted 
electronically within 5 days from the time the permittee becomes aware 
of the circumstances. This proposed regulation also would require 
electronic reporting of CSOs, SSOs, and POTW bypasses that are in 
noncompliance per 40 CFR 122.41(l)(7).
    EPA solicits comment on whether it should expand electronic 
noncompliance reporting to other forms of noncompliance that are not 
already addressed in the above referenced proposed changes incorporated 
into today's proposed regulation.

F. Data Submissions From Authorized State, Tribe, or Territory NPDES 
Programs

    Historically, EPA has relied upon the permitting authority for 
submission of the NPDES information in EPA's national NPDES data 
systems. With this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to 
public comment, EPA would require permittees to submit a large portion 
of that NPDES data electronically, which would significantly reduce the 
amount of information that would otherwise be required from the 
authorized state, tribe, or territory NPDES programs.
    Nevertheless, under the approach described in this proposed rule, 
EPA would still require NPDES information from authorized state, tribe, 
or territory NPDES programs, particularly information linked to the 
implementation activities and responsibilities of the authorized state, 
tribe, or territory NPDES programs. The types of NPDES information EPA 
would require to be reported by the states, tribes, and territories 
with authorization to implement the NPDES program would include:
     Facility information for individually-issued NPDES 
permits;
     Permit information for individually-issued NPDES permits 
and master general permits [including information specific to 
subprograms such as CAFOs, CSOs, SSOs, pretreatment, biosolids, 
stormwater, cooling water intakes, and thermal variances;
     Compliance monitoring and inspection activities;
     Compliance determination information;
     Enforcement action information;
     Other NPDES information required to be submitted 
electronically from permittees or other regulated entities, but routed 
by the electronic reporting tools to the states, tribes, or territories 
initially rather than to EPA; and
     Other NPDES information listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 127 that permittees submit non-electronically to their authorized 
state, tribe, or territory.
    Each of these NPDES data types are described further in the 
sections that follow.

A. Why Require This Information From Authorized States, Tribes, and 
Territories

    The states, tribes, and territories which have received 
authorization to implement the NPDES program are the entities that have 
the primary responsibility to issue permits, perform inspections, make 
compliance determinations, and take enforcement actions. Most of the 
data that this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to 
public comments, would require the authorized NPDES programs to submit 
to EPA would be generated during the course of those activities. As 
such, the authorized NPDES programs are the unique and appropriate 
sources to provide these types of NPDES data to EPA and to be 
responsible for the quality and accuracy of that data.
    Another key part of this proposed rule is ensuring that, if 
submissions of NPDES information are sent by the NPDES-regulated 
facilities to the states, tribes, or territories initially rather than 
to EPA, the states, tribes, and territories would provide that 
information electronically to EPA. In turn, EPA would provide the 
states, tribes, and territories with NPDES information it receives from 
the NPDES-regulated facilities. In either case, the key would be to 
``complete the circuit'' electronically through the NEIEN, so that all 
of the required information submitted by the NPDES-regulated facilities 
would be available, timely, accurate, complete, in a nationally 
consistent manner for use by EPA, states, tribes, and territories, and 
for presentation to the public.

B. What Data Would Be Required and Why From Authorized States, Tribes, 
and Territories?

    For the proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public 
comment, the types of information that would be required to be 
submitted to EPA electronically by the states, tribes, and territories 
authorized to implement the NPDES program are described briefly below. 
Rather than establish different timeliness criteria for different types 
of data, EPA proposes that the required NPDES data be provided by the 
states, tribes, and territories to EPA within 30 days of the date of 
permit issuance, date of inspection, date of violation determination, 
date of enforcement action, or date of receipt of the information 
electronically (or non-electronically under a temporary waiver) from 
the permittee, as applicable. EPA invites comment on the 30-day 
timeliness criterion.

C. Facility Data From Authorized States, Tribes, and Territories

    In EPA's NPDES national data systems, it is necessary to create a 
facility record before other information may be entered or otherwise 
made available. Therefore, this core set of basic facility data, as 
identified in an attachment to the 1985 PCS Policy Statement (as 
amended), are essential to EPA national data systems in order to create 
a facility record to which other NPDES information may be linked, such 
as permit information, compliance status, inspection information, 
violation determinations, enforcement action information, etc.
    Through this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to 
public comment, the types of basic facility information that the 
states, tribes, and territories would be required to provide EPA for 
the facilities covered by NPDES individually-issued permits would 
include information regarding the facility itself (such as the site 
name of the facility and the type of ownership), information regarding 
the facility's location (such as address, city, state, zip code, and 
information meeting EPA's data standards associated with latitude and 
longitude), and information regarding a contact for that facility (such 
as name, title, address, etc.). The complete list of such basic 
facility information that would be required through this proposed rule 
is identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127.
    Much of this basic facility information already exists in EPA's 
national NPDES data systems, particularly for major permittees, and 
some of the information not found in the national data system,

[[Page 46040]]

particularly regarding nonmajor permittees, may be found in state, 
tribe, or territory NPDES data systems. This proposed rule would 
require states, tribes, and territories to provide EPA with such basic 
facility information for all facilities covered by individually-issued 
NPDES permits and to update that information as appropriate, in 
accordance with stated quality assurance and quality control procedures 
(see 40 CFR part 127). Unless otherwise specified in a permit, or 
unless the permit is modified significantly, EPA anticipates that such 
facility data would generally be updated only once per permit cycle, 
which generally means every five years, if that often, because this 
type of basic facility data rarely changes.
    Under the approach described in the proposed rule, if, for whatever 
reason, facilities covered by NPDES general permits do not provide the 
NOI data electronically by the compliance deadline, then the authorized 
NPDES programs would be responsible for also ensuring that basic 
facility information for facilities operating under general permits is 
provided electronically to EPA.

D. Permit Data From Authorized States, Tribes, and Territories

    Through this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to 
public comment, the type of permit information that the states, tribes, 
and territories would be required to provide EPA for the facilities 
covered by NPDES individually-issued or general permits would consist 
of:
     Basic permit information;
     Information regarding designated outfalls or permitted 
features;
     Information regarding the applicable limit sets;
     Information regarding the applicable effluent limitations;
     Information regarding narrative conditions and permit 
schedules; and
     Information relevant to specific NPDES subprograms, such 
as CAFOs, CSOs, SSOs, pretreatment, biosolids, stormwater, cooling 
water intakes, and thermal variances.
    Basic information regarding the permit refers primarily to some of 
the key identifier information for that permit. Such information 
includes the permit number or other identifier, the permit type, the 
program components covered by the permit, the permit status and key 
dates related to application and issuance, information regarding 
whether the facility is a major permittee, industrial classification 
codes indicating the type of facility, the permit issuing organization, 
applicable effluent guidelines, and the permittee's name and address. 
See Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 for a complete list of required data.
    Under this proposed rule, information would also be required 
regarding the permitted features or outfalls identified in the permit. 
Such information includes the design flow and actual flow from such 
outfalls, an identifier for such outfalls, the type of permitted 
feature, the receiving waterbody, and the physical location (latitude 
and longitude) of such permitted features. See Appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 127 for a complete list of required data. This information is 
essential in compliance tracking because permit limits and limit sets 
are identified for specific outfalls or permitted features.
    Under this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to 
public comment, to enable electronic reporting and evaluation of DMRs, 
information would also be required regarding the specific set of 
numerical or narrative limits, and the limits themselves, identified 
for each permitted feature identified in the permit. The proposed rule 
would require the permitting authority to provide NPDES permit limits 
(e.g., numerical limits) and NPDES permit limits set types (e.g., 
seasonal or interim limits) for major and nonmajor permittees 
(including general NPDES-regulated facilities) to EPA into the national 
data system. Permit limits information would include the monitoring 
location, the start and end dates for such limits, the limit type, 
information regarding all permit modifications to such limits, 
information regarding enforcement actions which may have imposed 
enforcement action limits, the regulated pollutant parameter, the 
months that the limit applies, a text description of the limit (e.g., 
30-day average), an arithmetic qualifier (e.g.,``<''), the actual 
numeric limit, the quantity or concentration units specified for that 
limit, and information regarding if a particular limit has been stayed. 
See Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 for a complete list of required data.
    Information regarding permit limits sets would include a text 
description of the limit set (e.g., summer limits), the type of limits 
(e.g., scheduled), the number of months that the limit set applies, the 
initial monitoring date, the due date for monitoring reports, the 
number of months for each monitoring period, the frequency of 
monitoring report submission, whether that set of limits is active, and 
a start date associated with that limits set. See Appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 127 for a complete list of required data.
    Under this proposed rule, information would also be required from 
the narrative conditions or permit-contained schedules, including such 
information as the type of narrative condition, an identifier code or 
description of the permit schedule event, the scheduled and actual 
dates for the achievement or occurrence of that event, and the received 
date for the report which documented that achievement or occurrence. As 
an example, such narrative conditions or permit schedules frequently 
impose a permit requirement that a particular type of report be sent to 
the permitting agency on a specific repeating schedule (e.g., 
annually). See Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 for a complete list of 
required data.
    In addition, this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject 
to public comment, would also require permit-related data from the 
NPDES permit application. This permit application data includes 
information on particular NPDES subprograms such as biosolids, SSOs, 
pretreatment, CSOs, stormwater, CAFOs, cooling water intakes, and 
thermal variances. The complete list of data that would be required 
through this proposed rule is identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 
127. Additionally, some facilities seeking coverage under a general 
permit will submit similar data to their permitting authority. 
Authorized states, tribes, and territories would be required to share 
these facility-supplied data with EPA.
a. Inspection Data From Authorized States, Tribes, and Territories
    Historically in the NPDES program and in accordance with existing 
policy, the authorized programs implementing the NPDES program have 
been expected for several decades to provide the basic inspection 
information to EPA for major permittees and for nonmajor permittees. 
For example, in the PCS Policy Statement (as amended), EPA indicated 
that the states, tribes, and territories are expected to provide a core 
set of such basic inspection data to EPA through PCS.
    As discussed previously in this preamble, in addition to 
information submitted by the NPDES-regulated facilities, some NPDES 
data, including inspection information, is also needed from the states, 
tribes, and territories. EPA, states, tribes, and territories perform 
these inspection activities, and therefore they are the unique source 
of the inspection information provided to EPA.
    These inspections could identify the compliance status of the 
facilities, potential remedies needed, and changes

[[Page 46041]]

from the permit application information. Through receipt of such 
facility-specific information regarding inspections, EPA is interested 
in determining how well the NPDES-authorized state, tribe, or territory 
is implementing the inspection responsibilities associated with NPDES 
program authorization, better evaluating potential targeting of 
inspections, better characterizing and addressing the compliance status 
of the facilities, and identifying common problems that occur at the 
NPDES-regulated facilities.
    Through this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to 
public comment, the type of basic inspection information that the 
states, tribes, and territories would be required to provide EPA would 
include the end date of such a compliance monitoring activity, the 
facility inspected, the type of compliance monitoring, the reason for 
such compliance monitoring, the lead office for such compliance 
monitoring, and the law sections evaluated and potentially violated at 
the facility (e.g., pretreatment). The complete list of such basic 
inspection information that would be required through this proposed 
rule is identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127.
    In addition to the basic information that would be required for any 
NPDES inspection, required compliance monitoring information also would 
include information specific to the NPDES subprograms. For example, 
there are specific items that would apply if a CAFO facility had been 
inspected, or for pretreatment, CSOs, SSOs, etc. The complete list of 
such subprogram-specific inspection information that would be required 
through this proposed rule is identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 
127.
    This proposed rule would require authorized states, tribes, and 
territories to provide EPA with inspection information for all NPDES-
regulated facilities, in accordance with stated quality assurance and 
quality control procedures. EPA anticipates that such inspection data 
would be provided at a reporting frequency approximating the inspection 
frequency specified in the EPA Compliance Monitoring Strategy (October 
2007 or as subsequently revised), or as delineated in alternative 
inspection strategies contained in EPA-state, EPA-tribe, or EPA-
territory agreements.
b. Compliance Determination Information From Authorized States, Tribes, 
and Territories
    In the existing federal regulations [40 CFR 123.26(e)(2) and (4)], 
states, tribes, and territories that have received authorization to 
implement the NPDES program ``shall have procedures and ability for'':
     Initial screening (i.e., pre-enforcement evaluation) of 
all permit or grant-related compliance information to identify 
violations and to establish priorities for further substantive 
technical evaluation; and
     Maintaining a management information system which supports 
the compliance evaluation activities of this part.
    Under the existing data reporting structure, if the DMRs for the 
NPDES major permittees and the relevant numeric effluent limitations 
from the NPDES permit requirements are in EPA's national data systems, 
the data systems can automatically identify violations of numeric 
effluent limitations. These violation determinations, which can be made 
for individual pollutants and at the facility level, also identify what 
would constitute Category I and Category II noncompliance based upon 
the regulations at 40 CFR 123.45 and EPA's national guidance and policy 
[see EPA's Enforcement Management System (EMS), DCN 0037]. These 
determinations can then be used in the creation of the required 
quarterly and annual noncompliance reports to track the compliance 
status of NPDES-regulated facilities (see 40 CFR 123.45). In addition, 
if the appropriate due dates and milestone dates have been entered by 
the states, tribes, or territories, EPA's national NPDES data systems 
have also been designed to identify whether reports are late and 
whether milestones have been missed in permit schedules or in 
compliance schedules. These additional violation determinations could 
determine whether a facility is in noncompliance for reporting 
violations or for schedule violations.
    Violation determinations may also be made based upon other 
information available to the states, tribes, territories, or EPA, such 
as inspection information, review of program report information, public 
complaints, information collection requests, incident reports, etc. For 
these identifications of noncompliance, EPA has developed guidance (the 
``PCS Single Event Data Entry Guide'', May 2006, and the ``ICIS-NPDES 
Single Event Violation Guide'', October 2008) on how to track such 
violations [referred to as single event violations (SEVs)] in the NPDES 
national data systems.
    SEVs include one-time events as well as violations with longer 
durations. SEVs may be used by the states, tribes, territories, and EPA 
to report the compliance status of a facility for permit or regulatory 
violations that are not automatically flagged by the database. In the 
case of unpermitted facilities, SEVs may be entered in response to 
violations of CWA NPDES regulations.
    Since 1988, SEVs identified by EPA, states, tribes, and territories 
are expected to be entered into EPA's national NPDES databases by the 
authorized NPDES program for major NPDES-regulated facilities and 
facilities covered by EPA's General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR part 
403). A joint memorandum from the EPA Office of Compliance and Office 
of Civil Enforcement issued in October 2008 clarified the expectation 
that EPA regional offices to enter into PCS or ICIS-NPDES all SEVs 
discovered by EPA regional offices for other nonmajor permits/
facilities, starting in FY 2009.
    These compliance determinations are one of the many 
responsibilities and activities of the states, tribes, and territories 
with NPDES program authorization. The availability of such compliance 
determination information from states, tribes, territories, and EPA is 
critical to determining the compliance status of NPDES-permitted 
facilities. This information is needed on a facility-specific basis to 
better identify potential problems; ensure that appropriate action is 
taken to address noncompliance; better quantify national or state 
noncompliance rates; and to provide a more complete and transparent 
picture to permitting authorities, the public, Congress, and other 
stakeholders of the overall implementation and effectiveness of the 
NPDES program.
    EPA has facility-specific information regarding the compliance 
status of NPDES-regulated facilities for only a very small percentage 
(less than 1 percent of the total NPDES universe; i.e., essentially the 
major permittees). Therefore, through this proposed rule, EPA would 
require this compliance determination information to be provided to EPA 
by the states, tribes, and territories with NPDES program authorization 
for all major and nonmajor NPDES-regulated facilities, whether covered 
by an individually-issued permit or by a general permit. EPA notes that 
the list of minimum Federal data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) only 
includes construction stormwater inspection data from the authorized 
state, tribe, or territory when the authorized program identifies 
violations and completes a formal enforcement action (i.e., authorized 
state programs are not required to report construction stormwater 
inspection data to EPA for inspections that do not identify 
violations). EPA made this distinction based on the large number of

[[Page 46042]]

facilities in this segment of the NPDES universe (approximately new 
200,000 facilities each year). EPA solicits comment on this approach.
    The list of information that would be required under this proposed 
rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, includes such 
basic items as the start and end dates for the violations, the type of 
violation, which agency identified the violation, when noncompliance 
was identified, and when it was resolved. In addition, some compliance-
related data are tracked at the basic permit level, including whether 
noncompliance tracking is occurring automatically in EPA's NPDES 
national data system, and the noncompliance status and fiscal quarters 
of noncompliance. A complete listing of these data is provided in 
Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. The proposed rule also updates 40 CFR 
123.26 to reflect the new electronic reporting requirements.
c. Enforcement Action Information From Authorized States, Tribes, and 
Territories
    One of the key activities for states, tribes, and territories 
implementing the NPDES program is taking enforcement actions as 
appropriate to address and remedy noncompliance by the NPDES-regulated 
facilities. Historically in the NPDES program and in accordance with 
policy, the states, tribes, and territories have been expected to 
provide basic information regarding enforcement actions (whether formal 
or informal) to EPA for major permittees. In the PCS Policy Statement 
(as amended) and the ICIS Addendum to the Appendix of the 1985 Permit 
Compliance System Statement, EPA indicated that the states, tribes, and 
territories were expected to provide a core set of such basic 
enforcement action data for major permittees to EPA through PCS and 
ICIS-NPDES.
    In addition to information submitted by the NPDES-regulated 
facilities, some NPDES data, including enforcement action information, 
are also needed from the states, tribes, and territories, as they are 
the unique source of the enforcement action information.
    In the context of the State Review Framework (a tool to evaluate 
state enforcement program performance) and development of the ANCR, 
several states have voiced concerns that EPA did not fully recognize 
and credit the extent to which states rely on compliance achieved 
through the issuance of informal enforcement actions, including a 
variety of enforcement actions which do not impose a compliance 
schedule. These states expressed concern that without such information 
regarding informal enforcement actions, EPA and the public did not have 
a complete picture of the state efforts to obtain compliance by the 
NPDES-regulated facilities. EPA has made efforts to ensure that 
information from the states regarding such informal enforcement actions 
is considered and made available. Similarly, this proposed rule would 
require states, tribes, and territories to provide EPA with facility-
specific information regarding formal and informal enforcement actions 
for all NPDES-regulated permittees.
    As indicated in this proposed rule, the type of basic information 
that the states, tribes, and territories would be required to provide 
EPA regarding enforcement actions would include the type of enforcement 
action, information specific to final orders (administrative or 
judicial), penalty information, information regarding permit schedules 
or compliance schedules, and information regarding milestones or sub-
activities identified in permit schedules or compliance schedules. The 
complete list of enforcement action information that would be required 
through this proposed rule is identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 
127.
d. Authorized States, Tribes, and Territories NPDES Data Transmissions 
to EPA
    In addition to the NPDES information related to implementation and 
enforcement activities by the regulatory authorities, the proposed 
rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, would also 
require that the regulatory authorities ensure that the information 
submitted to the regulatory authorities by the NPDES-regulated 
facilities would then be provided to EPA in a timely, accurate, 
complete, and nationally-consistent manner. The requirements regarding 
timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and national consistency for these 
data submissions to EPA are defined in 40 CFR 127.23. This concept of 
``completing the circuit,'' for the NPDES information, is critical to 
ensuring that the regulatory authority and EPA have access to the 
permittee's information. This requirement to share such NPDES 
information from the regulatory authority to EPA (and vice versa) would 
be created under the proposed rule even if the electronic reporting 
tool provides permittee information only to the regulatory authority or 
if the permittee supplies hard-copy information under the terms of a 
temporary waiver.

E. Additional Considerations

    Although 46 states and the Virgin Islands have authorization to 
implement the NPDES program as of October 2011, not all of these 
authorized programs implement the entire NPDES program. For example, 10 
of these states and the Virgin Islands have not received authorization 
to implement the pretreatment program. As another example, only eight 
states have received authorization to implement the NPDES biosolids 
program. EPA expects states, tribes, and territories to provide EPA 
with the required NPDES information to the extent that those 
authorities have received NPDES program authorization. States, tribes, 
and territories that do not have authority to implement particular 
parts of the NPDES program would not be expected to provide information 
on those parts of the program.
    Similarly, certain states, tribes, and territories may not have a 
particular type of facility within their boundaries. For example, 
several states do not have any combined sewer systems (CSSs) within 
their states; therefore, EPA would not expect to receive any CSS 
information from those particular states.
    Other states, tribes, or territories may have too few of a 
particular type of facility to warrant the expense of developing 
electronic reporting systems by the regulatory authority to capture 
data from those facilities. As an alternative, electronic reporting 
tools would be made available by EPA and by third-party software 
vendors. These tools must fully meet EPA's electronic reporting 
requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. EPA seeks comment 
on whether, in such instances where only a few of a particular type of 
facility exist within a particular regulatory authority, EPA should 
allow the regulatory authority to decide whether their permittees 
should report to EPA electronically using a national tool, or report in 
a hard-copy format to the regulatory authority, in which case the 
regulatory authority would then assume the responsibility for 
processing the data into electronic form and providing that information 
to EPA.
    It is conceivable that some regulatory authorities may not have 
implemented certain portions of the NPDES program that are included in 
these authorizations; nonetheless, EPA would expect to receive the 
required NPDES information regarding each of those subprograms included 
in their NPDES authorized program.
    Regardless of the regulatory authority's current level of 
electronic reporting from permittees or data system development, the 
regulatory authorities

[[Page 46043]]

are still required to meet their responsibilities to implement and 
enforce the NPDES program, to issue permits, to conduct inspections, to 
make compliance determinations, and to issue enforcement actions. 
Therefore, EPA and the public should still expect that the required 
NPDES information regarding such activities would be provided to EPA by 
the regulatory authorities in a timely, accurate, complete, and 
nationally-consistent manner (i.e., in conformance with national data 
standards, in consistent units of measure, and in a format compatible 
with the NPDES national data system).

G. Changes to QNCR, Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report, and ANCR 
(40 CFR 123.45)

1. Background
    On August 26, 1985, EPA promulgated final revisions to regulations 
for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 
program to require Quarterly Noncompliance Reports (QNCR) to be 
prepared and submitted by the states, tribes, and territories that are 
authorized to implement the NPDES program and by EPA regions for 
states, tribes, and territories not yet authorized. Those revised 
regulations are found in 40 CFR 123.45 and include two types of 
noncompliance which must be reported on the QNCR for major facilities, 
Category I and Category II. The regulations at 40 CFR 123.45 also 
require semi-annual noncompliance reports for major facilities and 
summary-level annual noncompliance reports for nonmajor facilities.
    As reflected in this proposed rule, as currently drafted and 
subject to public comment, the Agency is proposing to modify these 
requirements in 40 CFR 123.45 of the NPDES regulations to more 
accurately reflect the technological environment of the 21st century 
that includes the new e-reporting requirements being proposed today and 
the evolution of the NPDES regulatory program over the last 25 years. 
Today's proposed rule would remove requirements for obsolete paper 
reports that can instead be generated from data in EPA's data systems 
through electronic reporting. By removing obsolete reports, the 
proposed rule would lessen state, tribe, and territory burden, while 
also updating the regulations to allow all authorized programs and EPA 
to more effectively track activities within the broader NPDES universe. 
The changes will make NPDES information easier to understand, and will 
provide the public with a complete inventory of violations that are 
self-reported by permittees or identified by regulatory agencies. The 
changes will also support EPA's 2009 Clean Water Act Action Plan goals 
of improving public transparency, identifying the most serious 
violations, and informing reviews of EPA, state, tribe, and territory 
enforcement programs.
    Data collection for the NPDES program should be updated to reflect 
currently available technologies and the current NPDES universe and 
thus facilitate improved public transparency. The NPDES universe has 
grown and diversified substantially since the 1980s and now includes 
approximately one million diverse point sources of which only 
approximately 6,700 are majors. Focusing the QNCR only on majors 
excludes more than 99 percent of the regulated NPDES universe from more 
rigorous facility-level public accountability. Many regulated point 
sources--such as stormwater discharges, concentrated animal feeding 
operations, mines, and raw sewage overflows--are considered to be 
significant contributors to water quality impairment and human health 
risks today (DCN 0045, 0070, 0071, 0072, 0073, and 0074). However, 
because many of these sources do not meet the NPDES definition of major 
facilities, they have been excluded from the QNCR. This has set up a 
situation where there is very robust tracking, management, and public 
accountability for a very small subset (major facilities) of the NPDES 
regulated universe, but very little public information on locations, 
types of violations, and enforcement by authorized states, tribes, and 
territories regarding these other nonmajor facilities. As a result, EPA 
currently has difficulty accurately assessing the effectiveness of 
NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and territories, as well as its own 
activities, in these other important NPDES sectors and is not able to 
provide more complete NPDES noncompliance and enforcement information 
to Congress and the public.
    EPA has also received feedback from states and public data users 
that the existing terminology and nomenclature for cataloguing 
violations is too confusing. This proposed rule seeks to simplify and 
improve the transparency and utility of violation information including 
facilitation of EPA's, states', tribes', and territories' abilities to 
focus on the problems of greatest concern.
2. Purpose of Existing Regulations
    The existing annual, semi-annual, and quarterly reporting 
requirements are aimed at organizing violation information to 
facilitate EPA's assessment of the effectiveness of EPA, state, tribe, 
and territorial compliance activities and thereby best determine how to 
manage or oversee program activities.\43\ EPA uses this information to 
provide noncompliance information to Congress and the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See 50 FR 34649.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary purpose of the QNCR is to provide facility-specific 
information used to identify patterns of noncompliance by the largest 
contributors of pollutants (i.e., the major facilities as defined and 
emphasized in the 1970s and 1980s) and to assess state and EPA regional 
enforcement activities. The QNCR is used solely for reporting purposes 
and does not dictate what constitutes a violation of permit conditions 
or whether EPA, states, tribes, or territories will take an enforcement 
action.
    The Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR) uses similar definitions as 
the QNCR, but was designed as a summary (not facility-specific) view of 
violations and enforcement response by the regulatory authority for 
nonmajor facilities. At the time the existing regulations were written, 
technology limitations required that monthly DMRs be entered into the 
data system manually one at a time by state and EPA regulators. The 
data entry burden for entering all DMR reports for major and nonmajor 
facilities with individual permits (over 45,000 facilities) was too 
high, so EPA required DMR data entry by the authorized states, tribes, 
and territories into the national data systems (PCS and ICIS) only for 
the major facilities. EPA and authorized NPDES states developed the 
major facility definition through guidance to screen and identify those 
facilities with the largest environmental footprints and thus deemed at 
the time to be most important to track for violations at the facility 
level.\44\ The thorough data requirements for major facilities also 
dove-tailed with the Enforcement Management System (EMS); guidance 
developed by EPA which describes appropriate enforcement responses for 
violations at NPDES facilities.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ New NPDES Non-Municipal Permit Rating Worksheet, June 27, 
1990, DCN 0049.
    \45\ The Enforcement Management System (1989), DCN 0037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ANCR summary report provides summary information about the 
number and types of violations and enforcement responses at nonmajor 
facilities during a one-year reporting period in a particular state, 
tribe, or territory. Over the last several years, the ANCR has shown 
that in many states, the rate of

[[Page 46044]]

violations at nonmajor NPDES facilities where detailed DMR information 
is provided to EPA's data systems is more than twice as high as those 
where the states have provided only summary information.
    With the transition to electronically-reported DMRs directly from 
facilities into the national data system or to existing state, tribe, 
or territory data systems, the need to maintain separate reporting 
formats and requirements for major facilities and nonmajor facilities 
are no longer relevant to the program. Furthermore, the proposed NPDES 
Electronic Reporting Rule allows EPA to remove the burden of producing 
these reports from the states; instead, EPA would be able to 
automatically produce the reports and make them available for use by 
states, tribes, territories, and the public.
    The QNCR (for major facilities) and the ANCR (for nonmajor 
facilities) use identical numeric calculations to place violations into 
two categories. Violations that exceed certain thresholds of time, 
magnitude, or frequency of occurrence are specified in the regulations 
at 40 CFR 123.45 as being significant. ``Category I'' noncompliance 
involves applying certain specific ``technical review criteria'' or 
``TRC'' \46\ to certain violations of effluent limits for pollutants 
listed in Appendix. Category I noncompliance also includes specific 
criteria for violations of enforcement orders, compliance schedules, 
and required reports. ``Category II'' noncompliance includes effluent 
limit violations that do not rise to Category I, as well as 
unauthorized bypasses, unpermitted discharges, pass through of 
pollutants that cause or have the potential to cause a water quality or 
health problem, failure of a POTW to implement its approved 
pretreatment program, violations of interim compliance schedule 
milestones, incomplete required reports, violations of narrative 
requirements (e.g., failure to develop Spill Prevention and 
Countermeasure Plans and implement Best Management Practices), and 
other violations or group of permit violations of substantial concern 
to the State, Tribe, or Territory Director or EPA Regional 
Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Forty percent over an effluent limit for conventional 
pollutants and 20 percent over the limit for toxic pollutants, as 
identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR 123.45, for two months in a six 
month period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One additional consideration that EPA, states, tribes, and 
territories discussed at length under the Clean Water Act Action Plan 
was whether the existing Technical Review Criteria (TRC) identified in 
Appendix A to 40 CFR 123.45 for categorizing the severity of violations 
should be maintained. EPA has not proposed changing these violation 
determinations. Many of the EPA and state participants in the Clean 
Water Act Action Plan thought that the existing thresholds were useful 
and should be retained. However, there are some gaps that are addressed 
in this proposed rule.
3. Relationship Between Enforcement and Proposed Regulatory Changes to 
40 CFR 123.45
    The existing regulations do not determine the type of enforcement 
response required to be taken by the state, tribe, territory, or EPA. 
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, section 123.45 is a reporting 
regulation--focused on aligning key information that can assist with 
both enforcement priority-setting and transparency. Enforcement policy 
remains under the discretion of EPA and the permitting authority and 
outside the scope of this proposed rule. Over the past 25 years, EPA 
has developed policy and guidance documents that utilize information 
via the regulations to prioritize violations and determine appropriate 
responses. EPA wants to clarify that the proposed changes do not alter 
its enforcement expectations for the states, tribes, territories, or 
EPA regions. Any revisions to enforcement response guidelines would be 
accomplished via updates to existing guidance or policy, such as the 
EMS. The changes outlined in this proposed rule will make the NPDES 
data more inclusive and easier to use, and inform any future 
enforcement policy changes that are envisioned under the Clean Water 
Act Action Plan.
4. Overview of Proposed Regulatory Changes
    Given the evolving NPDES program, advancing technology, and the 
updated reporting mechanisms and requirements included in this proposed 
rule, EPA is seeking comment on changes to 40 CFR 123.45, entitled, 
``Noncompliance and program reporting by the Director.'' The purposes 
of these changes are to: (1) Provide a more accurate and comprehensive 
report of known violations using a more complete set of noncompliance 
information that would be flowing as a result of the NPDES Electronic 
Reporting Rule; (2) improve EPA's ability to analyze, track, and manage 
violations; (3) ensure the full universe of NPDES sources is considered 
in tracking, analyzing, and managing compliance and enforcement 
programs; (4) establish a better process to ensure EPA is focused on 
the most serious pollution problems and can keep pace with changes to 
the permitting program and new limit types; and (5) reduce state, 
tribe, and territory reporting burden by removing or phasing out 
requirements for existing hard-copy reports or other reports than can 
be produced by EPA from NPDES national data systems. Based on a date 
three years after the effective date of the final rule, the existing 
regulatory text in 40 CFR 123.45 would be replaced by the proposed new 
text for that section.
5. Proposal To Establish a NPDES Noncompliance Report
    To accomplish these changes, EPA is proposing to reorganize 
noncompliance information and establish a new public inventory of all 
reported violations based on existing reporting requirements and other 
new requirements that would be phased in under this proposed rule. The 
content of the inventory would be very similar to what is currently 
provided by EPA on the Internet in the ECHO Web site, but will include 
reported violations from the broader universe of NPDES-regulated 
sources. The proposed rule establishes an EPA-generated NPDES 
Noncompliance Report (NNCR) that would include a complete, simplified 
listing of all recorded violations at major and nonmajor facilities. 
The report would incorporate the existing content of the QNCR and the 
ANCR (e.g., reviewed facilities, violations, serious violations, 
enforcement taken), and would add other data that are required 
elsewhere under the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (for example, 
information regarding inspections, informal enforcement actions, and 
penalties assessed). The NNCR is essentially a quarterly, facility-
based view of compliance monitoring, violations, and enforcement 
activity which would replace the QNCR and the ANCR.
    The proposed rule is not designed to limit EPA's flexibility in 
providing data more frequently than quarterly. So, for example, if 
inspections or violations were identified one month after the official 
quarter ended, EPA would maintain the ability to provide that 
information prior to conclusion of the next official quarter. The NNCR 
provides a snapshot of the violation status within a quarter, which can 
be combined with other regulatory data, such as the frequency of 
inspection and follow-up enforcement action, to provide a full picture 
of compliance at a NPDES-regulated facility. The purpose of the NNCR is 
to provide regulators and the public with information about

[[Page 46045]]

violations, including both numeric exceedances of effluent limits 
(e.g., as reported on DMRs) and other violations [such as violations of 
narrative permit requirements or single event violations (both one-time 
and long-term) including sewer overflows, failure to implement best 
management practices, failure to implement a pretreatment program, 
failure to report, or failure to apply for a permit]. Non-numeric 
(e.g., non-DMR) violations are used by EPA to maintain and report the 
compliance status of a facility for violations that are not 
automatically flagged by the national database. Methods of detection of 
non-numeric violations include inspections; information collection 
requests; state, tribal, or territorial referrals; annual reports, 
noncompliance reports, and other program reports required under the 
permit enforcement order, or regulation; facility self-audits; and 
public complaints. Single event violations include one-time events and 
long-term violations (as described in Section IV.F.2.d).
    The listing of a facility on the NNCR for transparency purposes is 
not intended to dictate the appropriate enforcement response or in any 
way establish criteria for selecting enforcement actions. However, 
overall trends and rates (for example, the percent of facilities with 
violations) may be a useful tool for assessing violation trends on a 
regional or nationwide basis. Because EPA will produce the NNCR using 
data that are required to be reported to EPA electronically in a format 
compatible with ICIS-NPDES, there is no additional burden on states, 
tribes, or territories. In fact, in addition to eliminating the 
requirement for authorized programs to submit QNCR reports, EPA 
proposes to phase out the requirement that authorized programs submit 
semi-annual statistical and annual noncompliance reports (ANCRs).
6. Categorizing Violations
    EPA's system for categorizing violations on public Web sites is 
based upon the existing regulations within 40 CFR 123.45. As indicated 
in the proposed rule, EPA is considering updating 40 CFR 123.45 to 
modify the definitions of Category I and Category II noncompliance to 
implement one of the Clean Water Act Action Plan objectives to improve 
how serious violations are categorized. As currently structured, the 
existing regulations do not sufficiently categorize violations based on 
severity and potential for water quality impacts.
    The existing regulation assumes that ``Category I'' violations are 
considered more serious, while ``Category II'' violations are not as 
severe. EPA values classifying violations and that there is room for 
improvement in the existing regulation. Many of the most severe 
violations occurring in the today's NPDES program do not currently 
qualify as ``Category I.'' EPA has recognized this within the EMS by 
considering certain Category II violations to be ``significant 
noncompliance'' or SNC (and must be reported on the QNCR). This has 
created several inconsistencies between publicly-released data and the 
underlying regulations. This proposed rule seeks to remedy this 
problem. EPA is proposing to include those more serious violations into 
Category I, while all other violations become Category II. EPA is 
proposing an option that will retain most historically-used definitions 
that would move a facility from Category II into Category I. EPA is 
also proposing to leverage the data that would be required 
electronically under this proposed rule so that the severity of 
violations is evaluated for all facilities--not just the major 
facilities.
    In addition to the establishment of a NNCR, there are two 
components to the proposed approach to classifying violations. The 
first component covers violation classification; applicability to 
regulatory entity types; and revisions to annual, semi-annual, and 
quarterly reporting. The second component sets up a procedure for EPA 
to regularly assess what pollutant types, limit types, and measurement 
types/frequency are considered in classifying the severity of 
violations. These components are described below.
a. Component 1--Revise and Simplify the Existing System of Violation 
Classification
    EPA proposes to make adjustments to the existing regulation, while 
keeping the underlying concepts in place. First, the distinction 
between major and nonmajor regulated entities would be eliminated as it 
relates to 40 CFR 123.45. Second, Category I noncompliance, as defined 
under the existing regulation, would be slightly expanded to include a 
subset of violations currently classified as Category II. These include 
Category II noncompliance that pose a specific threat to water quality, 
including those that adversely impact water quality, human health, or 
designated uses of surface waters. EPA would retain the existing TRC 
for Group I and Group II Pollutants in 40 CFR 123.45, Appendix A. These 
thresholds would be applied to both major and nonmajor facilities, as 
they are within the existing regulation, but would ensure that other 
types of NPDES-regulated facilities that do not regularly report DMRs 
become eligible to be placed in Category I due to water quality 
impacts. The proposed regulatory text reflects how this change would be 
accomplished. All NPDES-regulated sources would be tiered into Category 
I if their effluent violations were significantly over the limit for a 
period of time, or if the violations are included in the existing 
definition of Category I (e.g., violations of a compliance schedule, 
etc.). Other violations (such as sewer overflows, failure to implement 
best management practices, failure to implement a pretreatment program, 
failure to report, or failure to apply for a permit) that are not 
ascertained through numeric limits in permits and DMRs, but are 
directly related to water quality impairment or are likely to cause 
water quality impairment (such as fish kills, oil sheens, beach 
closings, restrictions of beneficial uses, etc.), would also be 
classified as Category I. The detection of these non-numeric violations 
is by a variety of means, including, for example, inspections, or 
review of reports. The regulations also provide for listing of 
violations as Category I, if, in the discretion of the Director or 
Regional Administrator, that grouping of violations pose a water 
quality threat (e.g., geographic clusters or sectors of permittees with 
similar violations that are causing water quality issues).
    The proposed revisions to 40 CFR 123.45 would simplify and improve 
the organization, completeness, and transparency of NPDES noncompliance 
information. EPA, states, tribes, and territories could utilize this 
improved information to inform future revisions to EPA's national 
enforcement guidance and policies to identify, prioritize, and address 
the most serious CWA NPDES violations.
b. Component 2--Developing a Process To Keep Pollutant Lists and 
Monitoring/Permit Limit Types Up To Date
    As reflected in this proposed rule, EPA is considering adding a 
section to the existing regulation that requires EPA to establish a 
policy-making process with state, tribe, territory, and public 
involvement to add or delete pollutants that are subject to Category I 
classification for permit effluent limit violations, and to determine 
how criteria other than monthly average permit limit violations of a 
certain magnitude and frequency can be elevated to Category I 
classification.
Pollutant Types That Can Be Elevated to Category I Violation 
Classification
    Under this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to 
public comment, EPA retains the existing lists of Group

[[Page 46046]]

I and Group II Pollutants in Appendix A to 40 CFR 123.45 that are 
evaluated as part of the Category I and Category II definition for 
effluent limit violations. Periodic review and update of these lists is 
consistent with the original intent of the regulation (as specified on 
page 34651 of EPA's preamble for the final rule for 40 CFR part 123, 
NPDES Noncompliance and Program Reporting--FR, Vol. 50, No. 165, 
Monday, August 26, 1985). The 1985 preamble describes the conventional 
and nonconventional/toxic pollutants and provided an expectation that 
new parameters may be added from time to time, and that EPA would 
provide a more detailed list of pollutants to authorized programs in 
guidance for preparing the QNCR. EPA has never added any new parameters 
to the list of pollutants currently in 40 CFR 123.45--in part due to 
the complexity of re-opening the regulation to make such changes. EPA 
did, however, include a much more exhaustive list of Group I 
(conventional) and Group II (generally toxic) pollutant parameters 
found in Appendix III of its 1986 national guidance for preparation of 
quarterly and semi-annual noncompliance reports.\47\ This has resulted 
in a situation where a frequent cause of water impairment, pathogen 
pollution, (directly linked to NPDES pollutants such as fecal coliform 
and E. coli) is not listed in the regulations (see DCN 0038).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Chapter VII, Part 2, Appendix III in The Enforcement 
Management System (1989), DCN 0037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monitoring Frequency/Thresholds and Connection to Category I Violation 
Classification
    EPA proposes that the policy/guidance process for adding pollutant 
types that are eligible for Category I classification for permit 
effluent limit violations can also be used as the process for 
identifying potential changes to the reporting thresholds (i.e., 
magnitude and frequency) that are used. For example, the current 
regulation focuses on monthly average effluent limit violations of a 
specified magnitude (20 percent or 40 percent above the applicable 
limit) and frequency (two or four months in a six-month period) because 
EPA believed that violations of monthly average permit effluent limits 
were indicative of more serious long-term noncompliance problems. EPA 
revised its management tool (i.e., EPA's NPDES Significant 
Noncompliance Policy) in 1995 to also identify egregious NPDES 
violations of non-monthly permit effluent limits that meet EPA's 
criteria.\48\ EPA and authorized programs are also now using other 
types of limits (e.g., annual limits or seasonal limits) in some 
situations. Technical evaluation is needed to determine whether the 
existing magnitude and frequency reporting thresholds are viable for 
use for other types of limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See DCN 0050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the policy and guidance process discussed here would 
provide a forum for updating/changing: (1) Pollutants subject to 
Category I classification for permit effluent limit violations; (2) 
measurement frequency examined for Category I classification for permit 
effluent limit violations; and (3) reporting thresholds used for 
existing or new pollutants or measurement frequency that are associated 
with Category I classification for permit effluent limit violations. 
These decisions would be established in EPA national guidance and 
policy (like the EMS), which may be updated as needed.
c. Additional Changes
    The proposed rule incorporates several small changes, including the 
synchronization of reports on a Federal fiscal year basis.

H. Changes to Biosolids Annual Reports by the States

    The existing federal regulations at 40 CFR 501.21 require each 
authorized State, Tribe, or Territory Program Director to annually 
submit summary-level information to the Regional Administrator 
regarding state sewage sludge management programs. This required 
information includes: (1) a summary of the incidents of noncompliance 
which occurred in the previous year and any details; and (2) 
information to update the inventory of all sewage sludge generators and 
sewage sludge disposal facilities submitted with the program plan or in 
previous annual reports.
    This proposed rule seeks comment on whether EPA should amend 
provision 40 CFR 501.21, which would allow EPA to eliminate the 
requirement for authorized programs to report biosolids information to 
EPA. The rationale for such an amendment is that, if EPA's NPDES 
Electronic Reporting Rule requires sufficient information directly and 
electronically from these permittees and ensures that authorized 
programs and EPA share such information, then EPA could generate such a 
report based upon that information and alleviate biosolids reporting 
burden for this existing regulatory requirement from authorized 
programs.
    Ultimately, under this proposed rule, as currently drafted and 
subject to public comment, authorized programs would eventually no 
longer be required under this existing regulation to report on the 
status of their sewage sludge management programs, provide updates of 
their inventory to EPA of sewage sludge generators and sludge disposal 
facilities, or provide information on incidents of noncompliance, 
except for those identified during state biosolids inspections, because 
this requirement to supply information would fall on the facilities 
directly. Additionally, the electronic submission of this biosolids 
information from the permittees in accordance with the proposed rule 
will improve the timeliness, cost, and efficiency in the reporting of 
facility noncompliance and inventory data related to the biosolids 
subprogram.
    Therefore, based on these considerations, this proposed rule 
eventually would remove state biosolids reporting requirements pursuant 
to 40 CFR 501.21, three years after the effective date of the final 
rule. EPA would be able to generate the reports based upon the 
available data provided directly from permittees, and supplemented by 
authorized program information regarding their biosolids program 
implementation activities, through the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.

I. Enforceability

    For this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public 
comment, the regulated entities are primarily the NPDES-regulated 
facilities [e.g., NPDES permittees, biosolids generators subject to 40 
CFR part 503, significant industrial users (SIU), categorical 
industrial users (CIUs), approved pretreatment programs] and NPDES-
authorized states, tribes, and territories. The tools available to EPA 
to ensure compliance with this rule would differ depending on whether 
compliance was sought from a NPDES permittee or from a NPDES-authorized 
state, tribe, or territory, but the overall objective--compliance with 
the rule--would remain the same.
    If NPDES-regulated facilities fail to comply with this federal 
regulation for electronic reporting of NPDES information, they may be 
subject to the same types of enforcement responses that are available 
for failure to submit written (paper-based) or oral reports. This 
proposed rule clearly identifies each report that must be 
electronically submitted to EPA or the authorized NPDES program.
    In response to such noncompliance, EPA and the authorized programs

[[Page 46047]]

would have available their full set of compliance and enforcement tools 
and actions to address the failure of a NPDES permittee to 
electronically submit required NPDES information, just as they do to 
address any other noncompliance by NPDES-regulated facilities. In 
addition, the public would also have the ability to initiate citizen 
suits under Section 505 of the CWA to ensure that noncompliance is 
remedied when there are violations of existing regulations, permit 
conditions, or requirements in enforcement actions.
    EPA also needs to ensure that our regulatory partners responsible 
for NPDES implementation are meeting Federal requirements as set forth 
in this regulation. EPA would have the full range of options available 
to ensure state, tribal, and territorial compliance with this rule, as 
it would to ensure state, tribal, and territorial compliance with any 
other aspect of the NPDES program. In particular, the proposed rule 
outlines the procedure for ensuring the completeness and timeliness of 
data submissions from states, tribes, or territories that have received 
authorization from EPA to implement the NPDES program. This procedure 
includes public notification of the initial recipient of NPDES 
compliance data for each state, tribe, and territory and the 
requirement that authorized NPDES programs must maintain the capacity 
to share all the required NPDES information with EPA through automated 
data transfers. Finally, this procedure outlines the corrective actions 
necessary to ensure the seamless electronic collection from NPDES-
regulated facilities and the sharing of NPDES compliance data with the 
public.

J. Effective Date and Compliance Dates

    EPA is considering establishing the effective date for this 
regulation as 60 days after the promulgation date for most parts of the 
final rule, except for some specified components of the rule. See 
Section IV.K for a description of the series of compliance dates that 
follow the initial effective date for this regulation (i.e., 60 days 
after the promulgation date for the final rule). Additionally, the 
effective date for the revisions to 40 CFR 123.45 (elimination of the 
QNCR, ANCR, and semi-annual statistical report; creation of the NNCR) 
would be three years after the effective date of the final rule. The 
reason for this separate effective date is that producing the quarterly 
and annual NNCR require at least one full year of electronic reporting 
for the complete set of NPDES-regulated entities. As described in 
Section IV.I, the entire set of NPDES electronic submissions is 
proposed to begin two years after the effective date of the final rule.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 123.63, NPDES-authorized states, tribes, 
and territories as proposed to have one year after the effective date 
of the final rule to revise their NPDES program to comply with this 
rule through any necessary regulatory or policy changes and two years 
after the effective date of the final rule if statutory changes are 
needed to conform their programs to the requirements of the rule. 
Additionally, EPA is proposing to utilize a CWA request, conducted in 
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, to start collecting NPDES 
program data by one year after the effective date of the final rule 
(Phase 1 data) and two years after the effective date of the final rule 
(Phase 2 data). States, tribes, and territories should review the 
``State Readiness Criteria'' to determine the actions they need to take 
to ensure that facilities in their state, tribe, or territory would not 
need to report to EPA in addition to their authorized NPDES program. 
The rule implementation plan and compliance dates for NPDES-regulated 
facilities are described in Section IV.I.
    Given the significant potential data entry cost savings that the 
states, tribes, and territories could accrue by moving sooner toward 
electronic reporting of NPDES information by the permittees, there 
should be significant incentive for these governmental entities to move 
in that direction. EPA notes that there will be some initial start up 
costs to switch to electronic reporting. Some states, tribes, and 
territories may examine whether they could easily adopt the new 
rulemaking by reference or even make a blanket change to all of their 
NPDES permits to more timely facilitate a change to electronic 
reporting by NPDES-regulated facilities. States, tribes, and 
territories could also consider utilizing EPA's database and electronic 
reporting tools as a cost savings measure.
    Under certain circumstances, and as described in Section IV.E.5, 
temporary waivers from electronic reporting may be granted to NPDES-
regulated facilities, NPDES permit applicants, and industrial users 
located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs. These 
temporary waivers may be granted by the states, tribes, and territories 
that have received authorization to implement the NPDES program 
(including the applicable subprograms). In situations where EPA is the 
permitting authority, EPA may choose to grant such temporary waivers, 
using procedures similar to those described in this section. Temporary 
waivers are to extend no more than one year at which time the facility 
must reapply for a waiver.

K. Rule Implementation Plan

    EPA notes that the proposed implementation plan would expedite the 
electronic submission of NPDES program data as compared to implementing 
electronic reporting through the permit renewal cycle. As a potential 
backstop, EPA is considering using its authority under CWA sections 
101, 304(i), 308, 402(b), and 501 to require the electronic collection 
and transfer of NPDES program data to EPA as part of this rule, where 
authorized states, tribes, and territories are not ready to implement 
electronic reporting. Under this proposal, EPA would utilize its 
existing authority under the CWA and current technology to allow 
everyone to more quickly realize the benefits of electronic reporting.
    The benefits of this proposal include accelerated resource savings 
that states, tribes, and territories would realize through reduced data 
entry burden and reduced effort in responding to public requests for 
data, consistent requirements for electronic reporting across all 
states, tribes, and territories, increased data quality, and more 
timely access to NPDES program data in an electronic format for EPA, 
states, tribes, and territories, regulated entities, and the public. 
Under the proposal, a complete set of information for the regulated 
universe covered by this proposed rule would be required two years 
after the effective date of the final rule. The Agency's proposal to 
rely on its authority under the CWA to collect these data directly from 
NPDES-regulated facilities is supported by the availability of 
technologies for electronic reporting, the needs of EPA states, tribes, 
and territories for complete NPDES program data, and the stated goal to 
make this data available to the public.
    By comparison, without this accelerated schedule, it would likely 
take at least until 2022 to make this information available 
electronically, including approximately seven years for states, tribes, 
and territories to update their statutes and NPDES permits to require 
electronic reporting (i.e., two years for the states, tribes, and 
territories to revise their programs if statute changes are needed, 
plus a five-year permit reissuance cycle or longer).\49\ EPA considered 
using the permit renewal cycle as a means to phase in electronic 
reporting but that approach would delay significant benefits such as

[[Page 46048]]

state savings and expedited access to complete NPDES program data in an 
electronic format for EPA, states, tribes, and territories, regulated 
entities, and the public. Furthermore, given current technology, it 
would be unreasonable to take nearly a decade to convert from hard-copy 
reporting to electronic reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See 40 CFR 123.62(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the different types of NPDES program data, EPA is proposing 
to phase in the electronic collection and transfer of NPDES program 
data on the following schedule. For NPDES-regulated entities that will 
use EPA's electronic reporting tools, EPA will work closely with 
states, tribes, territories, and NPDES-regulated entities to provide 
sufficient training and registration support prior to the start of each 
implementation phase. In addition, EPA would also provide technical 
assistance and support to help states, tribes, and territories make 
this transition to electronic reporting. EPA will also use this 
schedule to switch from the ANCR and QNCR noncompliance reports to the 
NPDES Noncompliance Report (NNCR). See also Section IV.E.5 for a 
discussion of the waivers for some regulated entities in rural areas 
without access to broadband internet access.
    Phase 1 (One Year After Effective Date of Final Rule): EPA would 
electronically receive the basic facility and permit information from 
the authorized states, tribes, and territories and information from 
facilities covered by Federal general permits [e.g., notices of intent 
to discharge (NOIs), notices of terminations (NOTs), no exposure 
certifications (NECs), and low erosivity waivers (LEWs)]. EPA would 
also begin to electronically receive information from states, tribes, 
and territories regarding inspections, violation determinations, and 
enforcement actions. EPA, states, tribes, and territories would 
electronically receive DMR information from NPDES permittees. Prior to 
the start of Phase 1, states, tribes, and territories that can make 
changes to their NPDES program without enacting a statute would need to 
implement 40 CFR part 3 (CROMERR), 40 CFR 122.22 (NPDES signature 
requirements), and 40 CFR part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 
within one year of the effective date of the rulemaking [see 40 CFR 
123.62(e)]. After changes to the NPDES program are made, these states, 
tribes, and territories (and EPA where EPA is the permit writer) will 
begin re-issuing existing permits [through permit renewals or minor 
permit modification (40 CFR 122.63)] or begin issuing new permits that 
include EPA's electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 
122.22, and part 127. EPA notes that some states, tribes, and 
territories may be able to make minor permit modifications to multiple 
permits through one action. EPA may also conduct such minor 
modifications for the NPDES permits it issues. EPA is the permit writer 
for all tribes and territories (except for the Virgin Islands) and four 
states that do not have authorized NPDES programs. States, tribes, and 
territories will also need to complete their updates to any needed 
NPDES data systems to accommodate the new information exchanges with 
EPA. Finally, during Phase 1, states, tribes, and territories that must 
make changes to their NPDES program, if applicable, by enacting a 
statute would be required to implement 40 CFR part 3 (CROMERR), 40 CFR 
122.22 (NPDES signature requirements), and 40 CFR part 127 (NPDES 
Electronic Reporting Rule within two years of the effective date of the 
final rule [see 40 CFR 123.62(e)].
    Phase 2 (Two Years After Effective Date of Final Rule): In this 
proposal, in addition to Phase 1 data, EPA, states, tribes, and 
territories would receive information from state, tribal, and 
territorial general permit covered facilities and program reports from 
all facilities (i.e., all NPDES program data identified in Appendix A 
to 40 CFR part 127). Program reports are currently required by existing 
EPA regulations and include annual and episodic compliance reports from 
regulated entities to their permitting authority. These program reports 
include: Pretreatment Program Annual Reports, Industrial Users in 
Cities Without Approved Pretreatment Programs Periodic Compliance 
Monitoring Reports, Biosolids Program Annual Reports, CAFO Annual 
Reports, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Annual Reports, 
and Sewer Overflow of Bypass Event Reports [Combined Sewer Overflows 
(CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO), and Bypass Event Reports] (see 
Section IV).
    During Phase 2, states, tribes, and territories that would be 
required to make changes to their NPDES program through enacting a 
statute would complete their changes to their NPDES program to 
implement 40 CFR part 3 (CROMERR), 40 CFR 122.22 (NPDES signature 
requirements), and 40 CFR part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 
[see 40 CFR 123.62(e)]. After these states, tribes, and territories 
update their NPDES program, all new permits issued or existing permits 
re-issued after this date for the entire nation shall contain a permit 
condition requiring the electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR 
part 3, 122.22, and part 127. Regulated entities, which would then have 
the Federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, 
part 127) in their permit, would start (or continue) electronic 
reporting to the initial recipient (as defined in 40 CFR 127.27) as of 
the effective date of their permit. Under both phases, EPA would 
continue to work with states, tribes, and territories to ensure the 
electronic flow of state NPDES program data from their systems to EPA's 
national NPDES data system (e.g., ICIS-NPDES).
    Finally, at the end of Phase 2 (two years after effective date of 
final rule) EPA will replace the QNCR, ANCR, semi-annual statistical 
reports with the NNCR. See Sections IV.
1. Phase 1 Implementation
    During Phase 1, EPA would require regulated entities to 
electronically send ``Phase 1 data'' (i.e., DMRs, information from 
general permit covered facilities for Federally-issued general permits, 
to EPA, unless the state, tribe, or territory has met the ``State 
Readiness Criteria'' (see below). This proposed electronic reporting 
requirement is in addition to any pre-existing paper-based reporting 
requirements. EPA would commit to holding monthly teleconferences and 
webinars with authorized programs during this transition period to 
assist with data migration and reconciliation.
    However, EPA would exclude regulated entities from this CWA request 
if their authorized state, tribe, or territory meets all of the 
following ``State Readiness Criteria'':
    (1) The authorized state, tribe, or territory has 90 percent 
acceptance rate by data group (i.e., NPDES-regulated entities submit 
timely, accurate, complete, and nationally consistent NPDES data using 
approved state, tribe, territory or third-party electronic reporting 
tools; and
    (2) The EPA, state, tribe, territory, or third-party electronic 
reporting tools used by the NPDES regulated entity meet all of the 
minimum Federal reporting requirements for 40 CFR part 3 (CROMERR) and 
40 CFR part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule); and
    (3) EPA lists the state, tribe, or territory as the initial 
recipients for electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated 
entities in that state on EPA's Web site. Each authorized program will 
then designate the specific tools for these electronic submissions from 
their permittees. These designations are proposed to be made separately 
for each NPDES data group (see 40 CFR 127.2(c) and 127.27).

[[Page 46049]]

    EPA encourages all authorized states, tribes, and territories to 
meet the ``State Readiness Criteria,'' and will provide support to 
these authorized programs. This approach will minimize the cases where 
regulated entities would need to report to their authorized state, 
tribe, or territory (as required by their NPDES permit) and also to EPA 
(as required by EPA's CWA request). EPA will also exclude regulated 
entities from this CWA request if the regulated entity's permit 
includes all the necessary language to ensure that any electronic 
reporting done by the permittee meets all of the minimum Federal 
electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 
127). If one or more of the above State Readiness Criteria are not met 
or if the applicable permit does not include all of the minimum Federal 
electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 
127), then the regulated entity should report to both the state, 
tribal, or territorial permitting authority (if hard-copy paper 
reporting is required in the permit) and EPA (electronic reporting 
compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, part 127) during this transition 
period.
    EPA proposes to make its initial recipient decisions by each 
authorized state, tribal, and territorial NPDES program and for each 
data group. For example, if more than 90 percent of NPDES-regulated 
facilities that are required to submit DMRs in a particular state do so 
in accordance with the State Readiness Criteria, then all NPDES-
regulated facilities in that particular state that are required to 
submit DMRs would not need to electronically report to EPA under the 
proposed rule. EPA notes that facilities that are exempt from 
electronic reporting through use of a temporary waiver would not be 
included in the 90 percent adoption rate percentage calculation. EPA 
solicits comment on the 90% threshold that it will use for each state, 
tribe, and territory by data group. EPA also solicits comment on the 
appropriate date after the effective date of the final rule when EPA 
should perform the 90 percent adoption rate percentage calculations 
prior to the start of the Phase 1 data collection (one year after 
effective date of final rule).
    EPA will work closely with states, tribes, and territories to 
identify the authorized programs that have met State Readiness Criteria 
and permittees that have all of the minimum Federal electronic 
reporting requirements in their permits. EPA will create a search 
feature on its Web page to identify for each NPDES permittee the data 
group it does and does not need to report to EPA (e.g., for example a 
POTW may be exempt from electronically reporting DMR data directly to 
EPA but may still be required to electronically report pretreatment, 
biosolids, and sewer overflow data to EPA and also continue their pre-
existing hard-copy reporting requirements to their state permitting 
agency if required to do so by their permit).
    As proposed in 40 CFR 127.27(c), EPA would publish on its Web site 
and in the Federal Register a listing of the initial recipients for 
electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities by state, 
tribe, and territory and by NPDES data group. Regulated entities that 
must report Phase 1 data should consult EPA's Web site and the Federal 
Register to determine whether EPA, the state, tribe, or territory is 
the initial recipient for the NPDES program data that they need to 
report. States, tribes, and territories will also update the language 
in new or re-issued NPDES permits to ensure that any electronic 
reporting done by the permittee meets all of the minimum Federal 
reporting requirements for 40 CFR part 3 (CROMERR, 40 CFR 122.22 (NPDES 
signature requirements), and 40 CFR part 127 (NPDES Electronic 
Reporting Rule).
    Consequently, regulated entities that must report Phase 1 data 
should consult their permit to see if it requires electronic reporting 
in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. Regardless of 
whether a federal, state, tribal, territorial, or third-party 
electronic reporting tool is used by the regulated entity, or whether 
data is provided to EPA by the state (computer-to-computer transfer), 
NPDES program data from regulated entities would be included in ICIS-
NPDES and be made available to the public through EPA's Web site. EPA 
has accounted for this increased burden related to the concurrent 
reporting when a state, tribe, or territory does not meet the State 
Readiness Criteria in the supporting economic analysis and the ICR. See 
Section VII for more detailed discussion on savings and costs 
associated with this proposal. Additionally, during Phase 1, EPA 
expects states, tribes, and territories with NPDES program 
authorization to comply with 40 CFR 123.62(e) by making appropriate and 
timely revisions to their programs by two years after the expected 
promulgation date of the final rule. That subsection of the regulations 
indicates that any approved State section 402 permit program which 
requires revision to conform to this part shall be so revised within 
one year of the date of promulgation of these regulations, unless a 
State must amend or enact a statute in order to make the required 
revision in which case such revision shall take place within 2 years.
    As indicated above, existing regulations allow states one or two 
years (if statutory revisions are necessary) to make the required 
permit changes to their programs. In order to make these changes more 
efficiently, EPA is also proposing changes to 40 CFR 122.63 (``Minor 
modifications of permits'') that would allow states to use the minor 
modification procedure with the consent of the permittee to change 
reporting of NPDES program data from a paper process to an electronic 
process. This proposed change to the minor modification process would 
ease the burden on states to update existing NPDES permits to include 
the electronic reporting requirements for regulated entities. Section V 
also solicits comment on an alternative approach to minor modifications 
of the permit; in this alternative approach, the consent of the 
permittee would not be required to convert the permit to require 
electronic reporting.
    Under this proposed rule, all NPDES-regulated entities will 
electronically report Phase 1 data to their state permitting authority 
or EPA in compliance with this rulemaking after one year of the 
effective date of the final rule. This proposed rule would also update 
the standard permit conditions to include a requirement for NPDES-
regulated entities to ensure that their electronic submissions of DMR 
and other NPDES information (see 40 CFR 127.27) are sent to the 
appropriate initial recipient, as identified by EPA, and as defined in 
40 CFR 127.2(b).
2. Phase 2 Implementation
    During Phase 2, all data required to be reported (see Appendix A to 
40 CFR 127) by NPDES-regulated entities under this proposed rule would 
be electronically reported to the authorized program or EPA. NPDES 
program data from regulated entities would be included in ICIS-NPDES 
and be made available to the public through EPA's Web site. It is 
expect that during Phase 2 all states, tribes, and territories with 
NPDES program authorization will have made appropriate and timely 
revisions to their programs. EPA is proposing to retain authority to 
require regulated entities to send their NPDES program data to EPA when 
the authorized state, tribe, or territory does not meet the State 
Readiness Criteria. This proposed electronic reporting requirement is 
in addition to any pre-existing paper-based reporting requirements 
specified in permits.

[[Page 46050]]

    As proposed, during Phase 2, regulated entities should consult 
EPA's Web site and the Federal Register to determine whether they 
should directly report to EPA. In a similar procedure as Phase 1, EPA 
will work closely with states, tribes, and territories to identify the 
authorized programs that have met State Readiness Criteria and 
permittees that have all of the minimum Federal electronic reporting 
requirements in their permits. EPA will create a search feature on its 
Web page to identify for each NPDES permittee the data group it does 
and does not need to report to EPA. It is important to note that 
existing EPA regulations allow some NPDES-regulated facilities to 
obtain automatic coverage under a general permit without having to 
submit a NOI (see 40 CFR 122.28). This regulation does not change this 
option for permitting authorities to allow for automatic coverage under 
a general permit. This also means that there is no burden for these 
NPDES-regulated facilities associated with electronically submitting a 
NOI. States would also not necessarily need to provide information to 
EPA on these NPDES permittees that obtain automatic coverage under a 
general permit. States may need to provide inspection, compliance 
determination, and enforcement action data on these facilities.
    Under this proposed rule, all NPDES-regulated entities will 
electronically report Phase 2 data to their authorized program or EPA 
after two years after the effective date of the final rule. NPDES-
regulated entities shall identify the initial recipient for their 
electronic submissions of NPDES information (see 40 CFR 127.27).
    Finally, under this proposed rule, all new permits issued or 
existing permits re-issued after two years after the expected 
promulgation date of the final rule would contain a permit condition 
requiring the electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 
122.22, and part 127 [see 40 CFR 123.62(e)]. EPA has accounted for this 
increased burden related to the potential for concurrent reporting when 
a state, tribe, or territory does not meet the State Readiness Criteria 
in the supporting economic analysis and the ICR. See Section VII of the 
preamble for more detailed discussion on savings and costs associated 
with this proposal.

                              Table IV.3--Proposed Implementation Schedule for Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Key milestones                                              Due dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICIS-NPDES batch functionality is completed and all states,       December 2012 (completed).
 tribes, and territories are migrated from PCS to ICIS-NPDES.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Phase 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule promulgated                 TBD.
Collaborative forum between EPA and authorized states, tribes,    Final Rule Published in Federal Register
 and territories to develop data exchange protocols.               (start).
EPA sponsored webinars, recorded training, and technical          Final Rule Published in Federal Register
 assistance to states, tribes, and territories to review and       (start).
 test data exchange protocols.
NPDES authorized states, tribes, and territories identify for     120 days after the promulgation date for the
 EPA the NPDES data groups for which they wish to be the initial   final rule.
 recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated
 entities. These authorized programs will provide a description
 to EPA of how their data system will be compliant with 40 CFR
 part 3, 122.22, and part 127, and the date or dates when the
 state, tribe, or territory would be ready to accept NPDES
 information from NPDES-regulated entities in a manner compliant
 with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. These dates should
 not come after the start of the applicable implementation phase
 (e.g., states cannot propose to be the initial recipient of DMR
 data after the start of Phase1, states cannot propose to be the
 initial recipient of NPDES program reports after the start of
 Phase 2).
EPA will publish on its website and in the Federal Register a     210 days after the promulgation date for the
 listing of the initial recipients for electronic NPDES            final rule.
 information from NPDES-regulated entities by state, tribe, or
 territory and by NPDES data group. This listing will provide
 NPDES-regulated entities the initial recipient of their NPDES
 electronic data submissions and the due date for these NPDES
 electronic data submissions.
States, tribes, and territories begin submitting all required     Eight to nine months after promulgation date
 data elements associated with their implementation activities     for the final rule.
 (e.g., permit issuance, inspections, violations, and
 enforcement actions. EPA will hold monthly teleconferences and
 webinars with authorized programs during this transition period
 to assist with data migration and reconciliation.
States, tribes, and territories make changes to their NPDES       One year after promulgation date for the final
 program to implement Federal electronic reporting requirements    rule.
 (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, part 127) without amending or enacting
 a statute [see 40 CFR 123.62(e)]. These authorized programs may
 elect to modify existing permits through the minor modification
 process (40 CFR 122.63) to include a requirement for electronic
 reporting that is compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and
 part 127. All new permits issued or existing permits re-issued
 after the authorized state, tribe, or territory incorporates
 Federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3,
 122.22, part 127) into their authorized program shall contain a
 permit condition requiring the electronic reporting
 requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. Regulated
 entities, which now have the Federal electronic reporting
 requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, part 127) in their permit,
 shall start (or continue) electronic reporting to initial
 recipient (as defined in 40 CFR 127.27) as of the effective
 date of their permit. Authorized NPDES programs must also
 update their NPDES data systems.
EPA preparation before requiring direct reporting by NPDES        One year after promulgation date for the final
 permittees:                                                       rule.
--EPA updates website to allow permittees to determine if they
 do not need to report their data directly to EPA;
--Improvements to ICIS-NPDES or existing tools; and
--Registration (including any necessary subscriber agreements)
 of permittees for use of electronic reporting tools
EPA requires NPDES-regulated entities to electronically send      One year after effective date for the final
 Phase 1 data (i.e., DMRs, general permit reports for Federally-   rule.
 issued general permits, to EPA if the states, tribes, or
 territories are not ready to implement Federal electronic
 reporting requirements. All NPDES-regulated entities subject to
 this proposed rule should assume that they will electronically
 submit their Phase 1 data to EPA unless otherwise noted in the
 Federal Register or EPA's website. These electronic data
 submissions will be compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and
 part 127

[[Page 46051]]

 
The remaining states, tribes, and territories make changes to     Two years after promulgation date for the
 their NPDES program to implement Federal electronic reporting     final rule.
 requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, part 127) by amending or
 enacting a statute [see 40 CFR 123.62(e)]. These authorized
 programs may elect to modify existing permits through the minor
 modification process (40 CFR 122.63) to include a requirement
 for electronic reporting that is compliant with 40 CFR part 3,
 122.22, and part 127. All new permits issued or existing
 permits re-issued after the authorized state, tribe, or
 territory incorporates Federal electronic reporting
 requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, part 127) into their
 authorized program shall contain a permit condition requiring
 the electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 122.22,
 and part 127. Regulated entities, which now have the Federal
 electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, part
 127) in their permit, shall start (or continue) electronic
 reporting to initial recipient (as defined in 40 CFR 127.27) as
 of the effective date of their permit. Authorized NPDES
 programs must also update their NPDES data systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Phase 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA preparation before requiring direct reporting by NPDES        Twenty months after effective date for the
 permittees:                                                       final rule.
--EPA updates website to allow permittees to determine if they
 do not need to report their data directly to EPA;
--Improvements to ICIS-NPDES or existing tools; and
--Registration (including any necessary subscriber agreements)
 of permittees for use of electronic reporting tools
All NPDES program data from regulated entities subject to the     Two years after effective date for the final
 proposed rule electronically reported to their authorized         rule.
 state, tribe, or territory or EPA. NPDES program data from
 regulated entities would be included in ICIS-NPDES and be made
 available to the public through EPA's website. EPA would retain
 authority to require regulated entities to send their NPDES
 program data to EPA until the state, tribe, or territory meets
 the State Readiness Criteria. These electronic data submissions
 will be compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA would also issue a Federal Register notice if it needs to delay 
or extend any aspect of implementation and make such determinations 
public in the initial recipient listing in the proposed 40 CFR 
127.27(c).
    EPA also notes that it will be providing technical assistance and 
support to help states, tribes, and territories with this transition to 
electronic reporting. EPA is also open to considering other options for 
phasing the collection of the information under this proposed rule. 
Specifically, EPA would like to hear from authorized NPDES programs 
that have experience in implementing electronic reporting, especially 
their experience in phasing the implementation so that it is 
successful. EPA seeks additional data on alternative options that might 
reduce implementation costs on authorized NPDES programs and permittees 
while also preserving the proposed implementation schedule and benefits 
of electronic reporting.

L. Procedure for Determining Initial Recipient of Electronic NPDES 
Information

    In this proposal, EPA identified the procedure for identifying the 
initial recipient of information from NPDES-regulated entities. See 40 
CFR 127.27. This procedure requires each authorized state, tribe, or 
territory to identify the specific NPDES data groups (e.g., DMR 
information from facilities, information from general permit covered 
facilities, program reports) for which the state, tribe, or territory 
would be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from 
NPDES-regulated entities, a description of how their data system will 
be compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127, and the date or 
dates when the state, tribe, or territory would be ready for accepting 
NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities electronically in a 
manner compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127.
    The purpose of the initial recipient procedure is to ensure that 
the authorized state, tribe, or territory receiving NPDES program data 
from an NPDES regulated entity complies with the CROMERR signatory, 
certification, and security standards (40 CFR part 3) and the proposed 
NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 127). Built into the 
proposed procedure is an understanding that EPA will support any 
authorized state, tribe, or territory that wishes to be the initial 
recipient for electronically reported NPDES program data and will help 
the authorized state, tribe, or territory resolve any issues that 
temporarily prevent it from being the initial recipient of 
electronically reported NPDES program data.
    EPA would review these submissions and publish on its Web site and 
in the Federal Register a listing of the initial recipients for 
electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities by state, 
tribe, and territory and by NPDES data group. This listing would 
provide NPDES-regulated entities the initial recipient of their NPDES 
electronic data submissions and the due date for these NPDES electronic 
data submissions. EPA would update this listing on its Web site and in 
the Federal Register if a state, tribe, or territory is approved by EPA 
to be the initial recipient of NPDES electronic data submissions.
    A state, tribe, or territory that is designated by EPA as an 
initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated 
entities, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2, must maintain this data and share 
all the required NPDES information with EPA through timely automated 
data transfers, as identified in 40 CFR 127.21(a)(1)-(5) and in 
Appendix A to this part, in accordance with all requirements of 40 CFR 
3 and 127. Timely means that the authorized state, tribe, or territory 
submit these automated data transfers (see the data elements in 
Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) to EPA within 30 days of the completed 
activity. For example, the data regarding a state inspection of a 
NPDES-regulated entity that is completed on October 15th shall be 
submitted automatically to EPA no later than November 14th of that same 
year (e.g., 30 days after October 15th).
    EPA would be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information 
from NPDES-regulated entities if the state, tribe, or territory fails 
to collect data and consistently maintain timely automated data 
transfers in compliance with 40 CFR part 3 and part 127. The regulatory 
text in 40 CFR 127.27 lays out the procedure for identifying and 
correcting problems preventing states, tribes, and territories from 
being the initial recipient of NPDES data. EPA would continue to work 
with the Director of the authorized NPDES program to remediate all 
issues identified by EPA

[[Page 46052]]

that prevent the authorized NPDES program from being the initial 
recipient. When all issues identified by EPA are resolved, EPA would 
update the initial recipient listing in 40 CFR 127.27(c) and publish 
this listing on its Web site and in the Federal Register.

V. Matters for Which Comments Are Sought

    The following sections identify specific issues on which EPA 
invites comment. In Section V.A, EPA discusses comment questions 
regarding the proposed rule. In section V.B EPA commits to publish a 
supplemental notice after the close of the comment period for this 
proposal should it receive substantial number of comments that 
significantly change the direction of this proposed rule. This will 
allow stakeholders to see how EPA addressed their comments and to 
provide further input on those sections generating significant number 
of comments. In Section V.C, EPA summarizes the various approaches 
identified in Section IV and for which EPA invites comment. In the 
remaining sections of Section V, EPA identifies other approaches for 
which EPA invites comment.

A. Response to Early Public Comments

    Through the Clean Water Act Action Plan Discussion Forum and 
consultation with states, tribes, and stakeholders, EPA solicited ideas 
and comments on electronic reporting. EPA identified several 
misconceptions about the proposed rule. This section of the preamble 
identifies some of these misconceptions and provides clarification 
based upon the proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to 
public comment.
     The proposed rule would focus on existing collection and 
reporting requirements: The proposed rule is not an EPA effort to 
impose the collection of additional information beyond that which the 
permittee is already required to report and the state, tribe, or 
territory is already required to collect. The proposed rule changes the 
means by which the information is provided to EPA or to the authorized 
program, requiring electronic reporting rather than existing hard-copy 
reporting from the NPDES-regulated facilities.
     The proposed rule would not require states, tribes, and 
territories to develop their own electronic tools for use by NPDES-
regulated facilities or require states, tribes, and territories to 
develop their own electronic databases: In support of ICIS-NPDES and 
this proposed rule, EPA plans to develop national tools to allow NPDES-
regulated facilities to provide NPDES information electronically to 
EPA, states, tribes, and territories. EPA plans to make those EPA-
developed tools available for use within each state, tribe, and 
territory. Alternatively, a state (or tribe or territory) may choose to 
develop its own state-specific electronic tools or state data systems 
rather than utilizing what EPA makes available, or the electronic 
reporting tools could be developed by third parties. However, the 
proposed rule would require these new electronic reporting tools to 
provide the same basic nationally-consistent set of NPDES information 
required by EPA under this rule. Additionally, the new state, tribe, 
territory, or third-party electronic reporting tools would need to meet 
the requirements of EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation 
(CROMERR) (see 40 CFR part 3).
     The proposed rule would not stop utilization of existing 
electronic reporting tools by states, tribes, and territories: The 
proposed rule would not require states, tribes, and territories to stop 
utilizing tools that they have developed to enable NPDES-regulated 
facilities to report electronically. However, EPA does seek to ensure 
that each electronic reporting tool utilized in the state, tribe, or 
territory would provide the same nationally-consistent set of NPDES 
information required by EPA, regardless of whether this was an existing 
or newly-developed tool. EPA also seeks assurance that such electronic 
reporting tools would meet the requirements of CROMERR. Therefore, 
states, tribes, and territories with existing electronic tools may need 
to modify them as appropriate to ensure that the tools obtain all 
required NPDES information and meet the necessary requirements.
     The proposed rule does not specify particular electronic 
reporting tools: The proposed rule does not specify any details of what 
electronic tools would be developed or should be used to ensure that 
the required NPDES data would be provided in a timely, accurate, 
complete, and nationally consistent manner by permittees, states, 
tribes, and territories to EPA. The proposed rule focuses on 
establishing requirements for what types of NPDES data the NPDES-
regulated facilities would be required to report to EPA, states, 
tribes, and territories electronically; what facility-specific 
information states would be required to provide to EPA regarding their 
implementation activities; and how these requirements would be 
implemented in a NPDES-authorized program.
     The proposed rule does not mandate direct entry of NPDES 
data into ICIS-NPDES as the only means of compliance: The proposed rule 
establishes what data the permittees, states, tribes, and territories 
would be required to provide to EPA on a nationally consistent, timely, 
accurate and complete basis. Although EPA wants to ensure that the data 
is provided in a manner which is fully compatible with ICIS-NPDES, the 
proposed rule does not presume that direct data entry into ICIS-NPDES 
is the only approach that would meet the proposed requirements.
     The proposed rule will provide significant benefits to 
states, tribes, and territories: Based upon results of the economic 
analysis, as summarized in Section VII, the proposed rule would provide 
long-term savings to the states, tribes, and territories, providing 
states, tribes, and territories the opportunity to reallocate or 
redistribute existing resources more efficiently. The near-term costs 
are small in comparison to these savings, and the proposed rule would 
not impose significant costs upon the states, tribes, and territories 
in the long term. EPA would also be providing technical assistance and 
support to help states, tribes, and territories transition to this new 
cheaper and more accurate approach.
     The proposed rule does not increase the reporting burden 
on state NPDES programs: As described in more detail in Sections IV and 
VII of the preamble, most of the data required for the NPDES program 
under the proposed rule (see Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) would be 
electronically provided by NPDES regulated entities. States, tribes, 
and territories would not need to key punch these data supplied by 
NPDES regulated entities into ICIS-NPDES. Also, many of the required 
data are required only for particular NPDES subprograms (e.g., CAFOs, 
pretreatment, etc.) and it is highly unlikely that any NPDES regulated 
entity would be covered by each and every one of these subprograms. 
Furthermore, over 60 percent of these required data are required to be 
entered only once every five years or less frequently (particularly 
facility and permit information obtained from electronic notices of 
intent to discharge or individually-issued NPDES permits, but also 
where obtained from certain inspections). In addition, some of the data 
would rarely be used because they are conditional in nature, with their 
data entry contingent upon certain other unique conditions being 
present (e.g., removal credits in approved local pretreatment 
programs). Therefore, any calculation of the data entry resource burden 
on states, tribes, and territories which contains an assumption that 
every data element is required for every

[[Page 46053]]

facility is incorrect. These concepts are explained in much more detail 
in the context of data entry considerations in Section IV.D.

B. Supplemental Notice

    This proposed rule as currently drafted, subject to public comment, 
requires a conversion to electronic reporting of information from the 
majority of the NPDES regulated universe and from states, tribes, and 
territories authorized to implement the NPDES program. As such, this 
proposed rule will affect hundreds of thousands of NPDES-regulated 
entities and all states, tribes, and territories. The proposed rule 
will also impact the public, making more complete NPDES information 
available nationally for the first time.
    Given the large scope of this proposal, EPA commits to offer an 
additional opportunity for transparency and engagement should we 
receive public comments that require significant changes to the rule. 
If that occurs, EPA will issue a supplemental notice with its response 
to any public comments that prompted a change in direction, so that 
states, tribes, territories, permittees, and other stakeholders can 
review and comment on how EPA revised the parts of the proposed rule 
that generated significant amount of comment. EPA plans to publish the 
supplemental notice within 180 days after the public comment period for 
this proposed rule has closed.
    Although EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of the proposed 
rule, there are three specific areas for which EPA is particularly 
interested in getting comment from states, tribes, territories, 
permittees, and other stakeholders. The three areas include: governance 
of the data; phasing the implementation proposed under this rule; and 
the specific information the rule proposes to collect.
1. Governance of the Data
    It is important that the governance processes surrounding the 
management and public release of data be clearly defined. The proposed 
rule relies on data that is currently required under existing 
regulations for the NPDES program. It also respects and does not change 
the role of authorized state, territorial, and tribal agencies as the 
primary implementors of the NPDES program or as data stewards for NPDES 
data within their jurisdiction. EPA invites comments from states, 
tribes, territories, permittees, and other stakeholders on the 
governance and management of data to be electronically reported to 
states and EPA under this proposed rule, including data stewardship and 
use of the information.
2. Phasing the Data Collection
    Currently the proposed rule has two phases that will be implemented 
for collecting this information (see Section IV of the preamble for a 
detailed discussion on the phasing of the implementation of the rule). 
EPA will be providing technical assistance and support to help states, 
tribes, and territories with this transition to electronic reporting. 
EPA is also open to considering other options for phasing the 
collection of the information under this proposed rule. Specifically, 
EPA would like to hear from authorized NPDES programs that have 
experience in implementing electronic reporting, especially their 
experience in phasing the implementation so that it is successful. EPA 
seeks additional data on alternative options that might reduce 
implementation costs on authorized NPDES programs and permittees while 
also preserving the proposed implementation schedule and benefits of 
electronic reporting.
3. Specific Information the Rule Proposes To Collect
    The proposed rule lists each data element proposed for electronic 
reporting. This information can be found in Appendix A of 40 CFR part 
127 of the proposed regulation text. The proposed rule explains 
throughout the preamble why the information is proposed to be submitted 
electronically. In particular, there is a detailed discussion for each 
data family by program area that can be found in Section IV of the 
preamble. Additionally, this proposed rule does not require the 
generation of new data that is not already required in the existing 
regulations for the NPDES program.
    EPA would like to hear from states, tribes, territories, 
permittees, and other stakeholders any comments for adding, changing, 
or deleting data elements from this proposed list.

C. Summary of Items for Comment Identified in Section IV of This 
Preamble

    In Section IV, EPA identified several specific approaches on which 
comments are invited. These include:
     Taking into account the limitations of broadband 
availability and technological capabilities, EPA is considering 
providing a temporary waiver to the electronic reporting requirements 
for facilities lacking broadband capability or high-speed internet 
access and invites comments on such an exception.
     EPA invites comment on how to best address the variability 
in general permits issued by EPA, states, tribes, and territories.
     EPA is considering the elimination of reporting ``time'' 
from the annual report for CAFOs [see 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)(vi)]. EPA 
estimates that the reporting of ``date'' of discharges is sufficient 
for permitting and compliance determinations. EPA invites comment on 
this considered change.
     EPA is not considering requiring the electronic submission 
of LTCPs as these reports are unique to each POTW. EPA invites comment 
on this approach.
     EPA invites comment on whether electronic sewer overflow 
event reports should be limited to sewer overflow events above a de 
minimis volume.
     EPA invites comment on whether the list of minimum federal 
data for sewer overflow and bypass events (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 
127) provides sufficient distinction between the different types of 
sewer overflow and bypass events.
     For the pretreatment reports not identified in this 
proposed rule, as currently drafted, for electronic submission, EPA 
invites comment on which other pretreatment reports (if any) EPA should 
require for electronic submission as electronic documents (e.g., 
searchable PDFs).
     For the pretreatment reports, EPA is first focusing its 
efforts on collecting electronically annual reports from control 
authorities, acknowledging that these reports include summary data from 
IU reports, and collecting compliance reports from IUs in cities 
without pretreatment programs. EPA invites comment on whether EPA 
should re-examine this decision for the final rule.
     EPA invites comment on the phasing out of reports 
currently required by 40 CFR 123.45 and 40 CFR 501.21, the new 
provisions for the NNCR, and the retention of existing thresholds in 
Appendix A to 40 CFR 123.45.
     EPA's VGP currently contains the monitoring, reporting, 
inspection, operation and maintenance requirements. EPA is not 
considering using this proposed rule, as currently drafted, to make any 
changes to NPDES regulations that would be specific to the vessels 
program. EPA invites public comment on this approach.
     EPA is not considering using this proposed rule, as 
currently drafted, to make any changes to NPDES regulations that would 
be specific to the pesticide

[[Page 46054]]

applicators program. EPA invites public comment on this approach.
     EPA invites comment on whether it should expand electronic 
noncompliance reporting to other forms of noncompliance [see 40 CFR 
122.41(l)(6) and (7)], besides sewer overflow incidents and bypasses.
     EPA notes that the list of minimum federal data (Appendix 
A to 40 CFR part 127) from states, tribes, and territories only 
includes construction stormwater inspection data when the authorized 
program identifies violations and completes a formal enforcement action 
(i.e., authorized state, tribe, and territory programs are not required 
to report construction stormwater inspection data to EPA for 
inspections that do not identify violations). EPA made this distinction 
based on the large number of facilities in this segment of the NPDES 
universe (approximately new 222,000 facilities each year). EPA invites 
comment on this approach.
     EPA invites comment on whether CAFO NOIs and NOTs should 
be included in Phase I of the rule implementation, as currently being 
considered, or in Phase II.
     EPA is seeking comment on how it should evaluate, update, 
and revise the lists of pollutants in Appendix A to 40 CFR 123.45. 
These lists are used to determine Category I (most serious) and 
Category II noncompliance. EPA's preamble for the final rule for 40 CFR 
part 123, NPDES Noncompliance and Program Reporting (FR, Vol. 50, No. 
165, Monday, August 26, 1985) describes the conventional and 
nonconventional/toxic pollutants as lists of general types. It was 
expected that new parameters may be added from time to time. EPA has 
never revised these lists in part due to the complexity of re-opening 
the regulation to make such changes. This has resulted in a situation 
where, the most frequent cause of water impairment, pathogens, (which 
is directly related to pollutants such as fecal coliform and eColi) are 
not listed as pollutants that cause a Category I listing in the 
regulations. This means that a violation of a pathogen effluent limit 
alone (no matter how severe) is not required to be reported to EPA 
under 40 CFR 123.45 and, therefore, will not automatically trigger 
evaluation of the violation for ``significant noncompliance (SNC)'' 
status. EPA also seeks comment on eliminating the need for pollutant 
specific lists such as the current one in Appendix A and instead 
requiring that all effluent limitations in NPDES permits be considered 
noteworthy when involving exceedances greater than a certain, specified 
amount and basing the threshold amounts on whether or not the limit is 
a water-quality based effluent limit or a technology-based limit.
     In addition, when the 40 CFR 123.45 noncompliance 
reporting requirement were originally developed, EPA believed that 
violations of monthly average permit effluents limits were indicative 
of more serious long term noncompliance problems. However, EPA's 
thinking has evolved on this point and, in consultation with Regions 
and States, EPA revised its management tool (i.e., EPA's NPDES 
Significant Noncompliance Policy) in 1995 to also identify egregious 
NPDES violations of non-monthly permit effluent limits that meet EPA's 
criteria. EPA is specifically seeking comment on whether noncompliance 
reporting of permit effluent limits in 40 CFR 123.45 should be limited 
to monthly average permit limit violations and those violations that 
are of a specific magnitude and frequency.
    EPA invites comment on the 90 percent threshold, currently 
considered in the proposed rule, that it will use as one of the State 
Readiness Criteria for each state, tribe, and territory by data group. 
EPA also invites comment on the appropriate date when EPA should 
perform the percent adoption rate percentage calculations prior to the 
start of the Phase 1 data collection.

D. Possible Adjustments to the Universe of Facilities for Which 
Electronic Reporting Is Required

1. Construction Sites With Potential Stormwater Issues
    Based upon preliminary EPA estimates, the number of facilities 
covered by NPDES permits to control stormwater discharges related to 
construction (approximately 200,000 such facilities in any particular 
year) constitutes a very large percentage of the total universe of 
NPDES-permitted facilities in any given year. This universe of 
facilities changes as construction is completed. Based upon existing 
regulatory requirements,\50\ few of the construction stormwater permits 
require the submission of DMRs from these facilities; therefore, much 
of the available information regarding the compliance status of such 
facilities is based upon inspections rather than on self-reported 
effluent monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ In a separate rulemaking effort, EPA is drafting proposed 
regulatory language that may change reporting requirements 
associated with construction sites. At this time, it would be 
premature for EPA to speculate on what that proposed or final rule 
would contain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these construction sites, NPDES permit coverage is provided 
through the construction site operator's submission of a notice of 
intent (NOI) to be covered under a general permit issued by EPA or by 
the authorized state, tribe, or territory. The NOI information from the 
prospective NPDES-regulated facilities includes basic information 
regarding the facility and its discharges, and provides some basis for 
possible inspections and enforcement by authorized agencies.
    In the development of this proposed rule, as currently drafted, EPA 
has considered whether facility-specific data should be required only 
for those sites that had been inspected (rather than for the entire 
universe of such facilities) due to the transient nature of these 
sites. Based on the 2007 version of EPA's Compliance Monitoring 
Strategy (CMS), EPA recommended annual EPA-state goals to inspect at 
least 10percent of NPDES-permitted construction sites greater than five 
acres in size (Phase I), and at least 5percent of construction sites 
which are 1-5 acres in size (Phase II). Adjusting data reporting 
requirements to only require information on the facilities inspected 
would provide facility data for a much smaller set of facilities.
    In discussions with states about reporting for potential wet-
weather facilities such as construction sites, EPA has also considered 
requiring reporting on an even smaller subset of these construction 
sites, namely those sites that have been subject to a formal 
enforcement action, an administrative penalty order, or another 
informal enforcement action if that informal action addressed 
significant noncompliance. Closer tracking of these particular 
facilities would help ensure timely compliance and could help EPA to 
identify noncompliance patterns by particular companies across 
watershed or state, tribe, or territory boundaries, or nationally in 
scope. It is difficult to determine an accurate percentage of such 
facilities that may be subject to these future actions; however, as a 
preliminary estimate, EPA expects that only 1percent of such facilities 
would be the recipients of such enforcement actions in a given year.
    In this proposed rule, as currently drafted, every construction 
site seeking coverage under a NPDES general permit would be required to 
electronically submit a NOI form. Therefore, this rule would establish 
the initial universe for which construction site inspections would most 
likely be performed. There is no way of pre-determining which sites 
would receive such inspections or which sites will be subject to 
enforcement actions, so it makes more

[[Page 46055]]

sense to include the entire universe of such facilities in the 
requirement to electronically submit an NOI. The states, tribes, and 
territories would then be required to provide EPA with inspection 
information, violation determination information, and enforcement 
action information only for those sites where such actions are taken by 
the states, tribes, or territories. For facilities that qualify for and 
receive low erosivity waivers (LEWs), this proposed rule, as currently 
drafted, requires the electronic submission of the date such waiver was 
approved by the authorized state, tribe, territory, or EPA. Comments 
are invited on viable alternatives to this approach that would provide 
sufficient facility-specific information regarding construction sites.

2. Municipal Satellite Sanitary Sewer Systems (MSSSs)

    Some municipalities that do not have NPDES permits to discharge 
nonetheless have sanitary sewer systems (SSSs) which discharge their 
sewage to the collection system of a POTW that has a NPDES permit to 
discharge. This sewage system discharging to another NPDES collection 
system or POTW is referred to as a municipal satellite sanitary sewer 
system. Based upon preliminary EPA estimates, there are over 4,800 such 
municipal satellite SSSs in the nation. This figure represents 
approximately 24 percent of the total number of SSSs in the entire 
nation.
    Not all of these satellite systems have applied for and received 
NPDES permits. Some amount of NPDES information is tracked by states, 
tribes, territories, and EPA for POTWs which have NPDES permits, 
particularly for those POTWs which were designated as major permittees. 
However, information regarding the non-permitted municipal satellite 
SSSs and their possible impacts is far less complete.
    Under CWA section 308, EPA could seek facility-specific information 
for each municipal satellite SSS facility as a point source; such 
information would include basic facility information, identification of 
the receiving NPDES-permitted POTW, incident report information, 
inspection information, and if applicable, violation information, 
enforcement information, and limits and monitoring data for each of 
these municipal satellite facilities. Detailed information regarding 
overflows from municipal satellite systems is critical to reducing 
water quality impairments attributable to overflows.
    In this proposed rule, as currently drafted, EPA is not considering 
new reporting requirements on permitting authorities regarding such 
municipal satellite SSSs. EPA is considering whether EPA's needs may be 
served by receipt of information for municipal satellite systems which 
have been subject to a formal enforcement action, an administrative 
penalty order, or another informal enforcement action if that informal 
action addressed significant noncompliance, because closer tracking of 
these particular facilities, whether NPDES-permitted or a necessary 
party to ensuring compliance under an enforcement action, would help 
ensure timely compliance and more complete solutions to possible SSO 
violations. However, more complete information regarding the entire 
universe of municipal satellite systems may be very useful in 
evaluating the national compliance status of these facilities and in 
targeting. EPA invites comment on whether more specific information 
regarding municipal satellite systems, all or some defined subset, 
would prove useful and should be required by EPA from the states, 
tribes, and territories.
3. Industrial Users
    As described in Section IV.E.1.e, in the absence of approved local 
pretreatment programs, EPA, the authorized state, tribe, or territory 
function as the control authority with the direct responsibility to 
oversee these industrial users. EPA estimates that there are 
approximately 1,400 industrial users located in cities without approved 
local pretreatment programs.
    Section IV.E.1.e describes the types of reports which categorical 
industrial users and other significant industrial users are required to 
provide to the control authority. EPA is considering industrial users 
located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs be 
required to send the industrial user reports required under 403.12(e) 
and 403.12(h) electronically to EPA or pretreatment-authorized states, 
tribes, and territories. These self-monitoring reports will provide 
information similar to the information contained in DMRs from direct 
dischargers. Essentially, this would increase the universe for which 
self-monitoring results are required to be submitted electronically. 
Electronic submittal of these reports will give states, tribes, 
territories, and EPA better access to information concerning the 
pretreatment processes and compliance status of industrial users 
located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs. 
Comments are invited on this requirement and on whether to expand the 
requirement for electronic reporting of these reports to all industrial 
users.
4. Facility Universe for Which Biosolids Annual Reports Are Required
    EPA's biosolids regulations (40 CFR part 503) establish the same 
recordkeeping requirements for all POTWs and Treatment Works Treating 
Domestic Sewage (TWTDSs). However, EPA's biosolids regulations only 
require annual reporting from POTWs with a design flow rate equal to or 
greater than one million gallons per day, POTWs that serve 10,000 
people or more, and Class I sewage sludge management facilities (e.g., 
POTWs with design flow rates less than one million gallons per day that 
also have approved pretreatment programs) to the appropriate authorized 
state, tribe, territory or EPA region. These biosolids reporting 
requirements are described in Section IV.E.1.f. There are no existing 
reporting requirements for smaller POTWs (e.g., design flow rate less 
than one million gallons per day and serving less than 10,000 people) 
without pretreatment programs or for TWTDSs that are not identified by 
EPA or the authorized state, tribe, or territory as Class I sewage 
sludge management facilities. This proposed rule, as currently drafted, 
is not considering changing the applicability of EPA's biosolids 
reporting requirements.
    EPA invites comment on expanding the biosolids reporting 
requirements (see 40 CFR 503.18, 503.28, 503.48) to all POTWs and 
TWTDSs. The increased availability of such biosolids information 
regarding all POTWs and TWTDSs would provide significant information 
regarding the effectiveness of the national, state, tribe, and 
territory biosolids programs, as well as key information regarding the 
effectiveness and compliance status of the regulated facilities. In 
particular, EPA notes that the existing reporting requirements apply to 
only a minority of POTWs and TWTDSs, although they have the vast 
majority of the flow volume compared to the smaller POTWs and TWTDSs. 
According to EPA's 2008 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey, there are 
approximately 3,200 POTWs that have a design flow rate above one 
million gallons per day and 11,500 POTWs have a design flow rate below 
one million gallons per day. Consequently, there are many more 
facilities for which EPA, states, tribes, and territories have little 
information on hand to determine compliance with EPA's biosolids 
regulations and no comprehensive way of conveying the biosolids 
management performance of these facilities to the public. As indicated 
in the proposed rule as currently drafted, expanding the reporting 
requirements to all POTWs

[[Page 46056]]

and TWTDSs will aid in producing a national consistent assessment of 
biosolids management, which is not available with the current reporting 
requirements (see DCN 0034). The efficiencies in electronic reporting 
will reduce the burden on POTWs, TWTDSs, states, tribes, territories, 
and EPA in reporting, receiving, reviewing, and maintaining these data.
    Finally, EPA notes that some POTWs use lagoons or impoundments for 
their wastewater treatment. These POTWs may not be discharging 
biosolids each year as these lagoons or impoundments are not 
necessarily annually dredged. Some lagoons or impoundments may be 
dredged on a frequency of once every five, ten, or more years. EPA 
invites comment whether to expand the biosolids reporting requirements 
to POTWs that use lagoons or impoundments and do not perform annual 
dredging.

E. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

    This proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public 
comment, establishes quality assurance requirements to better ensure 
that the required NPDES data will be provided in a timely, accurate, 
and complete manner by each NPDES permittee and by each NPDES-
authorized state, tribe, and territory.
    EPA has suggested establishing timeliness criteria of 30 days for 
permitting authorities to transmit NPDES data electronically to EPA. 
Suggested criteria for states, tribes, and territories regarding 
accuracy (at least 95 percent of the data elements should be identical 
to data reported) and completeness (at least 95 percent of the expected 
data elements should be provided for each facility) are based on 
quality assurance targets identified in existing EPA guidance.
    In August 1992, EPA issued the ``Permit Compliance System (PCS) 
Quality Assurance Guidance Manual'' as guidance for EPA regional 
offices and states toward the development of similar quality assurance 
procedures for PCS data entry. This guidance document described quality 
assurance and quality control (QA/QC) targets for the data entry of the 
Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) data, the data identified 
(through the PCS Policy Statement, as amended) from EPA regional 
offices, states, tribes, and territories for PCS, and described how 
permitting authorities should develop and implement their own quality 
assurance plans to ensure that the data provided in PCS was timely, 
accurate, and complete. Although these criteria were developed as 
quality assurance guidelines for PCS, the NPDES national data system at 
that time, these long-established quality assurance requirements would 
still be valid as criteria for timeliness, accuracy, and completeness 
of NPDES data that would be required through this proposed rule, as 
currently drafted, to be provided electronically in a manner fully 
compatible with EPA's PCS replacement system, ICIS-NPDES. EPA is 
inviting comment on whether these quality assurance and quality control 
targets identified in the August 1992 guidance cited above should serve 
as the basis for similar regulatory requirements in this proposed rule, 
as currently drafted.
    Specifically, the 1992 EPA guidance sets timeliness targets (in 
numbers of working days since a specific trigger event) for the 
availability of NPDES data from states, tribes, and territories for 
specific data families, such as basic facility data, pipe schedule 
data, limits data, monitoring data, violation data, inspection data, 
program reports data, enforcement action data, compliance schedule 
data, etc. As an alternative approach to timeliness criteria identified 
in this proposed rule, as currently drafted, EPA could instead propose 
that these timeliness targets in the 1992 EPA guidance be instituted as 
timeliness deadlines. This approach would better ensure that the NPDES 
data required under this proposed rule, as currently drafted, would be 
provided by each NPDES permittee and by each authorized state, tribe, 
and territory to EPA in a nationally-consistent, timely, accurate, and 
complete manner fully compatible with EPA's NPDES data system. A few 
examples of such timeliness deadlines are identified below:
     For basic facility data, this information would be 
required from the permitting authority within five working days of 
receipt of an application for an individual NPDES permit;
     For basic permit information, this information would be 
required from the permitting authority within five working days of the 
issuance of an individual permit; and
     For enforcement action data, this information would be 
required from the permitting authority within five working days of the 
issuance of the enforcement action.
    Although electronic submission of NPDES information could certainly 
occur much more expeditiously for NOI data, DMR data, or program report 
data, if that data is sent electronically by the NPDES permittee to a 
permitting authority's electronic reporting system for subsequent 
submission to EPA, the timeliness requirement for the permitting 
authority could be that:
     The eNOI data would be available from the state, tribe, or 
territory to EPA within 5 working days of receipt of the eNOI;
     The DMR data would be available from the state, tribe, or 
territory to EPA within 10 working days of receipt of the DMR; and
     The program report data would be available from the state, 
tribe, or territory to EPA within 30 working days of receipt.
    EPA invites comment on whether to include QA/QC criteria for 
timeliness, accuracy, and completeness in the final rule. In addition, 
EPA invites comment on the alternative timeframes described here.

F. Possible Use of Minor Modifications of Permits To Require Electronic 
Reporting, Without Requiring Consent of the Permittees

    In 40 CFR 122.63, federal regulations indicate the conditions under 
which minor modifications to existing NPDES permits could be made upon 
consent of the permittee. The existing regulations indicate that minor 
modifications to NPDES permits may be done to correct typographical 
errors, require more frequent monitoring or reporting, change interim 
compliance dates, indicate ownership or operational control changes, 
change new source construction dates, or incorporate conditions of an 
approved pretreatment program.
    EPA is very interested in facilitating the move toward electronic 
reporting by states, tribes, territories, and regulated entities and 
has examined the possibility of modifying the existing federal 
regulations regarding minor modifications to require electronic 
reporting by NPDES-regulated facilities. By including the incorporation 
of electronic reporting requirements as a minor modification, states, 
tribes, and territories could more easily change existing NPDES permits 
to require electronic reporting, while reducing the paperwork and 
process time that would normally be associated with modifying a permit. 
Therefore, in this proposed rule, as currently drafted, EPA has 
suggested adding, as a minor modification, the incorporation of 
electronic reporting requirements into existing permits.
    EPA invites comment specifically on whether such incorporation of 
electronic reporting requirements should be identified as a minor 
modification of a NPDES permit even absent the consent of the 
permittee. This

[[Page 46057]]

possible change, which would reduce paperwork, facilitate electronic 
reporting and improve reporting efficiency, may either be added to 40 
CFR 122.63 or could be identified in another part of regulation.

VI. Outreach

A. Past Efforts

    As described previously in Sections II.E and III, EPA has 
recognized for many years the need to better track facility-specific 
NPDES information nationally, particularly to include nonmajor 
facilities which have merited increased attention (e.g., stormwater, 
CSOs, SSOs, CAFOs, biosolids and pretreatment) due to their potential 
impact on public health and the environment. In addition, computer 
technology has advanced significantly since the Permit Compliance 
System (PCS) was implemented in the 1980s as the NPDES national 
database of record.
    EPA has had extensive interactions with states in the design of the 
ICIS-NPDES system, in the identification of possible ICIS-NPDES 
required data, and in efforts to develop a draft ICIS-NPDES Policy 
Statement.
1. PCS Modernization
    Since FY 2000, EPA has worked with the states in designing a 
modernized data system for the NPDES program, including the 
identification of critical data elements. In FY 2002, EPA and 36 
subject matter experts from the states developed recommendations 
identifying specific data needed to successfully implement and manage 
the NPDES program; these recommendations were distributed to the states 
and EPA Regions for review.
    Since then, EPA has worked closely with its state, tribe, and 
territory partners in an effort to modernize PCS as a NPDES component 
of ICIS, ensuring that the system could accommodate the NPDES program 
data needs identified by EPA and the state subject matter experts in FY 
2002. In March 2004, an EPA-state workgroup developed a framework for 
the content and scope of an ICIS-NPDES policy statement. In addition, 
the PCS Steering Committee, comprised of EPA and state participants, 
served as the primary contact in the development of ICIS-NPDES and 
worked toward the development of the associated draft policy statement.
    EPA and authorized states began using ICIS-NPDES in 2006. 
Currently, all authorized states are either direct users of the ICIS-
NPDES system or do some data entry directly and supply some data 
electronically from their own state databases into ICIS-NPDES. All EPA 
Regional offices use ICIS-NPDES for direct data entry of information 
related to their NPDES implementation activities; also, in their 
capacity as NPDES permitting authorities, they currently provide NPDES 
information from four states, two tribes, and nine territories or other 
jurisdictions. EPA has provided extensive training courses to states, 
tribes, territories, and EPA Regions to ensure a degree of national 
proficiency and familiarity with ICIS-NPDES. EPA also provides user 
support, national conference calls and meetings, and a national 
newsletter to personnel in states, tribes, territories, EPA Regions, 
and EPA Headquarters.
2. ICIS-NPDES Draft Policy Statement
    At the request of the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), the 
PCS Steering Committee was expanded in late 2005 from 10 to 18 states 
to include representatives of ECOS and ACWA. In 2006, three face-to-
face multi-day meetings were held to discuss the development of a draft 
ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement, which would specify required data to be 
entered or otherwise made available by the states to EPA, and the 
timing considerations for such data entry requirements.
    In conjunction with those meetings, issue papers were developed by 
EPA and by the states, addressing EPA's needs for the data and states' 
proposals regarding alternative data availability. In an effort to 
better identify which data were being collected by states (whether or 
not those data were required to be entered into PCS), ACWA conducted a 
survey of states regarding each of the proposed required data. The 
specific states providing each response were not identified to EPA, 
preserving some anonymity in the responses but also inadvertently 
making it difficult for EPA to interpret the survey data and determine 
reasons for the responses. For example, it was not clear whether the 
fact that a particular state was not collecting biosolids information 
was because that state did not have the authority to implement and 
enforce the NPDES biosolids program.
    EPA also consulted with in-house subject matter experts and re-
assessed and reduced the number of proposed required ICIS-NPDES data, 
making several of the data elements required to be entered only by EPA 
Regional offices. Within an EPA-state workgroup organized to examine 
data entry resources, EPA developed a fairly detailed Excel-based data 
entry estimate model to determine data entry estimates nationally, for 
roughly a dozen individual states, for specific NPDES subprograms, and 
for specific data families or data groupings. Another EPA-state 
workgroup focused on issues related to possible sequencing of data from 
specific program areas.
    These outreach efforts culminated in the development of a draft 
ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement issued by EPA for review and comment on 
April 30, 2007. State comments on that draft did not focus on specifics 
of the policy statement, or on the merits of particular approaches or 
data, but rather they raised general concerns regarding resource burden 
(beyond data entry) and federalism issues (e.g., possible increased EPA 
oversight). In response to the comments from some states, and in an 
effort to ensure broader participation by other interested parties 
(including environmental groups), EPA decided that it would be more 
appropriate to proceed with rulemaking instead of a final ICIS-NPDES 
Policy Statement. This intention was conveyed to ECOS in a letter in 
September 2007.
3. Addendum to the PCS Policy Statement
    In December 2007, EPA issued an addendum to the PCS Policy 
Statement. This addendum identified those ICIS-NPDES data which were 
considered to be comparable to the required WENDB (Water Enforcement 
National Data Base) data in PCS, as well as data which are system-
required in ICIS-NPDES (the entry of those data is required before the 
system will save the record). This addendum stated that these ICIS-
NPDES data constituted the list of data which EPA expected to be 
entered by ICIS-NPDES users during the period until a federal 
regulation on such reporting was promulgated by EPA.
4. Other Interactions--NetDMR, Alternatives Analysis
    EPA also worked with states on two efforts that were independent of 
the initial rulemaking, but impact possible implementation of this 
proposed rule. EPA has implemented the NetDMR tool which can be used to 
electronically transmit Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) from 
regulated facilities directly into ICIS-NPDES. This tool has 
significant impacts on implementation of the NPDES Electronic Reporting 
Rule, because approximately 90% of the estimated data entry burden 
associated with this proposed rule is linked specifically to the data 
entry of DMR information by the states, tribes, and territories.
    During a similar timeframe, EPA and authorized programs also 
implemented the recommendations of an alternatives analysis which 
assessed the best means

[[Page 46058]]

for providing state data electronically (i.e., those which will send 
NPDES information electronically from their own state data systems to 
ICIS-NPDES, without the necessity for direct data entry into ICIS-
NPDES) to ensure that state data is available in ICIS-NPDES.
5. Rule Development Process
a. Early Interactions
    During the rulemaking process, EPA hosted a listening session with 
states and interested stakeholders in Washington, DC, on October 14, 
2008. This session was announced in the Federal Register by a notice on 
September 17, 2008. In this meeting, which was complemented by a 
concurrent conference call and web access to materials that EPA 
presented, EPA provided states, tribes, territories, and stakeholders 
an opportunity to hear EPA's rulemaking plans and an opportunity to 
provide comments on those plans. This effort included over 30 
participants, including representatives of several states.
    Later in the rulemaking process, EPA conducted a meeting in 
Washington, DC on March 9, 2009 with representatives from four states. 
A similar meeting was conducted by EPA in San Francisco on March 13, 
2009 with an additional four states. The goal of these meetings was to 
seek individual state comment on a variety of options under 
consideration in the rulemaking to effectively reduce potential data 
entry burden. EPA then conducted two conference calls (on March 18, 
2009 and April 8, 2009) with seven additional states to seek comment on 
those same options under consideration. This series of outreach events 
provided valuable input from a total of fifteen states from nine EPA 
regions regarding the feasibility of the implementation options under 
consideration for this proposed rule.
b. Interactions Focused on Electronic Reporting--Directional Change
    Beginning in summer 2010, EPA conducted several outreach efforts 
focused primarily on electronic reporting. These efforts are described 
below.
i. Meetings and Webinars
    On July 13, 2010, EPA conducted a meeting \51\ in Washington, DC 
with over 100 attendees to announce the electronic reporting approach 
to this proposed rule. Representatives from states, local and tribal 
governments, and industry and environmental associations participated 
in person and by web access. EPA provided attendees the opportunity to 
learn of EPA's rulemaking plans for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 
and to provide comments about those plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ EPA published a notice of this meeting in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to this meeting, EPA hosted a series of 20 web sessions 
conducted from July 2010 through July 2012. The goal of these meetings 
was to provide further opportunity for comment on the merits of the 
proposed rule. This effort included over 1,000 participants with 
representation from many states and industry. As a result, EPA obtained 
valuable input.
    During this rulemaking, EPA also conducted additional meetings and 
consultations in order to comply with various statutes and executive 
orders that direct federal agencies, including EPA, to coordinate with 
organizations representing elected officials of states, counties, and 
municipalities, and consult, as required, with tribes and small 
businesses and small governmental jurisdictions.
    The first of these meetings was held on September 15, 2010, and was 
attended by 11 state and local government organizations. The focus of 
this meeting was to comply with Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism'') 
which requires Federal agencies to consult with elected state and local 
government officials, or their representative national organizations, 
when developing regulations or policies that might impose substantial 
compliance or implementation costs on state and local governments. EPA 
received substantive feedback on the feasibility of the implementation 
options under consideration for this rulemaking.
    Additionally, EPA met with tribal entities to describe the 
rulemaking effort and to provide an opportunity for discussion in two 
separate meetings on November 9, 2010 with the National Tribal Caucus, 
and on November 10, 2010, with the National Tribal Water Council. The 
National Tribal Caucus meeting was attended by 19 tribal 
representatives elected on a regional basis, who correspond with tribes 
in each of EPA's ten regions. The Tribal Water Council consists of 19 
tribal water professionals who represent a national tribal perspective. 
In addition, after mailing information to 563 nationally-recognized 
tribal entities, EPA conducted follow-up conference calls on December 
14 and December 16, 2010.
    The focus of these meetings was to provide an additional 
opportunity for consultation and thus comply with Executive Order 
13175, which states that EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal 
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and 
that is not required by statute, unless the federal government provides 
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by 
tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the 
process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal 
summary impact statement. These calls did not raise any key issues from 
the participants, and, in particular, the likely availability of 
electronic reporting was not an issue from the participants.
ii. Web Site
    In concert with these meetings and the series of web sessions, EPA 
also implemented a Web site in support of the NPDES Electronic Rule. 
The purpose of the Web site was to provide background information on 
the rule, status of rule development, announcements of upcoming 
stakeholder meetings, and a discussion forum with questions and topics.
iii. State Working Group
    EPA has also engaged in a dialogue with a State Working Group to 
help explore the implementation issues related to this proposed rule. 
This technical working group's focus was to help to identify issues, 
identify roadblocks to implementing various aspects of the proposed 
rule, and share information concerning how these issues could be best 
addressed in this context. EPA worked with ACWA and ECOS to identify a 
group of 11 states.
    From this group's efforts, EPA was able to glean a sense of the 
concerns of individual states with this proposed rule. The individual 
states represented in this group supported the concept of electronic 
reporting and understood why many states would benefit from a rule, but 
some states expressed concern about the implementation requirements, 
funding, and available resources. As indicated in previous outreach 
opportunities, some states in the group requested that EPA explicitly 
identify the data that will be required and have a strong need for each 
item to be collected. In addition, some states in the group indicated 
that they wanted EPA to be cognizant, as EPA drafted the proposed rule, 
of the varying degrees of state readiness for electronic reporting. EPA 
has addressed these concerns by some states in the identification of 
required data (Section IV.B and Appendix A to Part 127), and in the 
implementation plan (Section IV.I).
6. Plans for Future Outreach Efforts
    Upon proposal of this rule, EPA will provide a comment period and 
will

[[Page 46059]]

likely conduct additional stakeholders meetings to further discuss and 
refine particular aspects of the rule prior to promulgation. Outreach 
to stakeholders will continue to be supported through the NPDES 
Electronic Reporting Rule Web site; however, the Web site may be 
expanded to include more robust rule schedules as the rule nears 
promulgation, as well as additional rule documentation that may or may 
not be included as part of the formal docket library. Additionally, 
social media tools such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube \52\ will 
continue to be utilized to engage stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Note: References to specific products are for informational 
purposes only. EPA and the federal government do not endorse any 
specific product, service, or enterprise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA would provide technical assistance and support to states, 
tribes, and territories during the transition to electronic reporting. 
Outreach from EPA to the states, tribes, and territories may be very 
useful in the identification of specific needs and the development of 
such assistance, support, and funding.
    EPA anticipates that the State Working Group may elect to continue 
its efforts through implementation of the rule in another possible 
phase of work. This proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to 
public comment, includes a phase-in period for the implementation of 
the rulemaking; as such, the State Working Group may continue to 
explore implementation issues on a variety of selected topics.

VII. Non-Monetary Benefits and Economic Analysis

A. Non-Monetary Benefits From Electronic Reporting

1. Overview
    A Presidential memorandum on regulatory compliance, issued on 
January 18, 2011, made the following observations:

    Greater disclosure of regulatory compliance information fosters 
fair and consistent enforcement of important regulatory obligations. 
Such disclosure is a critical step in encouraging the public to hold 
the Government and regulated entities accountable. Sound regulatory 
enforcement promotes the welfare of Americans in many ways, by 
increasing public safety, improving working conditions, and 
protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink. Consistent 
regulatory enforcement also levels the playing field among regulated 
entities, ensuring that those that fail to comply with the law do 
not have an unfair advantage over their law-abiding competitors. 
Greater agency disclosure of compliance and enforcement data will 
provide Americans with information they need to make informed 
decisions. Such disclosure can lead the Government to hold itself 
more accountable, encouraging agencies to identify and address 
enforcement gaps.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See DCN 0051.

    In September 2011, the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Analysis (OIRA) issued guidance encouraging agencies to provide 
individual consumers of goods and services with direct access to 
relevant information and data sets. The memo focused on ``smart 
disclosure,'' defined as the timely release of complex data in 
standardized formats. The OIRA memo dovetails Executive Order 13563, 
signed by President Obama earlier in 2011, which encourages agencies to 
consider alternative regulatory approaches including the ``provision of 
information to the public in a form that is clear and intelligible.''
    In this vein, the OIRA memo states: ``To the extent permitted by 
law, and where appropriate in light of government-wide policies . . . 
agencies should give careful consideration to whether and how best to 
promote smart disclosure.''
    Regulatory approaches harnessing the power of public disclosure to 
improve performance through public accountability can increase 
government effectiveness and efficiency and generate a variety of 
important benefits. Electronic reporting is one such approach. This 
proposed rule justifies itself on the cost/benefit analysis alone, but 
many qualitative benefits will also be realized. EPA anticipates that 
this proposed rule will save money for regulators and the regulated 
community and will contribute to increased compliance, improved water 
quality, and a fairer and more level playing field for regulated 
entities. These benefits are made possible through greater use of 21st 
century technologies, of which electronic data submission is a 
cornerstone.
    This section describes EPA's expectations, experience, and a 
variety of publicly accessible studies supporting the conclusion that 
electronic reporting--alone or as a component of broader monitoring and 
reporting programs--can improve compliance, reduce pollution, allow for 
better government and public decision making, and reduce paperwork-
related costs for regulators and the regulated community alike. Even 
where it is difficult or impossible to isolate or apportion a specific 
share of overall program benefits to an electronic reporting component 
alone, the available literature, supporting evidence, and program 
experience all suggest that electronic reporting is often a significant 
contributor to the overall compliance and efficiency benefits these 
programs provide. This section also describes benefits from several 
additional approaches to public reporting of information. Although some 
of the cases described below do not involve electronic reporting, they 
all share the key characteristic of providing regulators and the public 
with performance information more efficiently or directly than was 
previously possible.
    Research and experience suggests that the benefits of making timely 
and accurate compliance and performance data available--whether through 
electronic reporting or other approaches--occur through at least two 
pathways. The first pathway is that, within each regulated entity, it 
brings information about compliance or discharge performance to the 
attention of personnel with the authority to address them. If the 
information indicates problems, those personnel can act promptly to 
minimize the impact. The associated ability to use performance 
monitoring and benchmarking information systematically as a regulatory 
tool has been described as a watershed event enabling and compelling 
facilities to monitor, compare, and improve their environmental 
performance.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Karkkainen, B. (2001). ``Information as Environmental 
Regulation: TRI and Performance Benchmarking, Precursor to a New 
Paradigm?'' Georgetown Law Journal 89: 257, DCN 0052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second pathway is that by ensuring timely government and public 
access to compliance and performance information, regulated entities 
can be provided with powerful incentives to avoid the negative effects 
of government and public awareness of pollution. An example of this 
effect appears in the Bennear & Olmstead Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 
study.\55\ In this study, the researchers found that when larger 
utilities were required to mail annual Consumer Confidence Reports on 
water supplier compliance pursuant to the 1998 Safe Drinking Water Act 
amendments, total violations were reduced by 30-44% and more severe 
health violations by 40-57%. Examples in areas other than environmental 
enforcement include the documented effects of red-light camera 
enforcement on fatal crashes.\56\ This and previous

[[Page 46060]]

research establish that ``Red light camera enforcement programs reduce 
the citywide rate of fatal red light running crashes and, to a lesser 
but still significant extent, the rate of all fatal crashes at 
signalized intersections.'' The relevance of this approach to 
electronic reporting is that, like electronic reporting, it relies on 
technology and disclosure to positively influence compliance behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Bennear & Olmstead, The Impacts of the ``Right to Know'' 
Information Disclosure and the Violation of Drinking Water 
Standards, JEEM Vol. 50, Iss. 2; pp. 117-130 (2008), DCN 0053.
    \56\ Hu, W., et. al.; Effects of Red-Light Camera Enforcement on 
Fatal Crashes in Large U.S. Cities (Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety; February 2011), DCN 0054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electronic reporting can help identify problems that are now hidden 
in extensive paper reports. In the case of EPA's NPDES program, some 
states, tribes, and territories are overwhelmed with the volume of data 
they receive, and are sometimes unable to process all of the reports in 
a timely manner. Electronic reporting by permittees substantially 
reduces the need for costly and time-consuming data entry by the 
states, tribes, and territories. Instead, permittee data will be 
received in a form that can be applied directly to the information 
systems, bringing that data into the open in a timely manner. As a 
result, electronic reporting will allow the states, tribes, 
territories, and EPA to quickly highlight important information and it 
will allow government and the public to identify, pursue, and address 
pollution problems. More accurate and timely data can help facilities 
and governments identify issues earlier and more accurately, which 
should save money and improve performance. Electronic reporting has 
also resulted in better private sector performance in unrelated areas, 
such as when the financial services sector revises its products and 
services based on data from industries they service.
    Electronic reporting of information facilitates the rapid and 
automated compilation and analysis of data to identify the most 
important, serious, chronic violators quickly and efficiently. This 
helps focus limited government and community resources on the most 
important compliance problems by targeting enforcement where it is most 
needed.
    Electronic reporting--and the timely and more accurate information 
it provides--can help provide the public with access to information on 
the performance of both regulated facilities and governments, and help 
them make government accountable for results. Electronic reporting also 
levels the playing field by giving the public, including other 
regulated entities, information they need in order to determine whether 
comparable violations are being treated similarly.
    Electronic reporting promotes facility-to-facility and government-
to-government learning by enabling cross-facility and government 
benchmarking, comparison of results, and the identification of the most 
effective compliance and performance strategies, thereby promoting the 
creation and transfer of innovation. It can help prevent minor self-
reported violations from escalating into more serious problems by 
enabling immediate feedback on those violations.
    Electronic reporting also creates a potential for private sector 
development of reporting tools, as evidenced by the development and 
commercial success of products such as Tax-Cut and Turbo-Tax.\57\ 
Having access to more timely and accurate information could also help 
promote pathways for private sector links and two-way communication to 
obtain compliance assistance for reported violations, as well as pursue 
opportunities to improve environmental performance and save money 
through innovations, such as improved wastewater treatment methods or 
energy efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Note: References to specific products are for informational 
purposes only. EPA and the federal government do not endorse any 
specific product, service, or enterprise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electronic reporting can allow the comparison of electronic data 
with other information to better target government efforts. For 
example, it could facilitate comparing DMR data with ambient water 
pollution data to more readily identify the individuals or groups of 
sources contributing the most pollution in watersheds with impaired 
water quality. Electronic data can also be compared more readily with 
other information as a check on data accuracy. For example, the IRS can 
compare directly-reported taxpayer information with equivalent third-
party information from employers or banks. Individuals and corporations 
know the IRS can make such comparisons, and, as a result, they tend to 
report more accurately. In a similar vein, EPA could explore potential 
new electronic reporting-supported options such as cross-checking DMR 
data with TRI data and data in public complaints.
    Electronic reporting has the potential to save cost and effort in 
simpler and more direct ways, too. One example would be by obviating 
the need for time-consuming manual data entry, photocopying, and 
mailing of reports. Also, time and money that might otherwise have been 
spent correcting errors by facilities and states due to illegible 
entries and transcription issues could be saved. Immediate electronic 
feedback alerting or requiring facilities to check and correct decimal 
point placement and internally inconsistent entries could further save 
facilities and regulators time and costs. The secondary business costs 
of having to explain these types of errors to third persons such as 
financial institutions or the public could also be eliminated.
    Finally, governments could avoid wasting their time and money spent 
addressing apparent ``violations'' that were actually mistakes, such as 
someone writing down the wrong number on a form, or entering data 
incorrectly. Electronic reporting systems can be designed to identify 
many of these errors for correction during data entry.
2. Supporting Cases
    As discussed above, the available studies and experiences all 
suggest that electronic reporting can help promote an array of tangible 
and significant compliance and efficiency benefits. The remainder of 
this section describes specific publicly available literature and 
studies documenting how electronic reporting can enhance the ability of 
regulators, firms, markets, and the public to access and use compliance 
or other data to:
     Promote public confidence in regulatory programs;
     Promote accurate and complete discharge data;
     Improve compliance and reducing violations;
     Reduce pollution;
     Compel facilities to monitor, compare, and improve their 
environmental performance through benchmarking;
     Enhance transparency and accountability to external 
parties;
     Induce firms to become environmentally cleaner;
     Decrease the time required to compile, verify, and analyze 
data;
     Reduce the time between when regulators receive data and 
are able to make it publicly available;
     Facilitate agency auditing and detection of erroneous data 
without costly site investigations or complex measurement;
     Produce significant efficiency savings (time and 
resources) while increasing data quality;
     Reduce paperwork-related costs for regulators and 
regulated community;
     Enable regulators to shift staff resources away from data 
entry tasks;
     Simplify regulators' ability to cross-reference e-reported 
data against other data sources to allow errors to be caught and 
corrected more efficiently; and,
    Enable governments, regulated communities, interest groups, and the 
public to be better informed for decision-making.

[[Page 46061]]

a. Acid Rain Program
    Standardized electronic reporting is one component of EPA's Acid 
Rain Program and contributed to the ``largest quantified human health 
benefits of any federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 
[years], with annual benefits exceeding costs by >40 to 1.'' It did so 
by promoting ``public confidence in the programs, highly accurate and 
complete emissions data, and a high compliance rate (>99% overall).'' 
\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Schakenbach, et al.; Fundamentals of Successful Monitoring, 
Reporting, and Verification under a Cap-and-Trade Program, J. Air & 
Waste Manage. Assoc., 56:1576-1583 2006), DCN 0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
    Under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), the systematic use of 
performance monitoring and benchmarking as a regulatory tool has been 
cited as a watershed event enabling and compelling facilities to 
monitor, compare, and improve their environmental performance. At the 
same time, it enhances transparency and accountability to external 
parties.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ DCN 0052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several studies have linked the public availability of TRI data to 
improved compliance and reduced pollution. For example, using a micro-
level data set linking TRI releases to plant level Census data, one 
researcher found that the local and state governmental use of TRI 
disclosures helps induce firms to become cleaner.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Bui, L.; Public Disclosure of Private Information as a Tool 
for Regulating Environmental Emissions: Firm-Level Responses by 
Petroleum Refineries to the Toxics Release Inventory; Brandeis Univ. 
Working Paper Series (June 2005), DCN 0057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By decreasing the time required for EPA to compile, verify, and 
analyze data, e-reporting can reduce the lag times from when EPA 
receives data to when the Agency is able to make it publicly available. 
TRI electronic reporting, for example, achieves this by reducing costly 
and cumbersome paperwork for reporters while speeding EPA's ability to 
make it publicly available.\61\ Electronic reporting reduces the error 
rates typically found in manually transcribed data and facilitates 
agency auditing and detection of erroneous data without costly site 
investigations or complex measurement.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Karkanian, supra at 289, 336-37.
    \62\ Id. at f.n. 149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Enhanced Disclosure and Environmental Compliance Under the SDWA
    A prominent study of enhanced disclosure regulations and 
environmental compliance in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) context 
linked enhanced disclosure to statistically significant compliance 
improvements. In that case, the disclosures were made by industry 
directly to consumers by mail (rather than to the government 
electronically), but, as is intended in this proposed electronic 
reporting rule, a key effect was to facilitate the delivery of 
compliance information to the public so as to motivate and better 
behavior from the regulated parties responsible who submitted the 
information. Bennear & Olmstead found that when larger utilities were 
required to mail annual Consumer Confidence Reports on water supplier 
compliance pursuant to the 1998 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments 
reduced total violations by 30%-44%. More severe health violations were 
reduced by 40-57%.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See DCN 0053, pp. 117-130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Ohio EPA's eDMR System
    As discussed in Section III.B.1.a, Ohio EPA launched its electronic 
discharge monitoring report (eDMR) system and, as of 2011, has achieved 
a 99% electronic reporting adoption rate by its permit holders. E-DMR 
systems allow stakeholders to report their discharge measurements 
online. According to Ohio EPA, based on interviews and data collection, 
their work demonstrates how electronic reporting in this instance 
produced significant efficiency savings (time and resources) while 
increasing data quality. In the opinion of Ohio EPA, this has led to 
more effective human health and environmental protection through 
improving its ability to monitor and enforce CWA compliance. (Case 
Study: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Electronic Discharge 
Monitoring Report (eDMR) System Reaches 99% Adoption. http://eitlc.ross-assoc.net/images/4/4c/Ohio_eDMRs_Case_Study_04_30_10_FINAL.doc). In the Ohio EPA Case Study, the authors found that the 
automated compliance tools within its eDMR system informed permit 
holders if their discharge amounts exceeded authorized permit limits or 
were otherwise entered erroneously, and reduced errors from 50,000 to 
5,000 per month. Permit holders were often able to quickly to correct 
their data, leaving the Ohio EPA with more accurate and robust data. 
Simultaneously, as the need for data entry and error checking 
diminished, Ohio EPA was able to move almost five full-time personnel 
away from those tasks and into other productive types of work. Id.
e. Internal Revenue Service E-file
    The United States Internal Revenue Service's E-file program was 
also mentioned in Section III.B.1.a.i. According to United States 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials, electronic reporting of 
digital data has simplified the Service's ability to cross-reference 
the e-reported data against other data sources, allowing errors to be 
caught and corrected more efficiently.\64\ The IRS notes that the error 
rate for electronically filed returns is less than 1 percent, compared 
to an error rate for paper returns of about 20 percent.\65\ One 
explanation for the low error rate is that software for electronic 
reporting allows for automated calculations and can check for obvious 
transcription errors, such as unusually large numbers. Electronic 
filing has also expedited processing of tax payment and refunds. One 
study examined the empirical implications of electronic filing with 
regard to the earned income tax credit (EITC), which was substantially 
under-utilized by qualifying households in the early 2000s. The authors 
found that access to electronic filing had a significant and positive 
effect on EITC claims.\66\ Given all of the above, benefits, the IRS 
has established an 80%-of-taxpayers E-file goal.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See DCN 0041.
    \65\ ``IRS E-File: It's Fast, It's Easy, It's Time'' at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=218319,00.html.
    \66\ Kopczuk, W., and C. Pop-Eleches (2007). ``Electronic 
Filing, Tax Preparers, and Participation in the Earned Income Tax 
Credit.'' Journal of Public Economics 91: 1351-1367, DCN 0003.
    \67\ IRS; Advancing E-file Study Phase 1 Report--Achieving the 
80% E-file Goal Requires Partnering with Stakeholders on New 
Approaches to Motivate Paper Filers (Sept. 30, 2008), DCN 0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. ECOS Exchange Network Return on Investment (ROI) and Business 
Process Analysis Project
    The Exchange Network Return on Investment (ROI) and Business 
Process Analysis Project, funded by the Environmental Council of the 
States (ECOS), was conducted to better understand the effects Exchange 
Network technologies have on the quality and efficiency of 
environmental data exchanges for states, tribes, territories, and local 
agencies.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Environmental Information Exchange Network: Exchange 
Network--Return On Investment And Business Process Analysis Final 
Report (Sept. 5, 2006), DCN 0061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis included an in-depth review of the four participating 
states' specific business processes for up to five different data 
flows: Air Quality System (AQS); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA); Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS);

[[Page 46062]]

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI); and Electronic Discharge Monitoring 
Report (eDMR). The review compared the business processes for each data 
flow before and after the implementation of Exchange Network 
technologies in order to estimate the total cost savings as a result of 
the implementation. A return on investment model was then applied to 
all of the data flows.
    Overall, the results show a positive return for most of the data 
flows analyzed. Indeed, all participating states experienced a positive 
return on their investment in Exchange Network technologies to flow 
data. The coupling of electronic reporting systems with Exchange 
Network technologies produced particularly impressive savings.
g. Michigan DEQ eDMR System
    Electronic reporting of environmental data is being increasingly 
adopted by states because of the positive environmental and financial 
benefits it provides. One example is Michigan Department of 
Environmental Quality's (DEQ's) eDMR system for wastewater facilities. 
As Michigan DEQ reports on its Web page, the benefits of the state's 
electronic reporting system include: (1) Saving compliance costs for 
wastewater discharge facilities through a streamlined reporting method 
and readily available computer tools; (2) saving program costs by 
reducing resources required for managing paper-based DMR reports; (3) 
improving the accuracy of compliance data by eliminating potential 
errors that might otherwise be introduced through non-electronic data 
entry in the database; and (4) improving the DEQ wastewater program's 
overall effectiveness with faster responses to data analyses, 
compliance assessment, and decision-making.\69\ Other states are 
increasingly adopting similar systems for the same reasons.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See DCN 0062
    \70\ See, e.g., FL DEP's identical list of eDMR benefits at DCN 
0063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. DMR Electronic Reporting in 24 States
    Twenty-four states currently have electronic reporting of DMR data, 
six of which began in 2010 and one of which is still in the testing 
stage. Of these, 13 states transfer their DMR data for major and 
nonmajor entities to EPA. Most of these states offer electronic 
reporting as an option, but have not made it mandatory. Ohio is one 
exception to the norm. Ohio requires electronic reporting unless there 
is a verifiable reason why the permittee cannot do it, in which case 
they can continue to submit paper reports.
    States tend to have one of four types of electronically available 
systems in place: the e2 system (AL, FL, MI, OH, OK, PA, VA); Net DMR 
(AR, CT, HI, LA, TN, TX, UT); eDMR (IL, IN, MS, NC, WV, WY); or EFIS 
(ME, SC). Of these four systems, e2 is the oldest, having been 
implemented in Florida in 2001 and Michigan in 2002. In addition to 
these four systems, California and Washington have each developed their 
own unique eDMR systems. The voluntary movement of a large number of 
states to electronic reporting of DMR data suggests the existence of 
potential net benefits.
i. U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) Quarterly Financial Data
    The U.S. Security and Exchange Commission's online system, EDGAR 
(the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system), 
performs automated collection, validation, indexing, acceptance, and 
submittal of forms filed electronically with the SEC. Researchers 
evaluated the effect of making quarterly financial data available to 
all market participants at the same time versus the prior hard-copy 
filing (i.e., submittal) method that required an individual interested 
in the financial health of a company to request the data from the SEC 
or the firm itself. Using a random sample of firms, the researchers 
compared an electronic filing via EDGAR to a previous year's filing via 
the traditional paper method. They did not find a market response to 
firm financial data when it was filed via the traditional method, but 
they did detect a discernible market response when the data were filed 
electronically via EDGAR. The authors found further that quarterly 
financial data are filed more quickly through EDGAR than was the case 
with the earlier method.\71\


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ ``The Effect of EDGAR on the Market Reaction to 10-K 
Filings.'' Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 20: 349-372, DCN 
0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of the Economic Analysis
1. Regulatory Requirements Addressed by the Economic Analysis
    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires federal agencies to perform 
an economic analysis (EA) to give decision makers information to 
determine that:

    There is adequate information indicating the need for and 
consequences of the proposed action; The potential benefits to 
society justify the potential costs, recognizing that not all 
benefits and costs can be described in monetary or even in 
quantitative terms, unless a statute requires another regulatory 
approach; The proposed action will maximize net benefits to society 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and 
safety, and other advantages; distributional impacts; and equity), 
unless a statute requires another regulatory approach; Where a 
statute requires a specific regulatory approach, the proposed action 
will be the most cost-effective, including reliance on performance 
objectives to the extent feasible; Agency decisions are based on the 
best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and 
other information.'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations Under Executive 
Order 12866, Office of Management and Budget, January 11, 1996, DCN 
0064.

E.O. 12866 defines the threshold for ``significant'' rules as one that 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
is expected to:

    Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities.'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EA must address the following requirements:

    The EA that the agency prepares should also satisfy the 
requirements of the ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995'' (Pub. 
L. 104-4). Title II of this statute (Section 201) directs agencies 
``unless otherwise prohibited by law [to] assess the effects of 
Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, 
and the private sector . . .'' Section 202(a) directs agencies to 
provide a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the anticipated 
costs and benefits of a Federal mandate resulting in annual 
expenditures of $100 million or more, including the costs and 
benefits to State, local, and tribal governments or the private 
sector. Section 205(a) requires that for those regulations for which 
an agency prepares a statement under Section 202, ``the agency shall 
[1] identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and [2] from those alternatives select the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the proposed rule.'' If the agency does 
not select ``the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome option, and if the requirements of Section 205(a) are not 
``inconsistent with law,'' Section 205(b) requires that the agency 
head publish ``with the final rule an explanation of why the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome method was not 
adopted.''
    The ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
Federal agencies to give special consideration to the impact of 
regulation on small businesses. The Act specifies that a regulatory 
flexibility analysis must be prepared if a screening analysis 
indicates that a regulation will have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The EA that the agency

[[Page 46063]]

prepares should incorporate the regulatory flexibility analysis, as 
appropriate.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et. 
seq.) requires Federal agencies to review their proposed rules and 
regulations to determine if they will have ``a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number'' of small entities. But the RFA does 
not define ``significant economic impact'' or ``substantial number.'' 
In its regulatory flexibility analysis EPA adopted the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) definition of small entities, and used a 
threshold of 1% of revenue to determine economic significance. Using 
the SBA definition, EPA estimated that 108,000 small entities would 
incur costs under the proposed rule. EPA estimates implementation costs 
for the regulated facilities to be no more than $258 per facility, most 
of which will occur within two years of the effective date of the rule. 
EPA also estimates that those small entities required to report 
electronically to EPA in 2014 and 2015 will each incur as much as $105 
in additional annual costs. None of these costs is thought to exceed 
the threshold of 1% of annual revenue for any of the affected entities. 
For that reason EPA has determined that the proposed rule does not have 
a significant economic impact on any small entity.
2. EPA's EA Guidance
    EPA has issued internal guidance implementing each of the EO and 
statutory requirements applicable to the EA. EPA's EA guidance 
instructs EPA personnel how to proceed, and what factors to take into 
account. Among other things, that guidance requires an EA of a rule 
with a multi-year impact to apply discount factors of three percent and 
seven percent as a way to gauge the sensitivity of the projections and 
the effects of inflation. The EA for this proposed rule has been 
conducted following the most recently issued EPA EA guidance. To 
simplify this summary of the EA, unless otherwise indicated, this 
document will use only data from the three percent discount version of 
the analysis. Tables at the end of this section provide summaries of 
both the three percent and seven percent discount versions.
3. Economic Significance of This Rule
    According to the threshold set out in EO 12866, this proposed rule 
is not economically significant. The threshold for a finding of 
economic significance is an economic impact, either costs or savings, 
of $100 million annually. The EA for this proposed rule estimates the 
largest annual economic impacts to be $25.2 million in net costs in one 
year after promulgation of the rule, and $30.1 million in net savings 
in three years after promulgation of the final rule (estimated based on 
a 3% discount rate). Because these economic impacts are less than $100 
million, this rule is below the economic threshold of a significant 
federal mandate under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
    Although this proposed rule does not meet the economic significance 
threshold, it does include most of the elements that would be required 
if the threshold were passed--a statement of the need for the rule, an 
examination of alternatives, and the costs and benefits. For the 
purpose, the statement of the need is located in Section III, and a 
description of the alternative approaches that were considered is 
located at Section IV. The non-monetary benefits were discussed in the 
first portion of Section VII. The balance of this section summarizes 
the estimated savings and costs of the selected approach.
4. Overall Savings and Costs
    The EA for this proposed rule estimates savings and costs over a 
ten-year period, beginning on the date when the rule would become 
final. Three years after final rule, applying a 3% discount rate, and 
using 2012 dollars, the largest annual net savings are $30.1 million in 
three years after final rule. Those savings continue indefinitely, but 
at a steadily declining dollar value as a result of discounting. During 
the ten-year period, the highest annual costs are $25.2 million in one 
year after the final rule. Annual costs are significantly less in all 
other years.
    Cumulative savings for the ten-year period are $290.2 million while 
cumulative costs are $69.9 million. As a result the overall economic 
effect of this rule is a net cumulative savings of $220.3 million over 
the ten years of the projection.
5. Changes in Data Volume and Universe Coverage
    The proposed rule would reduce the data entry burden on the states, 
tribes, and territories while increasing the percentage of the NPDES 
universe for which data is available. Compared to the current reporting 
guidance, known as WENDB, the proposed rule would reduce the data entry 
burden on states, tribes, and territories by 25 percent, increase the 
number of NPDES-regulated facilities for which NPDES data is available 
to EPA by several hundred percent, and expand the scope of the 
available data for all NPDES-regulated facilities covered by this 
proposed rule.
    In contrast, a previously considered approach would have expanded 
the data set and the number of covered permittees, but, still relied on 
the states, tribes, and territories to supply all of the data. This 
approach would have expanded the state, tribe, and territory data entry 
burden by 500 percent.
6. Major Factors Used in the EA
    The main elements of this EA are the reporting universe, reporting 
frequencies, required data, changes in who reports the data, systems 
and infrastructure changes to make the reporting possible, and the 
schedule for implementation.
a. Estimated Universe of Potentially Affected Permittees
    This proposed rule would change the universe of permit types for 
which EPA will receive data. As described in Section II, the current 
reporting guidance instructs the states to provide EPA with data on the 
major dischargers (6,700 permittees) and nonmajor dischargers with 
individual permits (38,900 permittees). Some states provide data on a 
larger section of the permittee universe.
    Under this proposed rule, EPA would receive data on virtually the 
entire permittee universe (over 440,000 permittees, not including 
pesticides applicators and vessels), as represented in Table VII.1. Due 
to the large number of stormwater permittees, the EA pays this part of 
the NPDES program particular attention by modeling the expected number 
of wet-weather incidents for each state, tribe, and territory.

                 Table VII.1--Universe of NPDES Permits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of
                         Subprogram                             permits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Individual Permits....................................       6,700
Non-subprogram nonmajor Individual Permits..................      38,900
Non-subprogram nonmajors covered by general permits.........      31,800
Stormwater MS4s.............................................       6,600
Stormwater Industrial.......................................     100,000
Stormwater Construction (annual)............................     222,000
POTWs Submitting Biosolids Reports..........................       4,900
POTWs with Approved Pretreatment Programs...................       1,500
POTWs with Separate Sanitary Sewers and SSOs................      15,600
POTWs with Combined Sanitary Sewers and CSOs................         830
CAFOs.......................................................      14,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 46064]]

    It should be noted that Table VII-1 shows the types and estimated 
numbers of permits in each of the applicable categories. Note, however, 
that some facilities are subject to more than one type of permit or 
subprogram, in which case they are counted in each applicable group 
because that is the basis for regulation and reporting. For example, a 
POTW might have an individual permit as a major facility, a separate 
stormwater system, a pretreatment program, and be a biosolids 
generator. Also note that SIUs do not have an NPDES permit but are 
included in the EA.
    Changes in the reportable universe affect virtually every aspect of 
the EA, including data entry costs, training costs, the need for 
electronic signatures and training, savings in paper and postage, the 
impact of dual reporting, and notification to permittees.
b. Data Elements and Data Systems
    Section IV describes how and why the inventory of reportable data 
is changed by this proposed rule. For the EA, the biggest impacts of 
the change in reportable data are the costs of enhancing the database 
structures to store the additional data and the costs of data entry.
    Estimating the cost of modifying the databases involves several 
factors, chiefly the number of additional data elements, the number of 
categories those data elements fall into (e.g., CAFO, biosolids, DMRs, 
etc.), the number of data entry screens that will be needed, and the 
completeness of various state, tribe, territory, and EPA data systems 
prior to the final rule.
    Based on the number of data elements and their planned structure, 
EPA developed a detailed estimate of its own costs to modify ICIS to 
accommodate the additional data elements. Because EPA does not have 
independent estimates of the comparable system costs for each state, 
tribe, and territory, EPA's estimate of system costs for those NPDES-
authorized programs is based on EPA's costs to modify ICIS.
    Data entry costs are one of the major aspects of the EA, and 
involve several additional factors, such as who generates the data, 
changes in the need for the states, tribes, and territories to enter 
permittee-created data into an information system, the number of 
permittees to which each data element applies, the frequency with which 
each type of data element is reported, the time required to enter each 
type of data element, and the labor costs associated with data entry.
c. Responsibility for Creating Data
    ``Responsibility for creating data'' refers to the act of initially 
determining the value of any particular required data element and 
writing it on paper or entering it into an electronic storage system. 
Each data element required by this proposed rule has exactly one 
creator, although the identity of the creator can be affected by the 
nature of the permit. For example, DMR data is always created by a 
permittee, and enforcement data is always created by the permitting 
authority, but basic facility data might be created by either the 
permitting authority or the permittee, depending on the type of permit 
that will be used.
    The EA uses a detailed understanding of responsibility for data 
creation to estimate and assign data entry costs and savings for 
permittees, states, tribes, and territories.
d. Changes in the Need for State, Tribes, and Territories To Enter 
Permittee-Created Data
    Under the current system of operations, states, tribes, and 
territories are responsible for collecting data from their permittees 
and providing the WENDB data to EPA, and paper submissions are the 
primary means by which permittees submit data to the states, tribes, 
and territories. As described in Section II, this means the states, 
tribes, and territories are required enter large amounts of data 
created by permittees into the permitting authority's information 
systems, or into ICIS-NPDES. Several types of reports are affected by 
this rule, but DMRs comprise a substantial majority of the permittee-
created data that the states, tribes, and territories enter into data 
systems. As a result, a significant portion of the data collected is 
essentially being entered twice. The first is when permittees commit it 
to a paper form. The second is when the states enter the permittee-
created data into an information system.
    One of the chief contributions of this proposed rule is that it 
virtually eliminates the need for such double entry of data in this 
sense: When DMRs and other reports are submitted electronically by 
permittees, these reports can be received electronically by the states, 
tribes, and territories, inserted directly into the applicable 
information systems, and shared with EPA through the NEIEN.
    The EA sees no difference between the time required for a permittee 
to fill out a paper form and the time required for them to enter the 
same data on an electronic form. Therefore, permittee data creation 
costs and savings are not affected by the move to electronic reporting. 
The permittees are required to supply the same data, regardless of the 
media in which is it reported. However, during the transition period, 
some permittees will incur some additional costs until electronic 
reporting is required without concurrent hard-copy reporting to the 
permitting authority. Those costs are estimated to range from zero to 
$104.64 per report submitted.
    The impact on the states, tribes, and territories is very 
different. Every data element a state, tribe, or territory does not 
have to enter into a data system is a saving compared to the current 
mode of operation. This does not mean, however, that every state, 
tribe, and territory will see the same savings from the rule. Some 
permitting authorities have already begun shifting to electronic 
reporting. Thirty-four states have either implemented an eDMR system or 
are at some point in the process of doing so. Some permitting 
authorities have also begun moving to e-reporting in other areas, such 
as NOI. However, participation in most of the state, tribe, or 
territory e-reporting systems is voluntary, so participation rates are 
highly variable. Ohio is thought to be the only state with a mandatory 
eDMR system and they have achieved participation of over 99%. Other 
states have indicated much lower participation rates, which mean they 
are bearing the costs of operating both paper-based and electronic 
reporting systems. The EA includes the best available information on 
all of these factors.
e. Permittees Reporting Various Data Elements
    As described in Section II, the current reporting guidelines 
require states, tribes, and territories to provide EPA with data for 
only a portion of the permittee universe. This proposed rule expands 
the universe of permittees for which required reporting must be shared 
with EPA, primarily by requiring data on the so-called NPDES 
subprograms. This is a significant development because subprogram data 
elements are specific to the permittees in each of the subprogram 
universes. For example, the data elements applicable to CAFOs apply 
only to CAFO permittees, biosolids data elements apply only to 
biosolids permittees and so on. As a result of this and the electronic 
reporting of data directly from the NPDES-regulated facilities, under 
this proposed rule the total volume of data does not increase in direct 
proportion to the larger portion of the permittee universe covered or 
the

[[Page 46065]]

expanded required data set. EPA's best understanding of all of these 
factors is included in the EA.
f. Frequency of Data Element Reporting
    Another factor that affects the overall volume of data being 
submitted, and therefore the data entry costs and savings, is the 
variety of reporting frequencies. Reporting frequencies are dictated by 
the types of reports containing the data elements and the compliance 
monitoring strategy. DMR data elements are submitted on DMR forms, 
which are generally submitted monthly, thus explaining why they 
comprise the largest portion of total data volume, and why eliminating 
the need for the states, tribes, and territories to enter the data from 
DMRs produces most of the savings from the proposed rule.
    Facility data is submitted on initial permit applications or on 
NOIs, and might be reviewed and updated every five years when the 
permit is reviewed for reissuance. A large part of the facility data is 
never changed. Portions that are subject to change are generally 
addressed during the permit's reviews.
    Permit data, such as limits and limit sets, are established when 
the permit is issued, and reviewed and possibly revised on a five-year 
cycle. Permit conditions are seldom revised except during the regular 
five-year reviews, or as a result of enforcement actions.
    Enforcement and compliance data are contained in specialized 
documents which are created on an as-needed basis. It is possible that 
some permittees will never have any enforcement actions against them, 
and therefore very little enforcement data associated with them.
    Subprogram data elements can be found on any of the major 
submissions, but are primarily contained in the applicable annual 
reports.
    Each of the data types and possible submissions has been evaluated 
and the frequencies assigned for proper mapping into the EA.
g. Time Required to Enter Data Elements
    Understanding how long it takes to enter data elements is a 
critical piece of the EA. Nine states were surveyed to develop this 
information. Each respondent was asked to estimate the time it took 
them to enter various types of data elements. The respondents were 
grouped according to whether they were in a direct entry, batch entry 
or hybrid state, and average data entry times were computed for each 
data element within each group of states.
    The EA uses the data entry times from the survey to estimate how 
much data entry time states, tribes, and territories will spend 
entering different types of data elements.
h. Labor Costs of Data Entry
    Labor rates for the rulemaking are taken from work produced by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Several hourly rates are used, depending on 
the type of work and whether the worker is a government or private 
sector worker.
i. System Development Costs
    As described in Section IV, EPA intends to develop electronic 
reporting tools for each of the reports covered by this rule--DMRs, 
NOIs, and program reports. Those EPA-developed tools will be offered to 
all of the states, tribes, territories, and permittees for their use. 
The cost of developing those reporting tools by EPA and the 
infrastructure to accommodate them were calculated and documented in a 
series of technical reports, and comprise the majority of the EPA HQ 
implementation costs as reported by the EA. EPA also intends to 
encourage third-party development of electronic reporting tools. 
Ultimately each authorized state, tribe, and territory will decide 
whether to use, and allow their permittees to use, the EPA-provided 
electronic reporting tools or other tools. Each state, tribe, and 
territory has the option of adopting one or more of the EPA tools and 
rejecting the others. However, because EPA is building, and making 
available, a comprehensive set of tools, the EA does not include any 
estimate for state, tribe, and territory costs to develop comparable 
independent tools.
    The costs of modifying ICIS and the state, tribe, and territory 
NPDES data systems are somewhat different. Each of the authorized 
states, tribes, or territories either has its own data system, or uses 
ICIS-NPDES. All of these data systems are thought to need some degree 
of modification to accept the additional data elements, and in the case 
of state, tribe, and territory data systems, to share that data with 
EPA. EPA developed an estimate of its costs to modify ICIS. The EA 
includes those EPA costs, and uses those costs to estimate the cost of 
database changes in the states, tribes, and territories. The EA uses 
this approach because EPA does not have detailed information about the 
data structures in the states, tribes, and territories. The EA does 
take the available information about state, tribe, and territory data 
systems into consideration.
    All of these expenditures are included in the implementation costs 
of the rule, most of which are expended by EPA prior to rule 
promulgation and by the states, tribes, territories, and permittees one 
year after the effective date of the rule under the implementation 
schedule described in Section IV.
    The EA also estimates marginal operation and maintenance (O&M) 
costs for EPA and the states, tribes, and territories. Marginal O&M 
costs are the annual O&M costs, over and above current costs, to 
support the tools required by the rule.
j. Permittee Notifications
    As described in Section IV, the entire permittee universe is 
assumed to receive initial notification of the rule by reading the 
Federal Register, from EPA's Web site, or from reading about the rule 
in one or more trade publications. Accordingly, there are no unique 
costs for that notification in the EA. However, as work proceeds, EPA 
may determine that additional outreach is necessary.
    As described in Section IV, EPA will engage the states, tribes, and 
territories in a variety of forums to determine which permittees will 
be required to report directly to EPA under the rule, to notify those 
permittees of the requirement via the Federal Register and EPA's Web 
site, and as appropriate to tell them when to stop reporting directly 
to EPA. Those costs are included in the EA. The EA assumes the majority 
of those notices will be delivered via EPA's Web site.
k. State, Tribe, Territory, and EPA Coordination
    Throughout the implementation process, EPA and the states, tribes, 
and territories should coordinate closely to minimize inconvenience to 
the states, tribes, territories, and permittees, and to ensure that 
concurrent electronic and hard-copy reporting of the same data by the 
same facility is minimized during the transition period. Those 
coordination efforts are described in Section IV. The EA assumes most 
of that coordination will be accomplished electronically--telephone, 
email, and webinars--with little or no travel by EPA HQ or the states, 
tribes, and territories.
l. Permit Revisions
    In most states, tribes, and territories, permittees must follow the 
reporting requirements specified in their NPDES permits. And in most 
states, tribes, and territories, the permits cannot be changed 
unilaterally--i.e., there must be some form of notice and comment 
before amending a permit. For these reasons, EPA's Office of Water has 
generally implemented permit changes in conjunction with the five-year 
permit review cycle. Using that approach, the permit changes are 
applied to each

[[Page 46066]]

permit as it comes up for review and there would be no separately 
identifiable costs associated with individual permit changes.
    However, if that approach were used, the rule would not be fully 
implemented until roughly 2020. Given current technology, it would be 
unreasonable to delay nearly a decade to achieve the benefits and 
savings available through electronic reporting. For that reason, the 
proposed rule uses a preferred two-year implementation strategy, as 
described in Section IV.I, and does impose some identifiable but modest 
near-term costs on the states, tribes, territories, and permittees, 
estimated in the EA.
    Permitting authority costs for permit changes are based on the 
assumption that some states, tribes, and territories will implement 
those changes with individual ``minor modification,'' which require 
separate notifications to, and possible dialog with, each permittee. 
The EA assumes some states, tribes, and territories will adopt other 
approaches, such as ``mass minor modifications,'' which involve the use 
of a form letter, or changes to statutes. Permittee costs for the 
permit change are estimated as the time required for them to read and 
respond to the permit change notification, regardless of its form.
m. Changes in State Reporting Requirements
    When the rule is fully implemented, EPA would essentially have 
complete data on almost the entire NPDES universe of permittees. As a 
result, EPA HQ will have all of the data necessary to prepare the 
Annual Notice of Non-Compliance, the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report, 
and the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report, all currently required 
from NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and territories by 40 CFR 123.45. 
For that reason, the rule proposes to replace all of those reports with 
a single report generated by EPA HQ using the data in the data systems 
after implementation of the rule. The EA estimates the reduced burden 
on the states, tribes, and territories as a result of this reporting 
change.
n. Paper and Postage Savings
    As described in Section II, the majority of permittee submittals 
are being sent to the states, tribes, and territories on paper. Each of 
those submittals therefore requires paper, an envelope, and postage. 
EPA estimates that there are more than 1 million permittee submittals 
sent by mail each year.
    Converting to electronic reporting under this rule will eliminate 
paper submittals of the covered reports for the vast majority of 
permittees. The EA estimates the percentage of permittees that will be 
required to use e-reporting, the number and mix of reports they submit 
annually, as well as the number of pages in each report, and the 
required postage.
o. Electronic Signatures, Service Agreements and Training
    Instituting electronic reporting will entail some effort from the 
permittees. The EA assumes that every permittee will have to take 
certain steps in order to begin reporting electronically, whether they 
report directly to EPA or to their respective state, tribe, or 
territory. Permittees that are already reporting electronically will 
most likely not incur any additional costs at this time, but EPA does 
not have information as to which permittees are reporting 
electronically, and therefore has made the simplifying assumption that 
all permittees are affected.
    There are some differences in the costs to different permittees, 
based on the activities they are engaged in, and these differences have 
been included in the EA. All permittees will need to register with CDX. 
All permittees reporting anything other than NOIs will also need to 
have a CROMERR service agreement. Permittees that are required to 
submit DMRs will need DMR training. The EA assumes the training will be 
conducted by webinar. The EA estimates implementation costs for 
individual permittees of $258 or less.
p. Reporting During the Transition Period
    As described in Section IV, each state, tribe, and territory, for 
each report or NPDES data group, will be evaluated against several 
criteria to determine whether its permittees will be required to 
electronically submit their reports to the authorized program or to EPA 
directly. If permittees are required to begin reporting directly to 
EPA, the EA assumes that they will also be required to continue hard-
copy reporting to the state, tribe, or territory as stipulated in their 
NPDES permit. For that reason, the EA estimates the additional effort 
required by the affected permittees to create the second submittal at 
$105 or less per type of submittal. The EA uses the implementation 
schedule to estimate when the states, tribes, and territories will 
complete their own conversion to electronic reporting and the 
permittees will be released from reporting directly to EPA.
q. State, Tribe, and Territory Costs for Statutory or Regulatory 
Revisions
    The EA does not attempt to estimate the costs the states, tribes, 
and territories will incur to revise their statutes or regulations to 
implement the changes required by this proposed rule.

C. Summary of Costs and Savings

    The following tables summarize the EA cost and savings findings 
using the 3% (Table VII-2) and 7% (Table VII-3) discount rates as 
required by EPA's EA guidance. The entire EA uses 2012 dollars.
    Each table is followed by a graph showing the annual costs and 
savings in bar form, and the cumulative costs and savings in line form. 
The point at which the two lines cross, sometimes referred to as the 
breakeven, is the point at which cumulative savings exceed cumulative 
costs.
    There are both qualitative and quantitative benefits associated 
with this proposed rule. EPA has estimated some of the benefits of this 
proposed rule by performing calculations based on: The reporting 
universe; reporting frequencies and required data; changes in who 
reports the data; systems and infrastructure changes to make the 
reporting possible; and the schedule for implementation. Using a 3% 
discount rate, and 2012 dollars, the annual total net benefits 
associated with reduced paperwork and management of information are 
approximately $29 million, with 97% of those savings going to the 
states, tribes, and territories, due to approximately a 25% decrease in 
the amount of information they will be required to enter into data 
systems.
    In this section of the preamble, EPA described the qualitative 
benefits such as improved compliance, reduced pollution, allowing for 
better government and public decision making but was unable to monetize 
these benefits,
    The cost of implementing the proposed rule in the first three years 
after the effective date is approximately $51.0 million. The cost is 
estimated to drop to $2.9 million per year after that time period, when 
all regulated facilities will be converted to electronic reporting. 
However, two years after rule promulgation, annual savings greatly 
outweigh annual costs, by approximately $29 million per year.
     Also, the threshold for a finding of economic significance is an 
economic impact, either costs or savings, of $100 million or more 
annually. The economic analysis for this rule estimates the largest 
annual net cost to be $25.2 million one year after the effective date

[[Page 46067]]

of the rule, and $30.1 million in net savings three years after the 
effective date of the rule; therefore, this proposed rule is not 
considered economically significant per Executive Order 12866.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY13.001


[[Page 46068]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY13.002


[[Page 46069]]



VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
this action is a ``significant regulatory action,'' due to novel legal 
or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in 
response to OMB's recommendations are documented in the docket for this 
action.
    In addition, EPA prepared a detailed analysis of the potential 
costs, savings, and benefits of this action. That analysis, the 
``Economic Analysis of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Proposed Rule,'' 
can be found in the EPA docket, and is summarized in Section VII.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    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 2468.01.
    EPA is proposing this regulation to better utilize current 
technology to ensure that facility-specific information under the Clean 
Water Act's (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) program is submitted to EPA, states, tribes, and territories on 
a nationally timely, consistent, accurate, and complete basis for 
national program management, oversight, and transparency. This 
regulation would require that most of this NPDES information be 
submitted electronically by the regulated facilities; this information 
will be supplemented by required information regarding NPDES 
implementation activities by EPA, states, tribes, and territories 
authorized to implement the NPDES program.
    The projected burden and cost of the regulation are summarized in 
Table VIII.1. Note that, consistent with the Information Collection 
Request (ICR), these estimates reflect the net burden and cost to 
regulated facilities and states, tribes, and territories over the first 
three years following promulgation of the rule. Although the proposed 
rule will result in long-term net burden reduction and savings, the 
burden [defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)] and cost associated with initial 
investment for electronic reporting to EPA for regulated facilities, 
training, one-time provision of facility information to EPA, data 
reconciliation, and data entry for states, tribes, and territories will 
initially outweigh burden reduction and cost savings in the first three 
years. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

  Table VIII.1--Projected Burden and Cost Over the First Three Years of
                            the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Affected entity
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Unit of analysis               Regulated        States, tribes,
                                      facilities        and territories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual Number of                     233,166                  47
 Respondents ( of
 affected entities) \1\.........
Average Annual Number of                     187,114           1,069,905
 Responses ( of Permits
 for which entity must submit
 information x annual frequency
 of response)...................
Frequency of Response (range)...                1-36                1-36
Total Burden (hours)............             108,201            -298,493
Total Cost......................          $6,249,803        -$17,758,888
Average Annual Burden per                   0.46 hrs          -6,351 hrs
 Respondent.....................
Average Annual Burden per                   0.58 hrs           -0.28 hrs
 Response.......................
Average Annual Cost per                       $26.80           -$377,848
 Respondent.....................
Average Annual Cost per Response              $33.40             -$16.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The average annual number of regulated facility respondents is based
  on the following: In the first year regulated facilities must check
  the EPA website, and some may incur savings associated with paper
  mailings. In the second year, some regulated facilities must dual
  report to EPA and some may incur savings associated with paper
  mailings. In the third year, fewer regulated facilities must dual
  report to EPA and a greater number incur savings associated with paper
  mailings.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for 
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-
2009-0274. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit 
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 
after July 30, 2013, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it by August 29, 2013. The final rule will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is the government 
of a city, county, town, school districts, or special districts with a 
population of less than 50,000 people; or (3) a small organization that 
is any ``not-for-profit enterprise which is

[[Page 46070]]

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 Chapter 5 of the following 
document in the rulemaking docket, ``Economic Analysis of the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic Reporting 
Proposed Rule,'' (see DCN 0040).
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small 
entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are small businesses 
(e.g., industrial sectors, electricity generating facilities, and 
agricultural sectors) and small governmental jurisdictions (e.g., POTWs 
operated by municipalities). We have determined that 108,036 small 
entities (100 percent of the small entities considered in this 
analysis) will experience an impact of less than 1 percent 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 Chapter Two of the Economic Analysis). Due to the magnitude 
and diversity of facilities and sectors affected by this rule, it was 
not possible to conduct a detailed analysis of parent entity-specific 
impacts. Because small entity status is based on industrial sector, the 
small entity analysis required data sources where industry sector 
(NAICS codes) of each facility could be identified. Although not a 
complete inventory of all potentially affected facilities, the universe 
of facilities currently in ICIS-NPDES and PCS was used. The assumption 
is made that facilities affected by the proposed rule but not currently 
in ICIS-NPDES and PCS would experience small entity impacts similar to 
the facilities currently in ICIS-NPDES and PCS.
    Although this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to 
public comment, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. In fact, this rule 
creates annual savings for small entity analyses through elimination of 
mailing and postage costs.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may 
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one 
year. In order to determine the burden on states, tribes, and 
territories, the workgroup conducted an economic analysis of what the 
cost may be. The analysis examined implementation using various options 
including the potential burden to state, tribal, and territorial 
governments. Preliminary indications suggest that the rule would not 
only cost states, tribes, territories, and local governments well below 
the threshold of $100 million, it will actually result in cost savings 
over time. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements 
of Sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements Section 
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although this 
proposed rule will impose electronic reporting requirements on small 
governments such as municipalities as well as tribes, EPA does not 
expect these impacts to be substantial or sufficiently unique 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 proposed rule to 
exceed that threshold. EPA guidance states that an action could 
uniquely affect small governments if it disproportionately affects 
small governments, requires the hiring of experts, requires 
sophisticated or expensive equipment, or requires offsite training. 
Preliminary small entity screening analysis for this proposed rule 
indicates that the cost to any of these entities, and additional 
requirements, will not exceed 1 percent of total costs. Additionally, 
although some computer access would be needed to comply with this rule 
unless a waiver is obtained, this proposed rule will not require 
purchase of sophisticated or expensive equipment. Furthermore, the 
proposed rule will not require significant offsite training; training 
associated with the proposed rule will be offered on-line by EPA rather 
than offsite.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an 
action that has federalism implications, that impose substantial direct 
compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed action. In addition, under section 6(c) of 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism 
implications and that preempts state law, unless the Agency 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. However, because the largest 
annual impact on states is $12.0 million (occurring within the first 
year after the effective date), this action will not exceed the 
threshold of $25 million per year annually, nor will it preempt state 
law. Thus, the requirements of Sections 6(b) and 6(c) of Executive 
Order 13132 do not apply to this action.
    Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted with state 
and local officials \74\ and representatives of state and local 
governments \75\ early in the process of developing the proposed action 
to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its 
development. As described in Section VI, EPA provided significant 
opportunities for such consultation in public meetings, a series of 
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

[[Page 46071]]

various implementation options, and interest in developing details of 
how the rule would be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Note: ``State and local officials'' are defined narrowly 
under E.O. 13132 as ``elected officials of State and local 
governments or their representative national organizations.'' For 
purposes of E.O. 13132, OMB defines representative national 
organizations as: National Governors Association, National 
Conference of State Legislatures, U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
National League of Cities, Council of State Governments, 
International City/County Management Association, National 
Association of Counties, County Executives of America, and National 
Association of Towns and Townships. As a policy matter, EPA also 
includes the Environmental Council of the States in this list. As 
noted in the Agency Guidance, for actions that have federalism 
implications, but do not impose substantial direct compliance costs 
or preempt State or local law, at a minimum you should consult with 
each of these organizations.
    \75\ Representatives of State and local governments'' include 
non-elected officials of State and local governments and any 
representative national organizations not listed in the previous 
footnote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from state and local officials. EPA will continue to consult with state 
and local officials throughout the process of developing the proposed 
and final action to permit them to have meaningful and timely input 
into its development. In addition to stakeholder outreach, EPA will 
contact elected representatives as well as appropriate organizations to 
ensure compliance with Executive Order 13132.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Subject to Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
EPA may not impose requirements not required by statute unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with 
tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed 
regulation and develops a Tribal Summary Impact Statement (TSIS).
    EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications. 
However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
tribal governments nor will it preempt tribal law. Although no tribes 
have yet received approval from EPA to implement an authorized NPDES 
program, this proposed rule will impose electronic reporting 
requirements on tribal facilities and on facilities operating on tribal 
lands.
    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. No concerns were raised during those 
consultations.
    In addition, EPA mailed information to 563 tribes regarding an 
opportunity to participate in two additional tribal outreach efforts in 
December 2010. Again, during these conference calls, no concerns were 
raised by participants during those consultations.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed 
action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under Section 5-501 of the executive order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental 
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (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, and it is not a significant energy 
action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves environmental monitoring or 
measurement. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement 
System (``PBMS''), EPA proposes not to require the use of specific, 
prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use 
of any method that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS 
approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the 
regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in 
analytical technology and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding 
the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus 
standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria 
specified.
    The following are data standards that EPA recommends for use in 
this regulation: Enforcement and Compliance Data Standard, Standard 
No.: EX000026.2, July 30, 2008. This data standard should be used in 
this regulation because it identifies and defines the major areas of 
enforcement and compliance information that could be used for the 
exchange of data among environmental agencies and other entities. The 
purpose of the standard is to provide a common lexicon, so that 
information about functionally similar activities and/or instruments 
can be stored and to provide and receive data in a clearly defined and 
uniform way.
    EPA proposes to use the following data standards which were 
developed by the Exchange Network Leadership Council (ENLC), which 
governs the National Environmental Information Exchange Network 
(NEIEN). The ENLC identifies, prioritizes, and pursues the creation of 
data standards for those areas where information exchange standards 
will provide the most value in achieving environmental results. The 
ENLC involves tribes and tribal nations, state, and federal agencies in 
the development of the standards. More information about ENLC is 
available at www.exchangenetwork.net.
    Permitting Information Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000021.2, 
January 6, 2006. This data standard should be used in this regulation 
because it specifies the key data groupings necessary for the 
consistent identification of information pertaining to permits of 
interest to environmental information exchange partners. This data 
standard provides a minimum set of data, which need to be reported for 
permitting information such as permit name, number, type, organization 
or facility name, and affiliation type.
    Facility Site Identification Data Standard, Standard No.: 
EX000020.2, January 6, 2006. The purpose of this data standard is to 
identify a facility of environmental interest. This data standard 
should be used in this regulation because it provides for the unique 
identification of facilities regulated or monitored by EPA, states, 
tribes, and territories. Each facility is assigned a unique factory 
identification number, which identifies information for the facility 
specified. This standard provides and describes data groupings that are 
used to exchange facility site identification data and information. 
This standard helps EPA, states, tribes, and territories integrate and 
share facility information across multiple information systems, 
programs, and governments.

[[Page 46072]]

    Contact Information Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000019.2, 
January 6, 2006. This data standard should be used in this regulation 
because it provides information regarding the source of contact. This 
standard offers data groupings that are used to describe a point of 
contact, address, and communication information. For example, the data 
grouping ``Point of Contact'' subdivides to lower levels such as 
individual, affiliation, and organization. These intermediate data 
groupings are further defined at the elemental levels with Name, Title, 
Code, and Prefix.
    Representation of Date and Time Data Standard, Standard No.: 
EX000013.1, January 6, 2006. This data standard should be used in this 
regulation because it provides and describes data groupings that are 
used for exchange of Date and Time data and information. The standard 
provides information on the high level, intermediate, and elemental 
representation of date and time data groupings.
    Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 
6, 2006. This data standard should be used in this regulation because 
it establishes the requirements for documenting latitude and longitude 
coordinates and related method, accuracy, and description data for all 
places used in the data exchange transaction. Places include 
facilities, sites, monitoring stations, observations points, and other 
regulated or tracked features. This standard describes data and data 
groupings that are used to exchange latitude and longitude data and 
information. The purpose of the standard is to provide a common set of 
data to use for recording horizontal and vertical coordinates and 
associated metadata that define a point on the earth.
    SIC/NAICS Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000022.2, January 6, 2006. 
This data standard should be used in this regulation because it 
provides a common set of data groupings to specify a way to classify 
business activities, including industry classifications, product 
classifications, and product codes. This data standard provides 
information on business activity according to the Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial Classification 
System (NAICS).

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 [59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)] establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. This proposed rule offers substantial environmental 
justice benefits. As described in the context of non-monetary benefits, 
discussed in Section VII.A and described below, the proposed rule would 
significantly increase transparency and access to crucial information 
that is relevant to the protection of the health and environment of 
minority, low income, and tribal populations.
    Pollution sources addressed by the NPDES electronic reporting rule 
may release disease-causing pathogens, nutrients, or other contaminants 
that threaten public health, leading to public advisories against 
fishing and swimming. Disadvantaged and underserved communities are 
likely to suffer a wide range of environmental burdens based on their 
differential proximity and exposure to environmental hazards from these 
pollution sources. Analyzing cumulative effects on a community from 
multiple stressors allows a more realistic evaluation of a community's 
risk to pollutants. For example, medical professionals can improve 
their capacity to identify the cause of acute and chronic disease 
symptoms through awareness of environmental exposures, thereby 
improving diagnosis, treatment and prevention. Improved access to NDPES 
data on releases, both permitted and unpermitted, would thus help to 
improve the health of minority, low-income, and tribal populations.
    The proposed rule will also support meaningful participation by 
potentially impacted community members in regulatory proceedings, 
including permitting and compliance, designed to improve the ability of 
EPA, states, tribes, and territories to protect and preserve water 
quality. Regarding permitting, electronic notice of intent (eNOI) will 
provide minority, low-income and tribal populations with information in 
a timely manner to assess the need for and mechanisms to seek public 
hearings and submit comments on NPDES permits proposed in their 
community. It will also facilitate their understanding of multiple 
NPDES discharges into the same water body which may affect permit 
limits. Regarding compliance, electronic discharge monitoring reports 
(eDMRs) will enable minority, low-income and tribal populations to 
determine whether permit limits have been violated and the length of 
time of such violations. In turn, this information can help these 
populations pursue appropriate recourse with regulatory agencies.
    Ultimately, increasing the availability and transparency of 
information resulting from this rule will enable overburdened 
communities faced with these water pollution issues to be better 
informed to engage in decision-making associated with the regulation of 
sources, and to take action to reduce risk.
    Although computer access to such information may be problematic in 
some situations, the rule will ensure that the information will be 
publicly available on-line and more accessible than it was in the past, 
when the information was only submitted in hard-copy form; this 
information would also be available through Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA) requests.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 122

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 123

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Hazardous substances, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental 
relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water 
pollution control.

40 CFR Part 127

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electronic reporting 
requirements, Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 403

    Administrative practice and procedure, Compliance monitoring, 
Enforcement program and activities, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 501

    Administrative practice and procedure, Indians-lands, 
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

[[Page 46073]]

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sewage disposal.

40 CFR Part 503

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sewage disposal.

    Dated: July 15, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons cited in the preamble, title 40, chapter I is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 122--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT 
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

0
1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

0
2. Amend Sec.  122.22 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  122.22  Signatories to permit applications and reports 
(applicable to State programs, see Sec.  123.25).

* * * * *
    (e) Electronic reporting. If documents described in paragraph (a) 
or (b) of this section are submitted electronically by or on behalf of 
the NPDES-regulated facility, any person providing the electronic 
signature for such documents shall meet all relevant requirements of 
this section, and shall ensure that all of the relevant requirements of 
40 CFR part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting) and 40 CFR part 127 
(Electronic Reporting Requirements for the NPDES Program) are met for 
that submission.
0
3. Amend Sec.  122.26 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(15)(i)(A);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(15)(i)(C); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(iii).
    The revised text reads as follows:


Sec.  122.26  Storm water discharges (applicable to State NPDES 
programs, see Sec.  123.25).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (15) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) The value of the rainfall erosivity factor (``R'' in the 
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) is less than five during the 
period of construction activity. The rainfall erosivity factor is 
determined in accordance with Chapter 2 of Agriculture Handbook Number 
703, Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning 
With the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), pages 21-64, 
dated January 1997. (This incorporation by reference was approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be inspected at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. A copy may also be inspected at EPA's Water Docket, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20460). An operator shall 
certify to the Director that the construction activity will take place 
during a period when the value of the rainfall erosivity factor is less 
than five; or
* * * * *
    (C) For all certifications submitted in compliance with paragraphs 
(b)(15)(i)(A) and (b)(15)(i)(B) of this section after [TWO YEARS AFTER 
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the 
applicable POTW permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF 40 CFR PART 127], all certifications submitted in compliance with 
this section shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, 
or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 
Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR part 127, as well as with any additional 
requirements imposed by the Director.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Submit the signed certification to the NPDES permitting 
authority once every five years. For all certifications submitted after 
[TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required 
by the applicable POTW permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR part 127], all new and renewed certifications 
submitted in compliance with this section shall be submitted 
electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated 
representative, in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, Sec.  122.22, and 40 
CFR part 127, as well as with any additional requirements imposed by 
the Director.
* * * * *
    4. Amend Sec.  122.28 by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  122.28  General permits (applicable to State NPDES programs, see 
Sec.  123.25).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(v) and (b)(2)(vi) of 
this section, dischargers (or treatment works treating domestic sewage) 
seeking coverage under a general permit shall submit to the Director 
either a written or electronic notice of intent to be covered by the 
general permit. For all notices of intent submitted to the Director of 
an EPA-administered NPDES program after [one year after the effective 
date of 40 CFR Part 127], or if required by the applicable general 
permit on or before [one year after the effective date of 40 CFR Part 
127], all new and renewed notices of intent submitted in compliance 
with this section shall be submitted electronically by the owner, 
operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR 
Part 3, Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127, as well as with any 
additional requirements imposed by the Director. For all notices of 
intent submitted to the Director of an NPDES-authorized program 
(excluding EPA-administered NPDES programs) after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable 
general permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 
CFR PART 127], all new and renewed notices of intent submitted in 
compliance with this section shall be submitted electronically by the 
owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 
40 CFR Part 3, Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127, as well as with any 
additional requirements imposed by the Director.
    (ii) The contents of the notice of intent shall be specified in the 
general permit and shall require the submission of information 
necessary for adequate program implementation, including at a minimum, 
the legal name and address of the owner or operator, the facility name 
and address, type of facility or discharges, and the receiving 
stream(s). General permits for stormwater discharges associated with 
industrial activity from inactive mining, inactive oil and gas 
operations, or inactive landfills occurring on Federal lands where an 
operator cannot be identified may contain alternative notice of intent 
requirements. All notices of intent shall be signed in accordance with 
Sec.  122.22. Notices of intent for coverage under a general permit for 
concentrated animal feeding operations must include the information 
specified in Sec.  122.21(i)(1) and the applicable information in 
Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 127, including a topographic map.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  122.34 by revising paragraph (g)(3) introductory text to 
read as follows:

[[Page 46074]]

Sec.  122.34  As an operator of a regulated small MS4, what will my 
NPDES MS4 storm water permit require?

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
* * * * *
    (3) Reporting. Unless you are relying on another entity to satisfy 
your NPDES permit obligations under Sec.  122.35(a), you must submit 
annual reports to the NPDES permitting authority for your first permit 
term. For subsequent permit terms, you must submit reports in year two 
and four unless the NPDES permitting authority requires more frequent 
reports. For all annual reports submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable 
permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 
127], all annual reports submitted in compliance with this section 
shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their 
designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, Sec.  
122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127, as well as with any additional 
requirements imposed by the Director. Your report must include:
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  122.41 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (l)(4)(i), (l)(6)(i), and (l)(7);
0
b. Adding paragraph (l)(9); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (m)(3).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  122.41  Conditions applicable to all permits (applicable to State 
programs, see Sec.  123.25).

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring 
Report (DMR) or forms provided or specified by the Director for 
reporting results of monitoring of sludge use or disposal practices. 
For all monitoring results submitted after [one year after the 
effective date of 40 CFR Part 127], or if required by the applicable 
permit on or before [one year after the effective date of 40 CFR Part 
127], all monitoring results shall be submitted electronically by the 
owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 
40 CFR Part 3, Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127, as well as with any 
additional requirements imposed by the Director.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger 
health or the environment. Any information shall be provided orally 
within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the 
circumstances. A written or electronic submission shall also be 
provided within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the 
circumstances. The written or electronic submission shall contain a 
description of the noncompliance (including, for discharge violations, 
the type, volume, and latitude and longitude of the discharge, and name 
of the waterbody most likely to receive the discharge) and its cause; 
the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times (including 
the date and time of discovery, and the duration of the noncompliance 
event), and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the 
anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned 
to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. 
For noncompliance events related to combined sewer overflows, sanitary 
sewer overflows, or bypass events, these submissions shall identify the 
data described above (with the exception of time of discovery) as well 
as the type of event (combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer 
overflows, or bypass events), discharge volumes untreated by the POTW's 
treatment works, and whether the noncompliance was related to dry or 
wet weather. All noncompliance events related to combined sewer 
overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or bypass events occurring after 
[TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required 
by the applicable permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be reported electronically by the 
owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 
40 CFR Part 3, Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127, and any additional 
requirements imposed by the Director.
* * * * *
    (7) Other noncompliance. The permittee shall report all instances 
of noncompliance not reported under paragraphs (l)(4), (5), and (6) of 
this section, at the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports 
shall contain the information listed in paragraph (l)(6) of this 
section. For noncompliance events related to combined sewer overflows, 
sanitary sewer overflows, or bypass events, these submissions shall 
contain the information described in paragraph (l)(6) of this section 
and the applicable required data in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 127. All 
noncompliance events related to combined sewer overflows, sanitary 
sewer overflows, or bypass events occurring after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable 
permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 
127], shall be reported electronically by the owner, operator, or their 
designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, Sec.  
122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127 and any additional requirements imposed by 
the Director.
* * * * *
    (9) Identification of the Initial Recipient for NPDES Electronic 
Reporting Data. For an NPDES-regulated facility, the owner, operator, 
or their designated representative is required to electronically submit 
the required NPDES information (as specified in Appendix A to 40 CFR 
Part 127) to the appropriate initial recipient, as determined by EPA, 
and as defined in Sec.  127.2(b). EPA shall identify and publish the 
initial recipient, as defined in Sec.  127.2(b), and as designated in 
compliance with Sec.  127.27(c), on an EPA Web site and in the Federal 
Register, by state and by NPDES data group [see Sec.  127.2(c)]. EPA 
shall update this listing on its Web site and in the Federal Register 
when a state, tribe, or territory newly gains authorization status to 
implement an NPDES program and is also approved by EPA to be the 
initial recipient of NPDES electronic data submissions for that 
program.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
* * * * *
    (3) Notice--(i) Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in 
advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if 
possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass. All POTW 
anticipated bypass events occurring after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable 
permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 
127], shall be reported electronically by the owner, operator, or their 
designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, Sec.  
122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127 and any additional requirements imposed by 
the Director.
    (ii) Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an 
unanticipated bypass as required in paragraph (l)(6) of this section 
(24-hour notice). All POTW unanticipated bypass events occurring after 
[TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required 
by the applicable permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE 
DATE

[[Page 46075]]

OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be reported electronically by the owner, 
operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR 
Part 3, Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127 and any additional 
requirements imposed by the Director.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  122.42 by revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, 
(e)(4) introductory text, and (e)(4)(vi) to read as follows:


Sec.  122.42  Additional conditions applicable to specified categories 
of NPDES permits (applicable to State NPDES programs, see Sec.  
123.25).

* * * * *
    (c) Municipal separate storm sewer systems. The operator of a large 
or medium municipal separate storm sewer system or a municipal separate 
storm sewer that has been designated by the Director under 40 CFR 
122.26(a)(1)(v) of this part must submit an annual report by the 
anniversary of the date of the issuance of the permit for such system. 
All annual reports submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable permit on or 
before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall 
be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated 
representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, Sec.  122.22, and 40 
CFR Part 127 and any additional requirements imposed by the Director. 
The report shall include:
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
* * * * *
    (4) Annual reporting requirements for CAFOs. The permittee must 
submit an annual report to the Director. All annual reports submitted 
after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if 
required by the applicable permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be submitted electronically 
by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in 
compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127 and 
any additional requirements imposed by the Director. The annual report 
must include:
* * * * *
    (vi) Summary of all manure, litter and process wastewater 
discharges from the production area that have occurred in the previous 
12 months, including, for each discharge, the date of discovery, 
duration of discharge, and approximate volume; and
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  122.43 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  122.43  Establishing permit conditions (applicable to State 
programs, see Sec.  123.25).

    (a) In addition to conditions required in all permits (Sec. Sec.  
122.41 and 122.42), the Director shall establish conditions, as 
required on a case-by-case basis, to provide for and ensure compliance 
with all applicable requirements of CWA and regulations. These shall 
include conditions under Sec. Sec.  122.46 (duration of permits), 
122.47(a) (schedules of compliance), 122.48 (monitoring), electronic 
requirements of 40 CFR Part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 
Regulation) and 40 CFR Part 127 (Electronic Reporting Requirements for 
the NPDES Program), and, for EPA permits only, 40 CFR 122.47(b) 
(alternates schedule of compliance) and Sec.  122.49 (considerations 
under Federal law).
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  122.44 by revising paragraph (i)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  122.44  Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit 
conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs, see Sec.  123.25).

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (i)(4) and (i)(5) of this 
section, requirements to report monitoring results shall be established 
on a case-by-case basis with a frequency dependent on the nature and 
effect of the discharge, but in no case less than once a year. For 
sewage sludge use or disposal practices, requirements to monitor and 
report results shall be established on a case-by-case basis with a 
frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the sewage sludge use 
or disposal practice; minimally this shall be as specified in 40 CFR 
Part 503 (where applicable), but in no case less than once a year. All 
monitoring results submitted after [ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable permit on or 
before [ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be 
submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated 
representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, Sec.  122.22, and 40 
CFR Part 127 and any additional requirements imposed by the Director.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec.  122.48 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  122.48  Requirements for recording and reporting of monitoring 
results (applicable to State programs, see Sec.  123.25).

* * * * *
    (c) Applicable reporting requirements based upon the impact of the 
regulated activity and as specified in 40 CFR Part 3 (Cross-Media 
Electronic Reporting Regulation), Sec.  122.44, and 40 CFR Part 127 
(Electronic Reporting Requirements for the NPDES Program). Reporting 
shall be no less frequent than specified in Sec.  122.44.
0
11. Amend Sec.  122.63 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  122.63  Minor modifications of permits.

* * * * *
    (f) Allow the incorporation of electronic reporting requirements 
(to replace paper reporting requirements) including those specified in 
40 CFR Part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation) and 40 CFR 
Part 127 (Electronic Reporting Requirements for the NPDES Program).
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec.  122.64 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  122.64  Termination of permits (applicable to State programs, see 
Sec.  123.25).

* * * * *
    (c) Permittees that wish to terminate their permit shall submit a 
Notice of Termination (NOT) to their permitting authority. All NOTs 
submitted to the Director of an EPA-administered NPDES program after 
[ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required 
by the applicable permit on or before [ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be submitted electronically by the 
owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 
40 CFR Part 3, Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127 and any additional 
requirements imposed by the Director. All NOTs submitted to the 
Director of an NPDES-authorized program (excluding EPA-administered 
NPDES programs) after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 
PART 127], or if required by the applicable permit on or before [TWO 
YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be submitted 
electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated 
representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, Sec.  122.22, and 40 
CFR Part 127 and any additional requirements imposed by the Director.

PART 123--STATE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

0
13. The authority citation for part 123 continues to read as follows:


[[Page 46076]]


    Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

0
14. Amend Sec.  123.22 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  123.22  Program description.

* * * * *
    (g) A state, tribe, or territory that newly seeks to implement an 
NPDES program after [90 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 
127] shall identify in its application whether the state, tribe, or 
territory is requesting to be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES 
information from NPDES-regulated facilities for specific NPDES data 
groups (see 40 CFR 127.2(c) and 127.27). In this application, the 
state, tribe, or territory shall identify the specific NPDES data 
groups for which the state, tribe, or territory will be the initial 
recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated 
facilities and how the electronic data system of the state, tribe, or 
territory will be compliant with 40 CFR Part 3, Sec.  123.26, and 40 
CFR Part 127.
* * * * *
0
15. Amend Sec.  123.24 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  123.24  Memorandum of Agreement with the Regional Administrator.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
* * * * *
    (3) Provisions specifying the frequency and content of reports, 
documents and other information which the State is required to submit 
to EPA. The State shall allow EPA to routinely review State records, 
reports, and files relevant to the administration and enforcement of 
the approved program. State reports may be combined with grant reports 
where appropriate. These procedures shall also implement the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  123.41(a) and 123.43 and 40 CFR Part 127 
(including the required data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 
127).
* * * * *
0
16. Amend Sec.  123.25 by revising paragraph (a)(46) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  123.25  Requirements for permitting.

    (a) * * *
* * * * *
    (46) 40 CFR part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation) 
and 40 CFR part 127 (Electronic Reporting Requirements for the NPDES 
Program).
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec.  123.26 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2)(ii), 
(b)(2)(iii) and adding paragraph (b)(2)(iv);
0
b. Revising paragraph (e)(1);
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(4); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (f).
    The revised and added text reads as follows:


Sec.  123.26  Requirements for compliance evaluation programs.

* * * * *
    (b) State programs shall have inspection and surveillance 
procedures to determine, independent of information supplied by 
regulated persons, compliance or noncompliance with applicable program 
requirements. The State shall implement and maintain:
    (1) An automated, computerized system which is capable of 
identifying and tracking all facilities and activities subject to the 
State Director's authority and any instances of noncompliance with 
permit or other program requirements (e.g., identifying noncompliance 
with an automated, computerized program to compare permit limits to 
reported measurements). State programs shall maintain a management 
information system which supports the compliance evaluation activities 
of this part (e.g., source inventories; compliance determinations based 
upon discharge monitoring reports, other submitted reports, and 
determinations of noncompliance made from inspection or document 
reviews; and subsequent violation notices, enforcement actions, and 
penalties) and is compliant with 40 CFR part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic 
Reporting Regulation) and 40 CFR part 127 (Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for the NPDES program). State programs may use EPA's NPDES 
national data system for their automated, computerized system;
    (2) * * *
* * * * *
    (ii) Verify the accuracy of information submitted by permittees and 
other regulated persons in reporting forms and other forms supplying 
monitoring data;
    (iii) Verify the adequacy of sampling, monitoring, and other 
methods used by permittees and other regulated persons to develop that 
information; and
    (iv) Protect surface waters and public health.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Maintaining a comprehensive electronic inventory of all sources 
covered by NPDES permits and an electronic schedule of reports required 
to be submitted by permittees to the State agency;
* * * * *
    (f) A state, tribe, or territory that is designated by EPA as an 
initial recipient of electronic NPDES information, as defined in Sec.  
127.2, from NPDES-regulated entities shall maintain this data and share 
all the required NPDES information with EPA through timely data 
transfers in compliance with all requirements of 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 
(including the required data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 
127). Timely means that the authorized state, tribe, or territory 
submits these data transfers (see the data elements in Appendix A to 40 
CFR part 127) to EPA within 30 days of when the state, tribe, or 
territory completed the activity or received a report submitted by a 
regulated entity. For example, the data regarding a state inspection of 
an NPDES-regulated entity that is completed on October 15th shall be 
submitted automatically to EPA no later than November 14th of that same 
year (e.g., 30 days after October 15th). EPA shall become the initial 
recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities 
if the state, tribe, or territory does not consistently maintain these 
timely data transfers or does not comply with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127. 
See 40 CFR 127.2(b) and 127.27 regarding the initial recipient.
0
18. Amend Sec.  123.41 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  123.41  Sharing of information.

    (a) Any information obtained or used in the administration of a 
State program shall be available to EPA upon request without 
restriction. This includes the timely data transfers in compliance with 
all requirements of 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 (including the required data 
elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). If the information has been 
submitted to the State under a claim of confidentiality, the State must 
submit that claim to EPA when providing information under this section. 
Any information obtained from a State and subject to a claim of 
confidentiality will be treated in accordance with the regulations in 
40 CFR part 2. If EPA obtains information from an authorized state 
NPDES program, which is not claimed to be confidential, EPA may make 
that information available to the public without further notice. Timely 
means that the authorized state, tribe, or territory submits these data 
transfers (see the data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) to 
EPA within 30 days of when the state, tribe, or territory completed the 
activity or received a report submitted by a regulated entity. For 
example, the data regarding a state inspection of an NPDES-regulated 
entity that is completed on October 15th shall be submitted 
automatically to EPA no

[[Page 46077]]

later than November 14th of that same year (e.g., 30 days after October 
15th). EPA shall become the initial recipient of electronic NPDES 
information from NPDES-regulated entities if the state, tribe, or 
territory does not consistently maintain these timely data transfers or 
does not comply with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127. See 40 CFR 127.2(b) and 
127.27 regarding the initial recipient.
* * * * *
0
19. Amend Sec.  123.43 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  123.43  Transmission of information to EPA.

* * * * *
    (d) Any State permit program shall keep such records and submit to 
the Administrator such information as the Administrator may reasonably 
require to ascertain whether the State program complies with the 
requirements of CWA or of this part. This includes the timely data 
transfers in compliance with all requirements of 40 CFR part 127 
(including the required data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 
127).
* * * * *
0
20. Revise Sec.  123.45 to read as follows:


Sec.  123.45  Noncompliance and program reporting by the Director.

    EPA shall prepare public (quarterly and annual) reports as set 
forth here from information that is required to be submitted by NPDES-
regulated facilities and the State Director.
    (a) NPDES Non-Compliance Reports (NNCR)--Quarterly. EPA shall 
produce an online report on a quarterly basis with the minimum content 
specified here. The Director shall electronically submit timely, 
accurate, and complete data to EPA that allows EPA to prepare these 
quarterly NNCRs.
    (1) Content. The NNCR shall include the following information:
    (i) A stratified list of NPDES-regulated entities in violation, 
including non-POTWs, POTWs, Federal permittees, major facilities, and 
nonmajor facilities, as well as a list of CWA point sources that did 
not obtain NPDES permits authorizing discharges of pollutants to waters 
of the United States.
    (ii) For each identified NPDES point source in violation and with 
discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States:
    (A) The name, location, and permit number or other identification 
number, if a permit does not exist.
    (B) Information describing identified violation(s) that occurred in 
that quarter, including the date(s) on which violation(s) started and 
ended (if applicable). Where applicable, the information shall indicate 
the pipe, parameter, and the effluent limit(s) violated. Violations 
shall be classified as Category I and II as described in Sec.  
123.45(a)(2).
    (C) The date(s) and type of formal enforcement and written informal 
enforcement action(s) taken by the Director to respond to violation(s), 
including any penalties assessed.
    (D) The status of the violation(s) (e.g., corrected or continuing, 
and the date that the violation(s) was resolved), which can be reported 
by linking violations to specific enforcement actions, or tracking 
noncompliance end dates.
    (E) Any optional details that may help explain the instance(s) of 
noncompliance as provided by the Director or EPA.
    (F) All violations shall be reported in successive quarterly 
reports until the violation(s) is documented as being corrected (i.e., 
the regulated entity is no longer in violation). After a violation is 
reported as corrected in the NNCR, that particular violation will not 
continue to appear in subsequent quarterly reports, although it will 
appear in the relevant annual report.
    (G) If the permittee or discharger is in compliance with an 
enforcement order, but has not yet achieved full compliance with permit 
conditions and/or regulations and has no new, additional violation(s), 
the compliance status shall be reported as ``resolved pending'' in the 
NNCR. The permittee/discharger will continue to be listed on the NNCR 
until the violation(s) is documented as being corrected.
    (2) Violation Classifications. A violation shall be classified as 
``Category I Noncompliance'' if one or more of the criteria set forth 
below are met. All other types of noncompliance that do not meet the 
criteria for Category I Noncompliance shall be classified as ``Category 
II Noncompliance.''
    (i) Reporting Violations. These include failure to submit a 
complete, required report (e.g., final compliance schedule progress 
report, discharge monitoring report, annual report) within 30 days 
after the date established in a permit, administrative or judicial 
order, or regulation. In addition, these also include any failure to 
comply with the reporting requirements at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6).
    (ii) Compliance Construction Violations. These include failure to 
start construction, complete construction, or achieve final compliance 
within 90 days after the date established in a permit, administrative 
or judicial order, or regulation.
    (iii) Effluent Limits. These include violations of interim or final 
effluent limits established in a permit, administrative or judicial 
enforcement order, or regulation that exceed the ``Criteria for 
Noncompliance Reporting in the NPDES Program'' in Appendix A to Sec.  
123.45.
    (iv) Compliance Schedule Violations. These include violations of 
any requirement or condition in permits, or administrative or judicial 
enforcement orders, excluding reporting violations, compliance 
construction milestones and effluent limits.
    (v) Non-Numeric Effluent Limit Violations. These include violations 
of non-numeric effluent limits (e.g., violations of narrative permit 
requirements or requirements to implement best management practices) 
that caused or could cause serious impacts on water quality. Examples 
of such serious impacts on water quality include, but are not limited 
to, discharges that may have caused or contributed to exceedances in 
water quality standards, fish kills, oil sheens, beach closings, 
fishing bans, restrictions on designated uses, and pass through or 
interference with the operations of a POTW (see Sec.  403.3 of this 
chapter).
    (vi) Other Violations. These include any violation or group of 
violations, which in the discretion of the Director or EPA, are 
considered to be of concern. These violations include repeat violations 
by a specific point source, geographic clusters of violations, 
corporations with violations at multiple facilities, or industrial 
sectors with identified patterns of violation that have a cumulative 
impact on water quality, but otherwise would not meet Category I 
criteria. EPA shall determine whether to issue policy or guidance to 
provide more specificity on identifying these types of violations and 
how to report them.
    (3) EPA shall provide an easy-to-use interface to facilitate public 
access, use, and understanding of the NNCR, including the ability to 
sort violations by duration, severity, frequency, detection method 
(e.g., self-reported effluent, monitoring, inspection), flow and 
pollutant loadings, type of discharger, waterbody receiving the 
discharge, proximity to impaired waters, and category of violation (I 
or II). EPA shall exclude from public release any confidential business 
information or enforcement-sensitive information associated with the 
NNCR.
    (b) NPDES Noncompliance Reports--Annual Summary (Annual). EPA shall 
prepare annual public reports that provide a summary of compliance 
monitoring and enforcement activities within each state, tribe, and 
territory, as well as summary information on

[[Page 46078]]

violations identified in the four quarterly NNCRs for that federal 
fiscal year. EPA shall provide these annual reports by no later than 
March 1st of the following year.
    (1) Facility Types Covered by Reports. EPA shall produce, at a 
minimum, Annual Summary Reports for the following universes: 
individually-permitted NPDES-regulated entities; all other NPDES-
regulated entities that are not individually permitted; Clean Water Act 
point sources that had unauthorized discharge(s) of pollutants to 
waters of the US; and a combined report that includes totals across all 
three reports above. Individually-permitted facilities are defined in 
this subsection as those permits that are unique to the permittee, that 
include permitted effluent limits, and require the submission of 
discharge monitoring reports.
    (2) Content of Reports. Reports shall include applicable data for 
NPDES-regulated entities:
    (i) The number of NPDES permittees;
    (ii) The number inspected by on-site inspections;
    (iii) The number reviewed in which permitted limits were compared 
to measured data to determine violations;
    (iv) The number evaluated by other, off-site compliance monitoring 
activities;
    (v) The number with any violations;
    (vi) The number with Category I violations;
    (vii) The number receiving paper or electronic written informal 
enforcement actions;
    (viii) The total number receiving formal enforcement actions with a 
compliance schedule;
    (ix) The total number receiving a penalty assessment;
    (x) The total amount of penalties assessed; and
    (xi) The number of permit modifications extending compliance 
deadlines more than one year.
    (c) Effective Dates. The quarterly and annual reports, 
noncompliance definitions, and other requirements of this subpart shall 
be effective starting [THREE YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 
PART 127].
    (d) Schedule for Producing NNCR Quarterly Information. (1) The 
Director has until 45 days from the end of the calendar quarter to 
update or correct NPDES data submissions in EPA's data system for 
events that occurred within that calendar quarter covered by the NNCR.
    (2) EPA shall publish the NNCR in electronic form within two months 
after the end date of the calendar quarter:

                     EPA Schedule for Quarterly NNCR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           EPA NNCR Publication date for
             Calendar quarter                     calendar quarter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January, February, March.................  May 31.
April, May, June.........................  August 31.
July, August, September..................  November 30.
October, November, and December..........  February 28.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
21. Amend Subpart C by adding Appendix A to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart C--Criteria for Category I Noncompliance 
Reporting in the NPDES Program

    This appendix describes the criteria for reporting Category I 
violations of NPDES permit effluent limits in the NPDES non-
compliance report (NNCR) as specified under 40 CFR 123.45(a)(2)(C). 
Any violation of an NPDES permit is a violation of the Clean Water 
Act (CWA) for which the permittee is liable. As specified in 40 CFR 
123.45(a)(2), there are two categories of noncompliance, and the 
table below indicates the thresholds for violations in Category I. 
An agency's decision as to what enforcement action, if any, should 
be taken in such cases, shall be based on an analysis of facts, 
legal requirements, policy, and guidance.

Violations of Permit Effluent Limits

    The categorization of permit effluent limits depends upon the 
magnitude and/or frequency of the violation. Effluent violations 
shall be evaluated on a parameter-by-parameter and outfall-by-
outfall basis. The criteria for reporting effluent violations are as 
follows:

a. Reporting Criteria for Category I Violations of Monthly Average 
Permit Limits--Magnitude and Frequency

    Violations of monthly average effluent limits which exceed or 
equal the product of the Technical Review Criteria (TRC) times the 
effluent limit, and occur two months in a six-month period must be 
reported. TRCs are for two groups of pollutants.

Group I Pollutants--TRC = 1.4
Group II Pollutants--TRC = 1.2

b. Reporting Criteria for Chronic Violations of Monthly Average Limits

    Chronic violations must be reported in the QNCR if the monthly 
average permit limits are exceeded any four months in a six-month 
period. These criteria apply to all Group I and Group II pollutants.

Group I Pollutants--TRC = 1.4
Oxygen Demand
    Biochemical Oxygen Demand
    Chemical Oxygen Demand
    Total Oxygen Demands
    Total Organic Carbon
    Other
Solids
    Total Suspended Solids (Residues)
    Total Dissolved Solids (Residues)
    Other
Nutrients
    Inorganic Phosphorus Compounds
    Inorganic Nitrogen Compounds
    Other
Detergents and Oils
    MBAS
    NTA
    Oil and Grease
    Other detergents or algicides
Minerals
    Calcium
    Chloride
    Fluoride
    Magnesium
    Sodium
    Potassium
    Sulfur
    Sulfate
    Total Alkalinity
    Total Hardness
    Other Minerals
Metals
    Aluminum
    Cobalt
    Iron
    Vanadium

Group II Pollutants--TRC = 1.2
Metals (all forms)
    Other metals not specifically listed under Group I
Inorganic
    Cyanide
    Total Residual Chlorine
Organics
    All organics are Group II except those specifically listed under 
Group I.

0
22. Add a new part 127 to Title 40 to read as follows:

PART 127--NPDES PROGRAM ELECTRONIC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Subpart A--General
Sec.
127.1 Purpose and scope.
127.2 Definitions.
Subpart B--Electronic Reporting of NPDES Information From NPDES-
regulated Facilities
127.11 Types of data to be reported electronically by NPDES 
permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits 
or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial 
users located in cities without approved local pretreatment 
programs.
127.12 Signature and certification standards for electronic 
reporting.
127.13 Requirements regarding quality assurance and quality control.
127.14 Requirements regarding timeliness, accuracy, completeness, 
and national consistency.
127.15 Temporary exemptions from electronic reporting.
127.16 Time extensions for electronic reporting due to catastrophic 
unforeseen circumstances.
127.17 Implementation plan and effective date.

[[Page 46079]]

Subpart C--Responsibilities of EPA and States, Tribes, and Territories 
Authorized To Implement the NPDES Program
127.21 Types of data to be reported electronically to EPA by states, 
tribes, and territories.
127.22 Requirements regarding quality assurance and quality control.
127.23 Requirements regarding timeliness, accuracy, completeness, 
and national consistency.
127.24 Responsibilities regarding review of temporary exemption 
requests and one-time extension requests from NPDES-regulated 
facilities.
127.25 Time for states, tribes, and territories to revise existing 
programs.
127.26 Implementation plan and effective date.
127.27 Procedure for determining initial recipient of electronic 
NPDES information.

    Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  127.1  Purpose and scope.

    (a) This part, in conjunction with the NPDES reporting requirements 
specified in 40 CFR parts 122, 123, 403, and 503, specifies the 
requirements for electronic reporting of information by NPDES 
permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or 
submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users 
located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs, to EPA 
or the states, tribes, or territories that have received authorization 
from EPA to implement the NPDES program. This part, in conjunction with 
40 CFR parts 123 and 501, also specifies the requirements for 
electronic reporting of NPDES information to EPA by the states, tribes, 
or territories that have received authorization from EPA to implement 
the NPDES program.
    (b) These regulations are not intended to preclude states, tribes, 
or territories from developing and using their own NPDES data systems. 
However, the states, tribes, and territories shall ensure that the 
required NPDES information regarding their permitting, compliance 
monitoring, and enforcement activities and required NPDES information 
electronically submitted by NPDES permittees, facilities seeking 
coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater 
certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in cities 
without approved local pretreatment programs is then shared 
electronically with EPA in a timely, accurate, complete, and 
nationally-consistent manner fully compatible with EPA's national NPDES 
data system.
    (c) Under 10 U.S.C. 130e, the Secretary of Defense may exempt 
Department of Defense ``critical infrastructure security information'' 
from disclosure under FOIA. NPDES program data designated as critical 
infrastructure security information in response to a FOIA request will 
be withheld from the public. In the instance where an NPDES program 
data element for a particular facility is designated as critical 
infrastructure security information in response to a FOIA request, a 
separate filtered set of data without the redacted information will be 
shared with the public; however, all NPDES program data will continue 
to be provided to EPA and the authorized state, tribe, or territorial 
NPDES program.


Sec.  127.2  Definitions.

    (a) The definitions in 40 CFR parts 122, 403, 501 and 503 apply to 
all subparts of this part.
    (b) Initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-
regulated facilities (initial recipient) means the entity (EPA or the 
state, tribe, or territory authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES 
program) that is the designated entity for receiving electronic NPDES 
data. Section 127.27 outlines the process for designating the initial 
recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated 
facilities. EPA shall become the initial recipient of electronic NPDES 
information from NPDES-regulated facilities if the state, tribe, or 
territory does not collect the data required in Appendix A to this part 
and does not consistently maintain timely, accurate, complete, and 
consistent data transfers in compliance with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127. 
Timely means that the authorized state, tribe, or territory submits 
these data transfers (see the data elements in Appendix A to this part) 
to EPA within 30 days of when the authorized program completed the 
activity or received a report submitted by a regulated entity. For 
example, the data regarding a state inspection of an NPDES-regulated 
entity that is completed on October 15th shall be submitted 
automatically to EPA no later than November 14th of that same year 
(e.g., 30 days after October 15th).
    (c) NPDES data group means the group of related data elements 
identified in Table 1 in Appendix A to this part. These NPDES data 
groups have similar regulatory reporting requirements and have similar 
data sources.
    (d) Regulatory authority means EPA or the state, tribe, or 
territory that EPA has authorized to administer all or part of the 
NPDES program; identifying the relevant regulatory authority must be 
done for each NPDES subprogram (e.g., NPDES core program, federal 
facilities, general permits, pretreatment, and biosolids).

Subpart B--Electronic Reporting of NPDES Information From NPDES-
Regulated Facilities


Sec.  127.11  Types of data to be reported electronically by NPDES 
permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or 
submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users 
located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs.

    (a) NPDES-regulated facilities shall electronically submit 
information for these NPDES reports (if such reporting requirements are 
applicable):
    (1) Discharge Monitoring Report [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)];
    (2) Biosolids Annual Program Report [40 CFR part 503];
    (3) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Annual Program 
Report [40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)];
    (4) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Report [40 
CFR 122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c)];
    (5) Pretreatment Program Annual Report [40 CFR 403.12(i)]; and
    (6) Sewer Overflow and Bypass Incident Event Report [40 CFR 
122.41(l)(6) and (7)].
    (b) Facilities seeking coverage under an NPDES general permit, or 
indicating that such general permit coverage is not needed under 
existing regulations, shall electronically submit information for these 
NPDES notices, certifications, and waivers (if such reporting 
requirements are applicable):
    (1) Notice of intent (NOI) to discharge by facilities seeking 
coverage under a general NPDES permit (rather than an individually-
issued NPDES permit), as described in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2);
    (2) Notice of termination (NOT), as described in 40 CFR 122.64;
    (3) No exposure certification (NEC), as described in 40 CFR 
122.26(g)(1)(iii); and
    (4) Low erosivity waiver (LEW) as described in Exhibit 1 to 40 CFR 
122.26(b)(15).
    (c) Industrial users located in cities without approved local 
pretreatment programs shall electronically submit this information (if 
such reporting requirements are applicable):
    (1) Self-monitoring pretreatment-related information, as described 
in 40 CFR 403.12(e) and 403.12(h).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (d) Specific data elements that are required to be submitted 
electronically by NPDES-regulated facilities are identified in Appendix 
A to this part.

[[Page 46080]]

Sec.  127.12  Signature and certification standards for electronic 
reporting.

    The signatory and certification requirements identified in 40 CFR 
part 3 and 40 CFR 122.22 and 403.12(l) shall also apply to the 
electronic submission of NPDES information by NPDES permittees, 
facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting 
stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in 
cities without approved local pretreatment programs, as required in 
accordance with this part and Appendix A of this part.


Sec.  127.13  Requirements regarding quality assurance and quality 
control.

    (a) Primary responsibility for the quality of the information 
provided electronically in accordance with this part by the NPDES 
permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or 
submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users 
located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs rests 
with the owners and operators of those facilities. Facilities shall use 
quality assurance and quality control procedures to ensure the quality 
of the NPDES information submitted in accordance with this part.
    (b) NPDES information required under this part from the NPDES 
permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or 
submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users 
located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs shall be 
submitted in accordance with the data quality requirements specified in 
Sec.  127.14.


Sec.  127.14  Requirements regarding timeliness, accuracy, 
completeness, and national consistency.

    After [THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], each NPDES 
permittee, facility seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or 
submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial user 
located in a city without an approved local pretreatment program, if 
required to submit the types of information specified in Sec.  127.11, 
shall comply with all requirements in this part and electronically 
submit all applicable NPDES information identified in Appendix A to 
this part in the following nationally-consistent manner:
    (a) Timely, in the electronic submission to the appropriate initial 
recipient, as defined in Sec.  127.2(b), of NPDES information described 
in Sec.  127.11 and in Appendix A to this part, including but not 
limited to this information:
    (1) Measurement data (including information from discharge 
monitoring reports, self-monitoring data from industrial users located 
outside of approved local pretreatment programs, and similar self-
monitoring data). The electronic submission of this data is due when 
that monitoring information is required to be reported in accordance 
with statutes, regulations, the NPDES permit, another control 
mechanism, or an enforcement action.
    (2) Program Report Data. The electronic submission of this data is 
due when that program report data is required to be reported in 
accordance with statutes, regulations, the NPDES permit, another 
control mechanism, or an enforcement action.
    (b) Accurate, means identical to the actual measurements taken;
    (c) Complete, means all required data elements (see Appendix A to 
this part) are electronically submitted to the data system of the 
initial recipient, as defined in Sec.  127.2(b); and
    (d) Consistent, means all required data elements (see Appendix A to 
this part) are electronically submitted in compliance with EPA data 
standards and in a form (and measurement units) that is fully 
compatible with EPA's national NPDES data system.


Sec.  127.15  Temporary waivers from electronic reporting.

    (a) Temporary waivers from electronic reporting may be granted by 
the regulatory authority (EPA, or states, territories, and tribes that 
have received authorization to implement the NPDES program), in 
accordance with this section and Sec.  127.24, to NPDES permittees, 
facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting 
stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in 
cities without approved local pretreatment programs.
    (1) Each temporary waiver shall not extend beyond one year. 
However, the reporting facility may re-apply for a temporary waiver. 
Temporary waivers from electronic reporting may be granted if the 
reporting facility is physically located in a geographic area (i.e., 
zip code or census tract) that is identified as under-served for 
broadband internet access in the most recent National Broadband Map 
from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
    (2) To apply for such a temporary waiver, the appropriate facility 
representative, as identified in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22, for the 
NPDES permittee, facility seeking coverage under NPDES general permits 
or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, or industrial user 
located in a city without an approved local pretreatment program, shall 
submit the following information to the regulatory authority:
    (i) Facility name;
    (ii) NPDES permit number (if applicable);
    (iii) Facility address;
    (iv) Name, address and contact information for the designated 
facility representative;
    (v) Brief written statement regarding the basis for claiming such a 
temporary waiver; and
    (vi) Copy of the relevant FCC information, from the most recent FCC 
report addressing such issues, identifying the zip code or census tract 
where that facility is located as being under-served for broadband 
internet access.
    (3) If the regulatory authority determines that a temporary waiver 
is merited under the condition identified in paragraph (1) of this 
section, the regulatory authority shall provide such notification to 
the appropriate EPA regional office and the affected NPDES permittee, 
facility seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting 
stormwater certifications or waivers, or industrial user located in a 
city without an approved local pretreatment programs, in accordance 
with the requirements of Sec.  127.24(a)(2).
    (4) These temporary waivers are only waivers from electronic 
reporting; the NPDES-regulated facilities receiving temporary waivers 
from electronic reporting are required to provide the required 
applicable information (identified in Appendix A to this part) in hard-
copy format to the regulatory authority.
    (5) The temporary waiver may remain in effect until the situation 
meriting such a temporary waiver is resolved, but for no more than one 
year. At that time, if the situation meriting such temporary waiver is 
still not resolved and if the NPDES-regulated facility does not re-
apply for a temporary waiver, the NPDES permittee, facility seeking 
coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater 
certifications or waivers, or industrial user located in a city without 
an approved local pretreatment program, shall report the applicable 
required NPDES information, as identified in this part and in Appendix 
A to this part, electronically to the initial recipient through a 
third-party contractor or other available internet connections (e.g., 
public libraries).
    (b) [Reserved]

[[Page 46081]]

Sec.  127.16  Time extensions for electronic reporting due to 
catastrophic circumstances.

    (a) One-time extensions to due dates for electronic reporting may 
be granted by regulatory authorities to NPDES permittees, facilities 
seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater 
certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in cities 
without approved local pretreatment programs, for situations involving 
catastrophic circumstances beyond the control of the facilities, such 
as forces of nature (e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes). This one-
time extension for electronic reporting would allow written, rather 
than electronic, submission of information, if warranted by the 
incident.
    (1) To apply for this one-time extension, the appropriate facility 
representative, as identified in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22, for the 
NPDES permittee, facility seeking coverage under NPDES general permits 
or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, or industrial user 
located in a city without an approved local pretreatment program shall 
submit the following information toregulatory authority:
    (i) Facility name;
    (ii) NPDES permit number;
    (iii) Facility address;
    (iv) Name, address and contact information for the designated 
facility representative;
    (v) Brief written statement regarding the basis for claiming such a 
one-time extension; and
    (vi) Indication when the required written information will be 
provided to the regulatory authority.
    (2) If the regulatory authority determines that a one-time 
extension is merited in accordance with this section, the regulatory 
authority shall provide notification to the appropriate EPA regional 
office and to the affected NPDES permittee, facility seeking coverage 
under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or 
waivers, or industrial user located in a city without an approved local 
pretreatment program, in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  
127.24(a)(3).
    (3) The one-time extension may remain in effect until the situation 
meriting such a one-time extension is resolved (i.e., effects of the 
incident meriting the one-time extension no longer exist), but for no 
more than one year after the situation that merited the one-time 
extension arose. At that time, if the situation has not been resolved, 
the NPDES permittee, facility seeking coverage under NPDES general 
permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, or 
industrial user located in a city without an approved local 
pretreatment program shall report the applicable required NPDES 
information, as identified in this part and in Appendix A to this part, 
electronically to theinitial recipient, through a third-party 
contractor or other available electronic connections (e.g., internet 
connection in public libraries).
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  127.17  Implementation plan and effective date.

    (a) The effective date for this section shall be [60 DAYS AFTER THE 
PROMULGATION DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 127].
    (b) NPDES-regulated facilities, with the exception of those covered 
by any temporary waiver under Sec.  127.15 or any one-time extension 
under Sec.  127.16, must electronically submit to the designated 
initial recipient all information covered by this part in accordance 
with 40 CFR parts 3 and 122, and all requirements of this part, after 
the following dates:
    (1) Discharge monitoring report information (if required), as 
required in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4), shall be provided electronically to 
the initial recipient, as identified in Sec.  127.27, and as defined in 
Sec.  127.2(b), after [ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 
127].
    (2) Notices of intent (if required), as described in 40 CFR 
122.28(b)(2), for coverage under EPA-issued general permits, notices of 
termination, no exposure certifications, and low erosivity waivers 
shall be provided electronically to the initial recipient, as 
identified in Sec.  127.27, and as defined in Sec.  127.2(b), after 
[ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127].
    (3) Notices of intent (if required), as described in 40 CFR 
122.28(b)(2), for concentrated animal feeding operations for coverage 
under general permits shall be provided electronically to the initial 
recipient, as identified in Sec.  127.27, and as defined in Sec.  
127.2(b), after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 
127].
    (4) Biosolids annual reports (as described in 40 CFR part 503), 
concentrated animal feeding operation annual reports (as described in 
40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)), municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) 
program reports (as described in 40 CFR 122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c)), 
pretreatment-related self-monitoring reports (if required) from 
industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment 
programs (as required in 40 CFR 403.12(e) and 403.12(h)), pretreatment 
program annual reports (as described in 40 CFR 403.12(i)), and sewer 
overflow and bypass incident event reports (as described in 40 CFR 
122.41(l)(6) and (7)) shall be provided electronically to the initial 
recipient, as identified in Sec.  127.27, and as defined in Sec.  
127.2(b), after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 
127].
    (5) Notices of intent (if required), as described in 40 CFR 
122.28(b)(2), for coverage under general permits not described in 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section shall be provided 
electronically to the initial recipient, as identified in Sec.  127.27, 
and as defined in Sec.  127.2(b), after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127].
    (c) If the applicable NPDES permit requires electronic reporting of 
the reports identified in paragraph (b) of this section sooner than the 
dates specified in paragraph (b) of this section, then the NPDES-
regulated facility is required to provide that information 
electronically to the regulatory authority in accordance with the due 
date(s) in the permit.
    (d) If the regulatory authority has granted a facility or group of 
facilities temporary waivers or one-time extensions from electronic 
reporting under Sec. Sec.  127.15 or 127.16, the facility or facilities 
shall submit in hard-copy format, by the applicable due dates, to the 
regulatory authority, all of the required information applicable to 
that facility as identified in Sec.  127.11 and in Appendix A to this 
part, in accordance with all requirements of this part, including the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  127.22 and 127.23. Upon the expiration date 
of a temporary waiver, unless the NPDES-regulated facility re-applies 
for and is approved for another temporary waiver, the NPDES-regulated 
facility shall be required to submit the applicable required 
information (as identified in Sec.  127.11 and in Appendix A to this 
part) electronically to the initial recipient, as defined in Sec.  
127.2(b), for that information.

Subpart C--Responsibilities of EPA and States, Tribes, and 
Territories Authorized To Implement the NPDES Program


Sec.  127.21  Types of data to be reported electronically to EPA by 
states, tribes, and territories.

    (a) States, tribes, and territories that have received 
authorization from EPA to implement the NPDES program shall report the 
following NPDES information (as specified in Appendix A to this part) 
to EPA electronically:

[[Page 46082]]

    (1) facility and permit information for NPDES individual permits;
    (2) permit information associated with NPDES general permits 
(including information specific to subprograms [if applicable] or to 
thermal variances [if applicable], and information regarding cooling 
water intakes for discharges of 2 million gallons per day or more [if 
applicable]);
    (3) compliance monitoring and inspection activities;
    (4) compliance determination information;
    (5) enforcement action information; and
    (6) information provided electronically or otherwise (e.g., from 
facilities granted temporary waivers from electronic reporting) by the 
NPDES-regulated facility to the authorized NPDES program rather than to 
EPA.
    (b) If the authorized state, tribe, or territory NPDES program is 
the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-
regulated facilities (see Sec.  127.2(b)), the authorized NPDES program 
shall transfer these NPDES program data to EPA within 30 days of the 
completed activity or within 30 days of the receipt of a report from a 
regulated entity. Specific data elements that are required to be 
submitted electronically to EPA by the states, tribes, or territories 
that have received authorization from EPA to implement the NPDES 
program are identified in Appendix A to this part.


Sec.  127.22  Requirements regarding quality assurance and quality 
control.

    (a) Primary responsibility for the quality of the information 
provided electronically to EPA in accordance with this part by the 
regulatory authorities rests with those government entities. Therefore, 
the regulatory authorities shall utilize quality assurance and quality 
control procedures to ensure the quality of the NPDES information 
submitted to EPA in accordance with this part.
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  127.23  Requirements regarding timeliness, accuracy, 
completeness, and national consistency.

    (a) After [THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], the Director of 
each state, tribe, and territory that has been authorized by EPA to 
implement the NPDES program shall ensure that EPA is electronically 
provided with the NPDES information identified in Appendix A to this 
part, in a nationally consistent manner which is:
    (1) Timely, in that the authorized state, tribe, or territory 
electronically provides the required data (as specified in Appendix A 
to this part) to EPA within 30 days of the completed activity or within 
30 days of receipt of a report from a regulated entity. For example, 
the data regarding a state inspection of an NPDES-regulated entity that 
is completed on October 15th shall be submitted automatically to EPA no 
later than November 14th of that same year (e.g., 30 days after October 
15th).
    (2) Accurate, in that 95% or more of the required data available in 
EPA's data system for NPDES information are identical to that reported 
on the permit or other source document for that information;
    (3) Complete, in that 95% or more of submissions required for each 
NPDES data group are available in EPA's data system for NPDES 
information; and
    (4) Consistent, in that data electronically submitted by states, 
tribes, and territories to EPA, by direct entry of information, data 
transfers from one data system to another, or some combination thereof, 
into EPA's designated NPDES national data system is in compliance with 
EPA's data standards and in a form and measurement units which are 
fully compatible with such data system.
    (b) An authorized program shall consistently maintain the 
requirements identified in paragraph (a) of this section in order to be 
the initial recipient, as defined in Sec.  127.2(b). If the authorized 
program does not maintain these requirements, EPA shall become the 
initial recipient.


Sec.  127.24  Responsibilities regarding review of temporary waiver 
requests and one-time extension requests from NPDES-regulated 
facilities.

    (a) Under Sec.  127.15, NPDES permittees, facilities seeking 
coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater 
certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in cities 
without approved local pretreatment programs, may submit requests for 
temporary waivers or one-time extensions from electronic reporting. The 
responsibilities regarding the review and approval of these requests 
are:
    (1) For temporary waivers due to the lack of broadband access in 
certain remote areas, the regulatory authority shall ensure that the 
temporary waiver request meets the requirements of Sec.  127.15 and 
shall notify the requestor and the appropriate EPA regional office 
within 15 business days of the request as to whether the temporary 
waiver will be granted.
    (2) For one-time extensions associated with catastrophic 
circumstances, the regulatory authority shall ensure that the waiver 
request meets the requirements of Sec.  127.15, and shall notify the 
requestor and the appropriate EPA regional office within 15 business 
days of the request as to whether the temporary waiver will be granted.
    (b) The regulatory authority may choose not to allow any temporary 
waivers or one-time extensions from electronic reporting. This would 
preclude the need to develop and implement standard procedures to 
review requests for temporary waivers or one-time extensions.
    (c) EPA shall have the authority to review and disapprove decisions 
by the regulatory authority regarding the granting of temporary waivers 
from electronic reporting and one-time extensions of electronic 
reporting, ensuring that approvals of these requests are in compliance 
with Sec. Sec.  127.15, 127.16, and this section.


Sec.  127.25  Time for states, tribes, and territories to revise 
existing programs.

    A state, tribe, or territory that has received authorization from 
EPA to implement the NPDES program is required to make program 
revisions in accordance with 40 CFR 123.62(e). No additional time 
extensions shall be available from EPA for state, tribe, or territory 
program revisions to achieve compliance with this rule.


Sec.  127.26  Implementation plan and effective date.

    (a) The effective date for this section shall be [90 DAYS AFTER THE 
PROMULGATION DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 127].
    (b) Authorized state, tribe, and territory NPDES programs shall 
follow the procedure in Sec.  127.27 for determining the initial 
recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated 
facilities (see Sec.  127.2(b)).
    (c) States, tribes, and territories shall electronically submit all 
applicable required data elements associated with their permitting, 
compliance monitoring, compliance determinations, and enforcement 
activities (see Appendix A to this part) to EPA by [9 MONTHS AFTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127] and maintain updates thereafter. 
These state, tribe, and territory data transmissions to EPA shall be 
done in accordance with all requirements of this part, including the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  127.22 and 127.23.
    (d) For the required NPDES information, as identified in Sec.  
127.11 and in Appendix A to this part, that an NPDES authorized state, 
tribe, or

[[Page 46083]]

territory receives from an NPDES-regulated facility, this information 
shall be electronically provided to EPA within 30 days after receipt 
from the NPDES-regulated facility.
    (e) Authorized states, tribes, or territories that can implement 40 
CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and this part without amending or enacting a 
statute shall do so by [12 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 
PART 127]. NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and territories that must 
amend or enact a statute in order to change their NPDES programs to 
implement 40 CFR part 3 (CROMERR) and this part shall do so by [24 
MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127]. See 40 CFR 
123.62(e). This includes updates to state NPDES data systems. All new 
permits issued or existing permits re-issued after the authorized 
state, territory, or tribe incorporates federal electronic reporting 
requirements (40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and this part) into its 
authorized program shall contain a permit condition requiring 
compliance with the electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 
40 CFR 122.22, and this part. NPDES-regulated facilities which have the 
federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 
122.22, and this part) in their permits shall start (or continue) 
electronic reporting to the initial recipient (as defined in Sec.  
127.27).


Sec.  127.27  Procedure for Determining Initial Recipient of Electronic 
NPDES Information.

    (a) A state, tribe, or territory that has received authorization 
from EPA to implement the NPDES program before the effective date of 
this rule may request to be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES 
information from NPDES-regulated facilities for specific NPDES data 
groups by submitting a request to EPA. For states, tribes, and 
territories with NPDES authorization prior to the effective date of the 
rule, the Director shall submit this request prior to [120 DAYS AFTER 
THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 127]. This request shall identify 
the specific NPDES data groups for which the state, tribe, or territory 
will be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from 
NPDES-regulated entities, a description of how its data system will be 
compliant with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127, and the date or dates when the 
state, tribe, or territory will be ready to accept NPDES information 
from NPDES-regulated facilities in a manner compliant with 40 CFR parts 
3 and 127.
    (b) A state, tribe, or territory that seeks authorization to 
implement an NPDES program after [THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 
127] shall identify in its NPDES program application if it is 
requesting to be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information 
from NPDES-regulated facilities for specific NPDES data groups. See 40 
CFR 123.22(g) and Appendix A to this part.
    (c) By [210 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 127], EPA 
shall publish on its Web site and in the Federal Register a listing of 
the initial recipients for electronic NPDES information from NPDES-
regulated facilities by state, tribe, and territory and by NPDES data 
group. This listing shall identify for NPDES-regulated facilities the 
initial recipient of their NPDES electronic data submissions and the 
due date for these NPDES electronic data submissions. EPA shall update 
this listing on its Web site and in the Federal Register if a state, 
tribe, or territory gains authorization status to implement an NPDES 
program and is also approved by EPA to be the initial recipient of 
NPDES electronic data submissions for that program.
    (d) Failure to maintain all the requirements in 40 CFR parts 3 and 
127 to be an initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from 
NPDES-regulated facilities shall prohibit the state, territory, or 
tribe from being the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information 
from NPDES-regulated entities. The following is the process for these 
determinations:
    (1) EPA shall make a preliminary determination identifying if an 
authorized state, tribe, or territory is not complying with the 
requirements in 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 to be an initial recipient of 
electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities. EPA shall 
provide to the Director of the authorized NPDES program the rationale 
for any such preliminary determination and options for correcting these 
deficiencies. Within 60 days of EPA's preliminary determination, the 
authorized state, tribe, or territory shall fully correct all 
deficiencies identified by EPA and notify EPA that such corrections 
have been completed. No response from the Director of the authorized 
NPDES program shall indicate that the state, territory, or tribe agrees 
to be removed as the initial recipient for that NPDES data group of 
electronic NPDES information. Within 90 days of the EPA's preliminary 
determination, EPA shall provide to the Director of the authorized 
NPDES program a final determination whether the state, tribe, or 
territory is not complying with the requirements in 40 CFR parts 3 and 
127 to be an initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from 
NPDES-regulated facilities.
    (2) EPA shall become the initial recipient of electronic NPDES 
information from NPDES-regulated facilities if the state, tribe, or 
territory does not consistently maintain data transfers in compliance 
with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127.
    (3) EPA shall update the initial recipient listing described in 
Sec.  127.27(c) and publish this listing on its Web site and in the 
Federal Register when it provides a final determination described in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section to the Director of the authorized 
NPDES program.
    (4) Following any determination of noncompliance made in accordance 
with paragraph (d)(1) of this section, EPA will work with the Director 
of the authorized NPDES program to remediate all issues identified by 
EPA that prevent the authorized NPDES program from being the initial 
recipient. When all issues identified by EPA are resolved and the 
authorized state, tribe, or territory is again the initial recipient, 
EPA shall update the initial recipient listing in Sec.  127.27(c) and 
publish this listing on its Web site and in the Federal Register.

Appendix A to Part 127

    The following two tables identify the minimum set of data that 
states, tribes, territories, and NPDES-regulated entities must 
electronically report to the NPDES authorized program or EPA [see 
Sec.  127.2(b)]. Use of these two tables ensures that there is 
consistent and complete reporting nationwide, and to expedite the 
collection and processing of the data, thereby making it more 
accurate and timely. Taken together, these data standardizations and 
the corresponding electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts 
3, 122, 123, 127, 403, and 503 are designed to save the NPDES 
authorized programs considerable resources, make reporting easier 
for NPDES-regulated entities, streamline permit renewals (as permit 
writers typically review previous noncompliance events during permit 
renewal), ensure full exchange of NPDES general permit data between 
states and EPA to the public, improve better environmental decision-
making, and to protect human health and the environment.
    Instructions: Table 1 provides the list of data sources and 
minimum submission frequencies for the nine different NPDES Data 
Groups. Table 2 provides the data that must be electronically 
reported for each of these NPDES Data Groups. The use of each data 
element is determined by identifying the number(s) in the column 
labeled ``NPDES Data Group Number'' in Table 2 and finding the 
corresponding ``NPDES Data Group Number'' in Table 1. For example, a 
value of ``1'' in Table 2 means that this data element is required 
in the transmission of data from

[[Page 46084]]

the NPDES program to EPA (Core NPDES Permitting, Compliance, and 
Enforcement Data). Likewise, a value of ``1 through 9'' means that 
this data element is required in all nine NPDES data groups.

                                 Table 1--Data Sources and Regulatory Citations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Minimum frequency
  NPDES Data group No. [dagger]    NPDES Data group      Program area       Data provider      [dagger][dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................  Core NPDES          All NPDES Program   Authorized NPDES    Quarterly (four
                                  Permitting,         Sectors.            Program.            times annually)
                                  Compliance, and                                             updates to EPA
                                  Enforcement Data                                            (although the
                                  [40 CFR parts                                               frequency
                                  122, 123, 403,                                              associated with
                                  503].                                                       any particular
                                                                                              permittee may be
                                                                                              considerably less
                                                                                              [e.g., once every
                                                                                              five years for
                                                                                              most permit
                                                                                              information].
2..............................  General Permit      All NPDES Program   NPDES Permittee...  Prior to Initial
                                  Reports [Notice     Sectors.                                Permit Coverage,
                                  of Intent to                                                Consideration for
                                  discharge (NOI);                                            Permit Exclusion,
                                  Notice of                                                   and Permit
                                  Termination                                                 Coverage
                                  (NOT); No                                                   Termination.
                                  Exposure
                                  Certifications
                                  (NECs); Low
                                  Erosivity Waivers
                                  (LEWs)] [40 CFR
                                  122.28 and 124.5].
3..............................  Discharge           All NPDES Program   NPDES Permittee...  At least annual,
                                  Monitoring Report   Sectors.                                although a more
                                  [40 CFR                                                     frequent
                                  122.41(l)(4)].                                              submission
                                                                                              required in the
                                                                                              permit would
                                                                                              apply.
4..............................  Biosolids Annual    Biosolids.........  NPDES Regulated     Annual.
                                  Program Report                          Biosolids
                                  [40 CFR part 503].                      Generator and
                                                                          Handler.
5..............................  Concentrated        CAFO..............  CAFO..............  Annual.
                                  Animal Feeding
                                  Operation (CAFO)
                                  Annual Program
                                  Reports [40 CFR
                                  122.42(e)(4)].
6..............................  Municipal Separate  MS4...............  NPDES Permittee...  Year two and year
                                  Storm Sewer                                                 four of permit
                                  System (MS4)                                                coverage (Small
                                  Program Report                                              MS4), Annual
                                  [40 CFR                                                     (Medium and Large
                                  122.34(g)(3) and                                            MS4).
                                  122.42(c)].
7..............................  Pretreatment        Pretreatment......  Pretreatment        Annual.
                                  Program Annual                          Control Authority.
                                  Report [40 CFR
                                  403.12(i)].
8..............................  Significant         Pretreatment......  Significant         Bi-Annual.
                                  Industrial User                         Industrial User.
                                  Compliance
                                  Reports in
                                  Municipalities
                                  Without Approved
                                  Pretreatment
                                  Programs [40 CFR
                                  403.12(e) and
                                  (h)].
9..............................  Sewer Overflow      Sewer Overflows...  NPDES Permittee...  Within 5 days of
                                  Event Reports [40                                           the time the
                                  CFR 122.41(l)(6)                                            permittee becomes
                                  and (7)].                                                   aware of the sewer
                                                                                              overflow event
                                                                                              (health or
                                                                                              environment
                                                                                              endangerment),
                                                                                              Monitoring report
                                                                                              frequency specific
                                                                                              in permit (all
                                                                                              other sewer
                                                                                              overflow events).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] Note: Use the ``NPDES Data Group Number'' in this table and the ``NPDESData Group Number'' column in
  Table 2 to identify the required data elements for each NPDES Data Group.
[dagger][dagger] Note: The applicable reporting frequency is specified in the NPDES permit or control mechanism,
  which may be more frequent than the minimum frequency specified in Table 1.


                                          Table 2--Required NPDES Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   CWA, Regulatory,  or
             Data name                     Data description        policy citation  (40    NPDES Data group No.
                                                                           CFR)                (see table 1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Basic Facility Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Type of Ownership.........  The code/description         122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      identifying the type of
                                      facility (e.g., state
                                      government, municipal or
                                      water district, Federal
                                      facility, tribal
                                      facility). This data
                                      element is used by the EPA
                                      data system to populate
                                      the Permit Facility Type
                                      data element (i.e., POTW,
                                      Private, Non-POTW, and
                                      Federal).
Facility Site Name.................  The name of the facility...  122.21/CWA 301(d),      1 through 9.
                                                                   304(b), and 304(m).
Facility Site Address..............  The address of the physical  122.21/CWA 301(d),      1 through 9.
                                      facility location.           304(b), and 304(m).
Facility Site City.................  The name of the city, town,  122.21/CWA 301(d),      1 through 9.
                                      village, or other            304(b), and 304(m).
                                      locality, when
                                      identifiable, within whose
                                      boundaries (the majority
                                      of) the facility site is
                                      located. This is not
                                      always the same as the
                                      city used for USPS mail
                                      delivery.
Facility Site State................  The U.S. Postal Service      122.21/CWA 301(d),      1 through 9.
                                      (USPS) abbreviation that     304(b), and 304(m).
                                      represents the state or
                                      state equivalent for the
                                      U.S. where the facility is
                                      located.

[[Page 46085]]

 
Facility Site Zip Code.............  The combination of the 5-    122.21/CWA 301(d),      1 through 9.
                                      digit Zone Improvement       304(b), and 304(m).
                                      Plan (ZIP) code and the 4-
                                      digit extension code (if
                                      available) that represents
                                      the geographic segment
                                      that is a sub unit of the
                                      ZIP Code assigned by the
                                      U.S. Postal Service to a
                                      geographic location where
                                      the facility is located.
Facility Site Tribal Land Indicator  The Bureau of Indian         122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      Affairs code for every
                                      unit of land trust
                                      allotment (``tribal
                                      land'') within Indian
                                      Country. This code will
                                      identify whether the
                                      facility is on tribal land
                                      and the name of the
                                      American Indian tribe or
                                      Alaskan Native entity (if
                                      applicable).
Facility Site Longitude............  The measure of the angular   122.21/CWA 301(d),      1 through 9.
                                      distance on a meridian       304(b), and 304(m).
                                      east or west of the prime
                                      meridian for the facility.
                                      Entered in either Decimal
                                      Degrees or in Degrees
                                      Minutes Seconds; stored in
                                      decimal degrees and in
                                      accordance with
                                      Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Facility Site Latitude.............  The measure of the angular   122.21/CWA 301(d),      1 through 9.
                                      distance on a meridian       304(b), and 304(m).
                                      north or south of the
                                      equator for the facility.
                                      Entered in either Decimal
                                      Degrees or in Degrees
                                      Minutes Seconds; stored in
                                      decimal degrees and in
                                      accordance with
                                      Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Facility Site Source Map Scale       The number that represents   EPA National            1 through 9.
 Number.                              the proportional distance    Geospatial Data
                                      on the ground for one unit   Policy--CIO Policy
                                      of measure on the map or     Transmittal 05-002.
                                      photo for the facility.
                                      These data are provided in
                                      accordance with
                                      Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy    The measure of the accuracy  EPA National            1 through 9.
 Measure.                             (in meters) of the           Geospatial Data
                                      facility's latitude and      Policy--CIO Policy
                                      longitude coordinates.       Transmittal 05-002/
                                      These data are provided in   CWA 301(d), 304(b),
                                      accordance with              and 304(m).
                                      Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Facility Site Horizontal Collection  The text that describes the  EPA National            1 through 9.
 Method.                              method used to determine     Geospatial Data
                                      the latitude and longitude   Policy--CIO Policy
                                      coordinates for the          Transmittal 05-002.
                                      facility. These data are
                                      provided in accordance
                                      with Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Facility Site Horizontal Reference   The code/description that    EPA National            1 through 9.
 Datum.                               represents the reference     Geospatial Data
                                      datum used in determining    Policy--CIO Policy
                                      latitude and longitude       Transmittal 05-002.
                                      coordinates for the
                                      facility. These data are
                                      provided in accordance
                                      with Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Facility Site Reference Point......  The code/description for     EPA National            1 through 9.
                                      the place for which          Geospatial Data
                                      geographic coordinates       Policy--CIO Policy
                                      were established. These      Transmittal 05-002.
                                      data are provided in
                                      accordance with
                                      Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Facility Individual Affiliation      The way that the contact or  122.21................  1 through 9.
 Type Code.                           address is affiliated with
                                      the facility (e.g.,
                                      ``Owner,'' ``Operator,''
                                      or ``Main Contact''). This
                                      is a unique code that
                                      identifies the nature of
                                      the individual's
                                      affiliation to the
                                      facility.
Facility Individual First Name.....  The given name of an         122.21/CWA 301(d),      1 through 9.
                                      individual affiliated with   304(b), and 304(m).
                                      this facility.
Facility Individual Last Name......  The surname of an            122.21/CWA 301(d),      1 through 9.
                                      individual affiliated with   304(b), and 304(m).
                                      this facility..
Facility Individual Title..........  The title held by an         122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      individual in an
                                      organization affiliated
                                      with this facility.
Facility Individual Organization...  The legal, formal name of    122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      an organization that is
                                      affiliated with the
                                      individual affiliated with
                                      this facility.
Facility Individual Street Address.  The physical address of the  122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      individual affiliated with
                                      this facility.
Facility Individual City...........  The name of the city, town,  122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      village, or other locality
                                      for the individual
                                      affiliated with this
                                      facility.

[[Page 46086]]

 
Facility Individual State..........  The U.S. Postal Service      122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      (USPS) abbreviation that
                                      represents the state or
                                      state equivalent for the
                                      U.S. for the individual
                                      affiliated with this
                                      facility.
Facility Individual Zip Code.......  The combination of the 5-    122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      digit Zone Improvement
                                      Plan (ZIP) code and the 4-
                                      digit extension code (if
                                      available) that represents
                                      the geographic segment
                                      that is a sub unit of the
                                      ZIP Code assigned by the
                                      U.S. Postal Service to a
                                      geographic location for
                                      the individual affiliated
                                      with this facility.
Facility Individual E-Mail Address.  The e-mail address of the    122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      designated individual
                                      affiliated with this
                                      facility.
Facility Organization Formal Name..  The legal, formal name of    122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      an organization that is
                                      affiliated with the
                                      facility.
Facility Organization Street         The physical address of the  122.21................  1 through 9.
 Address.                             organization affiliated
                                      with the facility.
Facility Organization City.........  The name of the city of the  122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      organization that is
                                      affiliated with the
                                      facility.
Facility Organization State........  The U.S. Postal Service      122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      abbreviation that
                                      represents the state or
                                      state equivalent for the
                                      organization affiliated
                                      with the facility.
Facility Organization Zip Code.....  The combination of the 5-    122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      digit Zone Improvement
                                      Plan (ZIP) code and the 4-
                                      digit extension code (if
                                      available) that represents
                                      the geographic segment
                                      that is a sub unit of the
                                      ZIP Code assigned by the
                                      U.S. Postal Service to a
                                      geographic location for
                                      the organization
                                      affiliated with the
                                      facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Basic Permit Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPDES ID...........................  This is the unique NPDES     CWA 301(d), 304(b),     1 through 9.
                                      permit number.               and 304(m).
Master General Permit Number.......  The unique identifier of     CWA 301(d), 304(b),     1 through 9.
                                      the master general permit,   and 304(m).
                                      which is linked to a
                                      General Permit Covered
                                      Facility.
Permit Type........................  The unique code/description  122.2.................  1 through 9.
                                      identifying the type of
                                      permit.
Permit Issue Date..................  This is the date the permit  122.46/CWA 301(d),      1 through 9.
                                      was issued. The date data    304(b), and 304(m).
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Permit Effective Date..............  This is the date on which    122.46................  1.
                                      the permit is effective.
                                      The date data must be
                                      provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Permit Modification/Amendment Date.  This is the date on which    122.62, 122.63........  1,2.
                                      the permit was modified or
                                      amended. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Permit Expiration Date.............  This is the date the permit  122.46/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      will expire. The date data   304(b), and 304(m).
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Permit Termination Date............  This is the date the permit  122.64................  1.
                                      was terminated. The date
                                      data must be provided in
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Permit Major/Minor Status Indicator  The flag to indicate if the  122.2/CWA 301(d),       1.
                                      permit is a major or         304(b), and 304(m).
                                      minor. Initially system
                                      generated (defaults to
                                      Minor) and updatable only
                                      by EPA OECA Headquarters.
Permit Major/Minor Status Start      The date that the Permit     122.2.................  1.
 Date.                                became its current Major/
                                      Minor status. Initially
                                      system-generated to match
                                      effective date and
                                      updatable only by EPA OECA
                                      Headquarters. The date
                                      data must be provided in
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Permit Application Total Design      This is the flow that a      122.21/CWA 301(d),      1 through 9.
 Flow.                                permitted facility was       304(b), and 304(m).
                                      designed to accommodate,
                                      in millions of gallons per
                                      day (MGD), as stated on
                                      its NPDES application.
Permit Application Total Actual      This is the actual average   122.21,122.41.........  1 through 9.
 Average Flow.                        flow that a permitted
                                      facility will likely
                                      accommodate, in MGD, as
                                      stated on its NPDES
                                      application.

[[Page 46087]]

 
Complete Permit Application/NOI      This is the date on which    122.21................  1.
 Received Date.                       the complete application
                                      for a NPDES permit was
                                      received or a complete
                                      Notice of Intent (NOI) for
                                      coverage under a master
                                      general permit was
                                      received. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Permit Application/NOI Received      This is the date on which    122.21................  1 through 9.
 Date.                                the application for a
                                      NPDES permit was received
                                      or a Notice of Intent
                                      (NOI) for coverage under a
                                      master general permit was
                                      received. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Permit Status......................  This is a code/description   122.64, 122.46........  1.
                                      that indicates whether the
                                      permit is Effective,
                                      Expired, Administratively
                                      Continued, Pending, Not
                                      Needed, Retired, or
                                      Terminated.
Master General Permit Industrial     This code/description        CWA 301(d), 304(b),     1.
 Category.                            identifies the industrial    and 304(m).
                                      category covered by the
                                      master general permit.
                                      This field is system-
                                      required for master
                                      general permits only.
Permit Issuing Organization Type...  This is the type of          122.46................  1.
                                      organization issuing or
                                      granting a permit.
DMR Non-Receipt....................  Turns non-receipt tracking   123.45................  1.
                                      for discharge monitoring
                                      reports (DMRs) ``on'' or
                                      ``off'' for non-major
                                      permits (a.k.a.
                                      ``minors''). This field is
                                      always ``on'' for major
                                      permits. This field is
                                      initially set to ``on''.
Reportable Noncompliance Tracking..  Turns Reportable             123.45................  1.
                                      Noncompliance (RNC)
                                      tracking ``on'' or ``off''
                                      for non-major permits
                                      (a.k.a. ``minors''). This
                                      field is always ``on'' for
                                      major permits. This field
                                      is initially set to ``on''.
Applicable Effluent Limitations      The applicable effluent      122.44/CWA 301(d),      1.
 Guidelines.                          limitations guidelines       304(b), and 304(m).
                                      (e.g., BPT, BCT, BAT) and
                                      new source performance
                                      standards (NSPS) for the
                                      NPDES permit.
Permit Compliance Tracking Status..  This is a code/description   123.45................  1.
                                      that indicates whether the
                                      permit is currently ``on''
                                      or ``off'' for compliance
                                      tracking purposes.
                                      Initially system-generated
                                      to match effective date.
Permit Compliance Tracking Status    This is the date on which    123.45................  1.
 Start Date.                          the permit's ``on'' or
                                      ``off'' period for
                                      compliance tracking status
                                      began. Initially system-
                                      generated to match
                                      effective date. The date
                                      data must be provided in
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
RNC Status Quarter.................  The quarter of the permit    123.45................  1.
                                      RNC status.
RNC Status Year....................  The year of the permit RNC   123.45................  1.
                                      status.
RNC Status (Manual)................  The status of reportable     123.45................  1.
                                      noncompliance as it was
                                      entered by the user before
                                      the official Quarterly
                                      Noncompliance Report
                                      (QNCR) or NPDES
                                      Noncompliance Report
                                      (NNCR) for the RNC quarter
                                      for the permit.
Associated NPDES ID Numbers........  If applicable, the unique    CWA 301(d), 304(b),     1 through 9.
                                      identifier for a NPDES       and 304(m).
                                      Permit that is related to
                                      another NPDES Permit or
                                      other NPDES ID number. For
                                      example, this data element
                                      could be used to identify
                                      the receiving POTW's
                                      permit number for an
                                      industrial user, the
                                      recipient POTW's permit
                                      number for a satellite
                                      collection system,
                                      municipalities covered
                                      under the same MS4 permit,
                                      etc.
SIC Codes..........................  The four-digit Standard      122.21/CWA 301(d),      1 through 9.
                                      Industrial Classification    304(b), and 304(m).
                                      (SIC) code/description
                                      that represents the
                                      economic activity of the
                                      permitted facility.
NAICS Codes........................  The six-digit North          Agency Data Standard    1 through 9.
                                      American Industry            to replace SIC Codes/
                                      Classification System        CWA 301(d), 304(b),
                                      (NAICS) code/description     and 304(m).
                                      that represents the
                                      economic activity of the
                                      permitted facility.
Permittee Street Address...........  The address that describes   122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      the physical location of
                                      the permit holder.
Permittee Organization Formal Name.  The legal, formal name of    122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      the organization that
                                      holds the permit.

[[Page 46088]]

 
Permittee Zip Code.................  The combination of the 5-    122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      digit Zone Improvement
                                      Plan (ZIP) code and the 4-
                                      digit extension code (if
                                      available) that represents
                                      the geographic segment
                                      that is a sub unit of the
                                      ZIP Code assigned by the
                                      U.S. Postal Service to a
                                      geographic location for
                                      the permit holder.
Permittee City.....................  The name of the city, town,  122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      or village where the mail
                                      is delivered for the
                                      permit holder.
Permittee State....................  The U.S. Postal Service      122.21................  1 through 9.
                                      abbreviation that
                                      represents the state or
                                      state equivalent for the
                                      U.S. for the permit holder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Narrative Condition and Permit Schedules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description........................  The unique code/description  122.47................  1 through 9.
                                      that identifies the type
                                      of narrative condition.
Narrative Condition Number.........  This identifies a narrative  122.47................  1 through 9.
                                      condition and its elements
                                      uniquely for a permit.
Schedule Date......................  The date on which a          122.47................  1 through 9.
                                      schedule event is due to
                                      be completed and against
                                      which compliance will be
                                      measured. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Actual Date........................  The date on which the        122.47................  1 through 9.
                                      permittee achieved the
                                      schedule event. The date
                                      data must be provided in
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Report Received Date...............  The date on which the        122.47................  1 through 9.
                                      regulatory authority
                                      receives a report
                                      (generally a letter) from
                                      the permittee indicating
                                      that a Schedule Event was
                                      completed (e.g., Start
                                      Construction) or the
                                      required report was
                                      enclosed. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Event..............................  The code/description         122.47................  1 through 9.
                                      indicating the particular
                                      event with which the
                                      permittee is scheduled to
                                      comply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Permitted Feature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Design Flow (MGD)......  The flow that a permitted    122.21/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      feature was designed to      304(b), and 304(m).
                                      accommodate, in MGD.
Application Actual Average Flow      The flow that a permitted    122.21/CWA 301(d),      1.
 (MGD).                               feature actually had at      304(b), and 304(m).
                                      the time of application,
                                      in MGD.
Permitted Feature ID...............  The identifier assigned for  122.21/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      each location at which       304(b), and 304(m).
                                      conditions are being
                                      applied.
Type...............................  The code/description         122.21/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      indicating the type of       304(b), 304(m),
                                      permitted feature (e.g.      316(b).
                                      External Outfall, Sum,
                                      Intake Structure).
Receiving Waterbody Name for         The name of the waterbody    122.21................  1.
 Permitted Feature.                   that is or will likely
                                      receive the discharge from
                                      each permitted feature.
Permitted Feature Longitude........  The measure of the angular   122.21/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      distance on a meridian       304(b), and 304(m).
                                      east or west of the prime
                                      meridian for the permitted
                                      feature. Entered in either
                                      Decimal Degrees or in
                                      Degrees Minutes Seconds;
                                      stored in decimal degrees
                                      and in accordance with
                                      Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Permitted Feature Latitude.........  The measure of the angular   122.21/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      distance on a meridian       304(b), and 304(m).
                                      north or south of the
                                      equator for the permitted
                                      feature. Entered in either
                                      Decimal Degrees or in
                                      Degrees Minutes Seconds;
                                      stored in decimal degrees
                                      and in accordance with
                                      Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Permitted Feature Source Map Scale   The number that represents   EPA National            1.
 Number.                              the proportional distance    Geospatial Data
                                      on the ground for one unit   Policy--CIO Policy
                                      of measure on the map or     Transmittal 05-002.
                                      photo for the permitted
                                      feature. These data are
                                      provided in accordance
                                      with Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.

[[Page 46089]]

 
Permitted Feature Horizontal         The measure of the accuracy  EPA National            1.
 Accuracy Measure.                    (in meters) of the           Geospatial Data
                                      permitted feature's          Policy--CIO Policy
                                      latitude and longitude       Transmittal 05-002/
                                      coordinates. These data      CWA 301(d), 304(b),
                                      are provided in accordance   and 304(m).
                                      with Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Permitted Feature Horizontal         The text that describes the  EPA National            1.
 Collection Method.                   method used to determine     Geospatial Data
                                      the latitude and longitude   Policy--CIO Policy
                                      coordinates for the          Transmittal 05-002.
                                      permitted feature. These
                                      data are provided in
                                      accordance with
                                      Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Permitted Feature Horizontal         The code/description that    EPA National            1.
 Reference Datum.                     represents the reference     Geospatial Data
                                      datum used in determining    Policy--CIO Policy
                                      latitude and longitude       Transmittal 05-002.
                                      coordinates for the
                                      permitted feature. These
                                      data are provided in
                                      accordance with
                                      Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Permitted Feature Reference Point..  The code/description for     EPA National            1.
                                      the place for which          Geospatial Data
                                      geographic coordinates       Policy--CIO Policy
                                      were established. These      Transmittal 05-002.
                                      data are provided in
                                      accordance with
                                      Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Limit Set
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit Set Designator...............  The alphanumeric field that  122.45/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      is used to designate a       304(b), and 304(m).
                                      particular grouping of
                                      parameters within a limit
                                      set.
Type...............................  The unique code/description  122.45................  1.
                                      identifying the type of
                                      limit set (i.e. Scheduled,
                                      Unscheduled).
Default Months Limit Set Applies...  The default months that the  122.45................  1.
                                      limit set applies.
                                      Defaults to all 12 months.
Initial Monitoring Date............  The date on which            122.45................  1.
                                      monitoring starts for the
                                      first monitoring period
                                      for the limit set; this
                                      date will be blank for
                                      Unscheduled Limit Sets.
                                      The date data must be
                                      provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Initial DMR Due Date...............  The date that the first DMR  122.45................  1.
                                      for the limit set is due
                                      to the regulatory
                                      authority; this date will
                                      be blank for Unscheduled
                                      Limit Sets. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Number of Report Units.............  The number of months         122.45/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      covered in each DMR          304(b), and 304(m).
                                      monitoring period (e.g.,
                                      monthly = 1, semi-annually
                                      = 6, quarterly = 3). For
                                      example, if the permittee
                                      was required to provide
                                      reports for each month,
                                      the number of report units
                                      would be one.
Number of Submission Units.........  The number of months         122.45................  1.
                                      between DMR submissions
                                      (e.g., monthly = 1, semi-
                                      annually = 6, quarterly =
                                      3); this data element will
                                      be blank for Unscheduled
                                      Limit Sets. For example,
                                      if the permittee was
                                      required to submit monthly
                                      reports every quarter, the
                                      number of report units
                                      would be one (=monthly)
                                      and the number of
                                      submission units would be
                                      three (=three months of
                                      information in each
                                      submission).
Status.............................  The status of the Limit Set  122 Subpart C.........  1.
                                      (i.e., Active or
                                      Inactive); Limit Sets will
                                      not have violations
                                      generated when a Limit Set
                                      is Inactive unless an
                                      Enforcement Action Limit
                                      is present.
Limit Set Status Start Date........  The date that the Limit Set  123.45................  1.
                                      Status started. The date
                                      data must be provided in
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring Location................  The code/description of the  122.45/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      monitoring location at       304(b), and 304(m).
                                      which sampling should
                                      occur for a limit
                                      parameter.

[[Page 46090]]

 
Season Number......................  Indicates the season of a    122.45/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      limit and is used to enter   304(b), and 304(m).
                                      different seasonal limits
                                      for the same parameter
                                      within a single limit
                                      start and end date.
Start Date.........................  The date on which a limit    122.45/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      starts being in effect for   304(b), and 304(m).
                                      a particular parameter in
                                      a limit set. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
End Date...........................  The date on which a limit    122.45/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      stops being in effect for    304(b), and 304(m).
                                      a particular parameter in
                                      a limit set. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Change of Limit Status Indicator...  The code/description that    122 Subpart C.........  1.
                                      describes circumstances
                                      affecting limits, such as
                                      formal enforcement actions
                                      or permit modifications.
Stay Type..........................  The unique identifier of     122.45/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      the type of stay applied     304(b), and 304(m).
                                      to a limit (e.g., X, Y,
                                      Z), which indicates
                                      whether the limits do not
                                      appear on the DMR at all,
                                      are treated as monitor
                                      only, or have a stay value
                                      in effect during the
                                      period of the stay.
Stay Start Date....................  The date on which a limit    124.19................  1.
                                      stay begins. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Stay End Date......................  The date on which a limit    124.19................  1.
                                      stay is lifted. The date
                                      data must be provided in
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Reason for Stay....................  The text that represents     124.19................  1.
                                      the reason a stay was
                                      applied to a permit.
Stay Limit Value...................  The numeric limit value      124.19................  1.
                                      imposed during the period
                                      of the stay for the limit;
                                      if entered, during the
                                      stay period, the system
                                      will use this limit value
                                      for calculating
                                      compliance, rather than
                                      the actual limit value
                                      that was stayed.
Limit Type.........................  The code that indicates      122.45................  1.
                                      whether a limit is an
                                      enforceable, or alert
                                      limit (e.g., action level,
                                      benchmark) that does not
                                      receive effluent
                                      violations.
Enforcement Action ID..............  The unique identifier for    122.45................  1.
                                      the Enforcement Action
                                      that imposed the
                                      Enforcement Action limit;
                                      this data element helps
                                      tie the limit record to
                                      the Final Order record in
                                      the database.
Final Order ID.....................  The unique identifier for    122.45................  1.
                                      the Final Order that
                                      imposed the Enforcement
                                      Action limit; this data
                                      element ties the limit
                                      record to the Final Order
                                      record in the database.
Modification Effective Date........  The effective date of the    122.62................  1.
                                      permit modification that
                                      created this limit. The
                                      date data must be provided
                                      in CCYY-MM-DD format where
                                      CC is the century, YY is
                                      the year, MM is the month
                                      and DD is the day.
Modification Type..................  The type of permit           122.62................  1.
                                      modification that created
                                      this limit (e.g. major,
                                      minor, permit authorized
                                      change).
Parameter..........................  The unique code/description  122.41(j)/CWA 301(d),   1.
                                      identifying the parameter    304(b), and 304(m).
                                      being limited and/or
                                      monitored.
Months.............................  The months that the limit    122.46/CWA 301(d),      1.
                                      applies. Defaults to limit   304(b), and 304(m).
                                      set months.
Value Type.........................  The indication of the limit  122.45(f)/CWA 301(d),   1.
                                      value type (e.g., Quantity   304(b), and 304(m).
                                      1, Concentration 2).
Quantity Units/Concentration Units.  The code/description         122.45(f)/CWA 301(d),   1.
                                      representing the unit of     304(b), and 304(m).
                                      measure applicable to
                                      quantity or concentration
                                      limits as entered by the
                                      user.
Statistical Base Code..............  The code/description         122.45(d), CWA 301(d),  1.
                                      representing the unit of     304(b), and 304(m).
                                      measure applicable to the
                                      limit and DMR values
                                      entered by the user (e.g.,
                                      30-day average, daily
                                      maximum) CHECK DATA
                                      STANDARD.
Optional Monitoring Flag...........  The flag allowing users to   122.45................  1.
                                      indicate that monitoring
                                      is optional but not
                                      required (i.e., effluent
                                      violation generation will
                                      be suppressed for optional
                                      monitoring).

[[Page 46091]]

 
Qualifier..........................  The unique code identifying  122.45................  1.
                                      the limit value operator
                                      (e.g., <, =, >).
Value..............................  The actual limit value       122.45, CWA 301(d),     1.
                                      number from the Permit or    304(b), and 304(m).
                                      Enforcement Action Final
                                      Order.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Biosolids Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual Dry Biosolids         The average annual amount    122.21(q).............  1,2.
 Production.                          of biosolids (in dry
                                      metric tons) produced by
                                      the permitted facility.
Average Annual Amount of             The average annual amount    122.21(q)(8)(v).......  1,2.
 Exceptional Quality (EQ) Product     (in dry metric tons) of
 Distributed and Marketed.            Exceptional Quality (EQ)
                                      biosolids product
                                      distributed and marketed.
                                      This refers to biosolids
                                      that meet the ceiling
                                      concentrations in Table 1
                                      of 40 CFR 503.13 and the
                                      pollutant concentrations
                                      in Table 3 of Sec.
                                      503.13; the Class A
                                      pathogen requirements in
                                      Sec.   503.32(a); and one
                                      of the vector attraction
                                      reduction requirements in
                                      Sec.   503.33(b)(1)
                                      through (b)(8).
Average Annual Amount of Land        The average annual amount    122.21(q).............  1,2.
 Applied Biosolids.                   (in dry metric tons) of
                                      biosolids land applied.
Average Annual Amount of             The average annual amount    122.21(q).............  1,2.
 Incinerated Biosolids.               (in dry metric tons) of
                                      biosolids incinerated.
Average Annual Amount of Biosolids   The average annual amount    122.21(q).............  1,2.
 Co-Disposed in MSW.                  (in dry metric tons) of
                                      biosolids co-disposed in a
                                      municipal solids waste
                                      (MSW) landfill.
Average Annual Amount of Biosolids   The average annual amount    122.21(q).............  1,2.
 Surface Disposal.                    (in dry metric tons) of
                                      biosolids used for surface
                                      disposal.
Average Annual Amount of Biosolids   The average annual amount    122.21(q).............  1,2.
 Otherwise Managed.                   (in dry metric tons) of
                                      biosolids managed using
                                      methods not otherwise
                                      described. For example, if
                                      a POTW sends its biosolids
                                      to a regional composter or
                                      heat dryer, that tonnage
                                      would included in this
                                      data element.
Biosolids Management Facility Type.  The unique code indicating   122.21(q).............  1,2.
                                      whether the facility was
                                      issued a permit as a
                                      biosolids generator,
                                      processor, or end user
                                      disposal site.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Animal Feeding Operation Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility CAFO Flag.................  A binary ``yes/no'' flag to  122.23................  1,2.
                                      indicate whether the
                                      facility is a Concentrated
                                      Animal Feeding Operation
                                      (CAFO).
Facility Animal Types..............  The unique code/description  122.23................  1,2.
                                      that identifies the animal
                                      sector(s) at the facility.
Facility Annual Average Total        The annual average total     122.23................  1,2.
 Number.                              number of each type of
                                      livestock at the facility.
Facility Annual Average Total        The annual average total     122.23................  1,2.
 Number (Unhoused Confinement).       number of each type of
                                      livestock at the facility
                                      in unhoused confinement.
                                      This is the number of
                                      animals, by type, in open
                                      confinement that are held
                                      at the facility for a
                                      total of 45 days or more
                                      on an annual basis.
Permit/NOI CAFO Waste Type.........  The type of CAFO waste       122.23................  1,2.
                                      described (i.e., manure,
                                      litter, process
                                      wastewater).
Permit/NOI Status of the CAFO Waste  The status of the CAFO       122.23................  1,2.
                                      waste described (i.e.,
                                      generated, or generated
                                      and transferred).
Permit/NOI 12-Month Amount of CAFO   The total amount of each     122.23................  1,2.
 Waste.                               CAFO waste (i.e., manure,
                                      litter, or process
                                      wastewater) (in tons) with
                                      that status (i.e.,
                                      generated, or generated
                                      and transferred) from this
                                      facility in the previous
                                      12 months.
Total Number of Acres for Land       Total number of acres (to    122.23................  1,2.
 Application Covered by the           the nearest quarter acre)
 Nutrient Management Plan.            for land application
                                      covered by the nutrient
                                      management plan in the
                                      previous 12 months.
Facility Manure Containment or       The unique code/description  122.23................  1,2.
 Storage Containment Type Code.       for the type(s) of manure
                                      containment and storage
                                      used by the operation.
Facility Manure Annual Average       The annual average total     122.23................  1,2.
 Total Capacity.                      capacity (in gallons) of
                                      manure containment and
                                      storage structure(s).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46092]]

 
 Construction and Industrial Stormwater Information (from the permitting authority derived from the NPDES Permit
                                    Application, Notice of Intent, or Waiver)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit Required by Residual          The permit writer may        CWA Section             1.
 Designation.                         designate additional         402(p)(2)(E) and (6),
                                      stormwater discharges as     122.26 (a)(9)(i)(D).
                                      requiring NPDES permits
                                      when the stormwater
                                      discharge, or category of
                                      stormwater discharges
                                      within a geographic area,
                                      contributes to a violation
                                      of a water quality
                                      standard. This data
                                      element identifies whether
                                      the permit writer is using
                                      this authority, commonly
                                      referred to as the
                                      ``Residual Designation''
                                      authority, to regulate
                                      stormwater discharges
                                      through a NPDES permit.
Residual Designation Determination   The date when the permit     CWA Section             1.
 Date.                                writer made the              402(p)(2)(E) and (6),
                                      designation that             122.26 (a)(9)(i)(D).
                                      stormwater discharges, or
                                      category of discharges
                                      within a geographic area,
                                      contributes to a violation
                                      of a water quality
                                      standard. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
No Exposure Certification Approval   This is the date on which    122.26(g).............  1.
 Date.                                the No Exposure
                                      Certification (NEC) was
                                      authorized by the NPDES
                                      permitting authority.
                                      Submission of a No
                                      Exposure Certification
                                      means that the facility
                                      does not require NPDES
                                      permit authorization for
                                      its stormwater discharges
                                      due to the existence of a
                                      condition of ``no
                                      exposure.'' A condition of
                                      no exposure exists at an
                                      industrial facility when
                                      all industrial materials
                                      and activities are
                                      protected by a storm
                                      resistant shelter to
                                      prevent exposure to rain,
                                      snow, snowmelt, and/or
                                      runoff. This date would be
                                      provided by the permitting
                                      authority. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Low Erosivity Waiver Approval Date.  The NPDES Stormwater Phase   122.26(b)(15),          1.
                                      II Rule allows NPDES        122.26(c)(1)(ii)......
                                      permitting authorities to
                                      accept ``low erosivity
                                      waivers'' (LEWs) for small
                                      construction sites. The
                                      waiver process exempts
                                      small construction sites
                                      (disturbing under five
                                      acres) from NPDES
                                      permitting requirements
                                      when the construction
                                      activity takes place
                                      during a relatively short
                                      time in arid or semi-arid
                                      areas. There is a similar
                                      waiver process for
                                      stormwater discharges
                                      associated with industrial
                                      activity [see
                                      122.26(c)(1)(ii)]. This is
                                      the date when the
                                      permitting authority
                                      granted such waivers,
                                      based on information from
                                      the waiver submitter; this
                                      date would be provided by
                                      the permitting authority.
                                      The date data must be
                                      provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Construction and Industrial Stormwater Information on NPDES Permit Application, Notice of Intent, or Waiver
                                                     Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Area of the Site.............  This is the total area (to   122.26................  1,2.
                                      the nearest quarter acre)
                                      of the facility site.
Total Activity Area................  Total area (to the nearest   122.26................  1,2.
                                      quarter acre) of the
                                      facility that contains
                                      industrial activities and
                                      processes and construction
                                      activities. These
                                      activities and processes
                                      may include (but is not
                                      limited to) using, storing
                                      or cleaning industrial
                                      machinery or equipment,
                                      and areas where residuals
                                      from using, storing or
                                      cleaning industrial
                                      machinery or equipment
                                      remain and are exposed to
                                      stormwater; materials or
                                      products stored outdoors;
                                      materials contained in
                                      open, deteriorated or
                                      leaking storage drums,
                                      barrels, tanks, and
                                      similar containers; and
                                      materials or products from
                                      past industrial activity.
                                      Construction activities
                                      include excavation of
                                      lands.
Current Total Imperious Area.......  The current total            122.26(b)(15),          1,2.
                                      impervious area (to the      122.26(c)(1)(i)(B),
                                      nearest quarter acre) of     122.26(c)(1)(ii)(E).
                                      the facility or site.

[[Page 46093]]

 
Post-Construction Total Impervious   Total impervious area (to    122.26(b)(15),          1,2.
 Area.                                the nearest quarter acre)    122.26(c)(1)(i)(B),
                                      of the permitted facility    122.26(c)(1)(ii)(E).
                                      impervious area after the
                                      construction addressed in
                                      the permit application is
                                      completed.
Proposed Best Management Practices   This is a text field that    122.26(b)(15),          1,2.
 for Industrial Activities and        describes the proposed       122.26(c)(1)(i)(B),
 Stormwater.                          measures, including best     122.26(c)(1)(ii)(C).
                                      management practices, to
                                      control pollutants in
                                      storm water discharges
                                      during construction,
                                      including a brief
                                      description of applicable
                                      State and local erosion
                                      and sediment control
                                      requirements.
Post-Construction Best Management    This is a text field that    122.26(b)(15),          1,2.
 Practices for Industrial             describes the proposed       122.26(c)(1)(i)(B),
 Activities and Stormwater            measures to control          122.26(c)(1)(ii)(D).
 Discharges.                          pollutants in storm water
                                      discharges that will occur
                                      after construction
                                      operations have been
                                      completed, including a
                                      brief description of
                                      applicable State or local
                                      erosion and sediment
                                      control requirements. This
                                      field also describes the
                                      nature of fill material
                                      and existing data
                                      describing soils.
Soil and Fill Material Description.  This field describes the     122.26(b)(15),          1,2.
                                      nature of fill material      122.26(c)(1)(i)(B),
                                      and existing data            122.26(c)(1)(ii)(E).
                                      describing soils.
Runoff Coefficient of the Site.....  This is an estimate of the   122.26(b)(15),          1,2.
                                      runoff coefficient of the    122.26(c)(1)(ii)(E).
                                      site after the
                                      construction addressed in
                                      the permit application is
                                      completed.
Estimated Construction Project       The estimated start date     122.26................  1,2.
 Start Date.                          for the construction
                                      project covered by the
                                      NPDES permit. The date
                                      data must be provided in
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Estimated Construction Project End   The estimated end date for   122.26................  1,2.
 Date.                                the construction project
                                      covered by the NPDES
                                      permit. The date data must
                                      be provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS4 Permit Class...................  This is the code/            122.26................  1,2.
                                      description that
                                      identifies the size of the
                                      MS4 permit holder (small/
                                      medium/large).
MS4 Public Education Program.......  The unique code/description  122.34(b)(1),           1,2.
                                      that identifies the public   122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      education programs the
                                      permittee intends to use
                                      to distribute educational
                                      materials to the community.
MS4 Measurable Goals Associated      The unique code/description  122.34(d)(1)(ii)......  1,2.
 With Public Education Program.       that identifies the types
                                      of measurable goals
                                      associated with the public
                                      education programs.
MS4 Public Involvement and           The unique code/description  122.34(b)(2),           1,2.
 Participation Program.               that identifies the public   122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      involvement and
                                      participation programs the
                                      permittee intend to use to
                                      distribute educational
                                      materials to the community.
MS4 Measurable Goals for the Public  The unique code/description  122.34(d)(1)(ii)......  1,2.
 Involvement and Participation        that identifies the types
 Program.                             of measurable goals
                                      associated with the public
                                      involvement and
                                      participation programs.
MS4 System Map.....................  A data flag indicating       122.34(b)(3)(ii)(A),    1,2.
                                      whether the permittee has    122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      developed a storm sewer
                                      system map showing the
                                      location of all outfalls
                                      and names and locations of
                                      all waters of the U.S.
                                      that receive discharges
                                      from those outfalls.
MS4 Prohibition Enforcement........  The unique code/description  122.34(b)(3)(ii)(B),    1,2.
                                      that identifies the          122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      procedures and actions the
                                      permittee will take to
                                      enforce the prohibition on
                                      non-stormwater discharges
                                      to the MS4.
MS4 Detecting Non-Stormwater         The unique code/description  122.34(b)(3)(ii)(C),    1,2.
 Discharges.                          that identifies the          122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      procedures and actions the
                                      permittee will take to
                                      detect and address non-
                                      stormwater discharges,
                                      including illegal dumping,
                                      to permittee's system.
MS4 Public Education: Illegal        The unique code/description  122.34(b)(3)(ii)(D),    1,2.
 Discharges.                          that identifies the          122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      procedures and actions the
                                      permittee will take to
                                      inform public employees,
                                      businesses and the general
                                      public of hazards
                                      associated with illegal
                                      discharges and improper
                                      disposal of waste.

[[Page 46094]]

 
MS4 Construction Runoff Ordinance..  The unique code/description  122.34(b)(4)(ii)(A),    1,2.
                                      that identifies the          122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      permittee's ordinance or
                                      other regulatory
                                      mechanism, including
                                      sanctions to ensure
                                      compliance, to require
                                      erosion and sediment
                                      controls.
MS4 Erosion and Sediment Controls..  The unique code/description  122.34(b)(4)(ii)(B),    1,2.
                                      that identifies the          122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      permittee's requirements
                                      for construction site
                                      operators to implement
                                      appropriate erosion and
                                      sediment control BMPs.
MS4 Construction Site Waste........  The unique code/description  122.34(b)(4)(ii)(C),    1,2.
                                      that identifies the          122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      permittee's requirements
                                      for construction site
                                      operators to control waste
                                      such as discarded building
                                      materials, concrete truck
                                      washout, chemicals,
                                      litter, and sanitary waste
                                      at the construction site
                                      that may cause adverse
                                      impacts to water quality.
MS4 Construction Site Review.......  The unique code/description  122.34(b)(4)(ii)(D),    1,2.
                                      that identifies the          122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      permittee's procedures for
                                      site plan review which
                                      incorporate consideration
                                      of potential water quality
                                      impacts.
MS4 Public Information.............  The unique code/description  122.34(b)(4)(ii)(E),    1,2.
                                      that identifies the          122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      permittee's procedures for
                                      receipt and consideration
                                      of information submitted
                                      by the public.
MS4 Site Inspections And             The unique code/description  122.34(b)(4)(ii)(F),    1,2.
 Enforcement.                         that identifies the          122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      permittee's procedures for
                                      site inspection and
                                      enforcement of control
                                      measures.
MS4 Controls For Stormwater From     The unique code/description  122.34(b)(5)(ii)(A),    1,2.
 New Development And Redevelopment.   that identifies the          122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      combination of structural
                                      and/or non-structural best
                                      management practices
                                      (BMPs), which the
                                      permittee is using to
                                      address stormwater runoff
                                      from new development and
                                      redevelopment projects
                                      that disturb greater than
                                      or equal to one acre.
MS4 Stormwater Ordinance For New     The unique code/description  122.34(b)(5)(ii)(B),    1,2.
 Development And Redevelopment.       that identifies the          122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      permittee's ordinance or
                                      other regulatory mechanism
                                      to address post-
                                      construction runoff from
                                      new development and
                                      redevelopment projects.
MS4 Maintenance Of BMPs............  The unique code/description  122.34(b)(5)(ii)(C),    1,2.
                                      that identifies the          122.34(d)(1)(i).
                                      permittee's program to
                                      ensure adequate long-term
                                      operation and maintenance
                                      of BMPs used for
                                      controlling runoff from
                                      new development and
                                      development projects.
MS4 Runoff From Municipal            The unique code/description  122.34(b)(6)(i),        1,2.
 Operations.                          that identifies the         122.34(d)(1)(i).......
                                      permittee's operation and
                                      maintenance program that
                                      includes a training
                                      component and has the
                                      ultimate goal of
                                      preventing or reducing
                                      pollutant runoff from
                                      municipal operations.
MS4 Additional Measures............  The unique code/description  122.34(b), 122.34(d)..  1,2.
                                      that identifies the any
                                      other additional measures
                                      in the permittee's
                                      stormwater management
                                      program that is required
                                      by the permit.
MS4 Measurable Goals for Additional  The unique code/description  122.34(b)(1),           1,2.
 Measures.                            that identifies the          122.34(d).
                                      measurable goal for each
                                      of the programs or BMPs to
                                      address stormwater
                                      including, as appropriate,
                                      the months and years in
                                      which the permittee will
                                      undertake required
                                      actions, including interim
                                      milestones and the
                                      frequency of the action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Collection System Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Collection System..........  This is the name of each     122.1(b) and            1,2.
                                      collection system (by        122.21(j)(1)(iv).
                                      municipality or area)
                                      providing flow to the
                                      permittee. This includes
                                      unincorporated connector
                                      districts.
Owner Name of Collection System....  This is the owner name of    122.1(b) and            1,2.
                                      each collection system (by   122.21(j)(1)(iv).
                                      municipality or area)
                                      providing flow to the
                                      permittee. This includes
                                      unincorporated connector
                                      districts.
Owner Type of Collection System....  This is the ownership type   122.1(b) and            1,2.
                                      of each collection system    122.21(j)(1)(iv).
                                      (including municipality
                                      owned, privately owned).
                                      This includes
                                      unincorporated connector
                                      districts.
Permit Number for Collection System  This is the NPDES permit     122.1(b) and            1,2.
                                      number (if applicable) of    122.21(j)(1)(iv).
                                      each collection system (by
                                      municipality or area)
                                      providing flow to the
                                      permittee. This includes
                                      unincorporated connector
                                      districts.

[[Page 46095]]

 
Population of Collection System....  This is the population       122.1(b) and            1,2.
                                      served for each collection   122.21(j)(1)(iv).
                                      system (by municipality or
                                      area) that provides flow
                                      to the permittee. This
                                      includes unincorporated
                                      connector districts.
Percentage of Collection System      This is the percentage of    122.1(b) and            1,2.
 That Is a Combined Sewer System.     the collection system, for   122.21(j)(1)(iv) and
                                      each collection system (by   (vii).
                                      municipality or area),
                                      that is a combined sewer
                                      system. This includes
                                      unincorporated connector
                                      districts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Combined Sewer System Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete and Implement a Long-Term   All Phase II and post-Phase  CWA 402(q)(1).........  1,2.
 CSO Control Plan.                    II combined sewer system
                                      NPDES permittees are
                                      required to complete and
                                      implement a long-term CSO
                                      control plan as described
                                      in EPA's Combined Sewer
                                      Overflow (CSO) Control
                                      Policy (19 April 1994; 59
                                      Federal Register 18688-
                                      18698). This data element
                                      identifies whether the
                                      permit requires the permit
                                      holder to complete and
                                      implement a long-term CSO
                                      control plan and whether
                                      the permit holder is in
                                      compliance with this
                                      permit language.
Nine Minimum CSO Controls Developed  All combined sewer system    CWA 402(q)(1).........  1,2.
                                      NPDES permittees are
                                      required to implement the
                                      nine minimum controls
                                      outlined in EPA's Combined
                                      Sewer Overflow (CSO)
                                      Control Policy (19 April
                                      1994; 59 Federal Register
                                      18688-18698). This data
                                      element identifies whether
                                      the permit holder
                                      developed the nine minimum
                                      controls in compliance
                                      with permit language.
Nine Minimum CSO Controls            All combined sewer system    CWA 402(q)(1).........  1,2.
 Implemented.                         NPDES permittees are
                                      required to implement the
                                      nine minimum controls
                                      outlined in EPA's Combined
                                      Sewer Overflow (CSO)
                                      Control Policy (19 April
                                      1994; 59 Federal Register
                                      18688-18698). This data
                                      element identifies whether
                                      the permit holder
                                      implemented the nine
                                      minimum controls in
                                      compliance with permit
                                      language.
Enforcement Mechanism for the LTCP.  All Phase II and post-Phase  CWA 402(q)(1).........  1,2.
                                      II combined sewer system
                                      NPDES permittees are
                                      required to complete and
                                      implement a long-term CSO
                                      control plan as described
                                      in EPA's Combined Sewer
                                      Overflow (CSO) Control
                                      Policy (19 April 1994; 59
                                      Federal Register 18688-
                                      18698). This data element
                                      identifies the type of
                                      enforcement mechanism used
                                      to require the development
                                      and implementation of a
                                      LTCP.
LTCP Submitted.....................  All Phase II and post-Phase  CWA 402(q)(1).........  1,2.
                                      II combined sewer system
                                      NPDES permittees are
                                      required to complete and
                                      implement a long-term CSO
                                      control plan as described
                                      in EPA's Combined Sewer
                                      Overflow (CSO) Control
                                      Policy (19 April 1994; 59
                                      Federal Register 18688-
                                      18698). This data element
                                      identifies whether the
                                      permit holder submitted
                                      the LTCP for approval by
                                      the permitting authority.
LTCP Approved......................  All Phase II and post-Phase  CWA 402(q)(1).........  1,2.
                                      II combined sewer system
                                      NPDES permittees are
                                      required to complete and
                                      implement a long-term CSO
                                      control plan as described
                                      in EPA's Combined Sewer
                                      Overflow (CSO) Control
                                      Policy (19 April 1994; 59
                                      Federal Register 18688-
                                      18698). This data element
                                      identifies whether the
                                      LTCP submitted by the
                                      permit holder was approved
                                      by the permitting
                                      authority.
LTCP Approval Date.................  All Phase II and post-Phase  CWA 402(q)(1).........  1,2.
                                      II combined sewer system
                                      NPDES permittees are
                                      required to complete and
                                      implement a long-term CSO
                                      control plan as described
                                      in EPA's Combined Sewer
                                      Overflow (CSO) Control
                                      Policy (19 April 1994; 59
                                      Federal Register 18688-
                                      18698). This data element
                                      identifies the date when
                                      the permitting authority
                                      approved the LTCP. The
                                      date data must be provided
                                      in CCYY-MM-DD format where
                                      CC is the century, YY is
                                      the year, MM is the month
                                      and DD is the day.

[[Page 46096]]

 
Actual Date Completed LTCP and CSO   All Phase II and post-Phase  CWA 402(q)(1).........  1,2.
 Controls.                            II combined sewer system
                                      NPDES permittees are
                                      required to complete and
                                      implement a long-term CSO
                                      control plan as described
                                      in EPA's Combined Sewer
                                      Overflow (CSO) Control
                                      Policy (19 April 1994; 59
                                      Federal Register 18688-
                                      18698). This data element
                                      identifies the date by
                                      which the permit holder
                                      completed all required
                                      LTCP and CSO controls. The
                                      date data must be provided
                                      in CCYY-MM-DD format where
                                      CC is the century, YY is
                                      the year, MM is the month
                                      and DD is the day.
Enforceable Schedule to Complete     All Phase II and post-Phase  CWA 402(q)(1).........  1,2.
 LTCP and CSO Controls.               II combined sewer system
                                      NPDES permittees are
                                      required to complete and
                                      implement a long-term CSO
                                      control plan as described
                                      in EPA's Combined Sewer
                                      Overflow (CSO) Control
                                      Policy (19 April 1994; 59
                                      Federal Register 18688-
                                      18698). This data element
                                      identifies whether the
                                      permit holder is on an
                                      enforceable schedule to
                                      complete all required LTCP
                                      and CSO controls.
Other CSO Control Measures with      This data element            CWA 402(q)(1).........  1,2.
 Compliance Schedule.                 identifies whether the
                                      permit holder has other
                                      CSO control measures
                                      specified in a compliance
                                      schedule, beyond those
                                      identified in the nine
                                      minimum controls, LTCP, or
                                      a plan for sewer system
                                      separation.
Approved Post-Construction           This data element indicates  CWA 402(q)(1).........  1,2.
 Compliance Monitoring Program.       whether the permit holder
                                      is currently operating
                                      under an approved post-
                                      construction compliance
                                      monitoring program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Pretreatment Information on NPDES Permit Application, Notice of Intent, (or Pretreatment Compliance Audit or
Inspection) (this includes permit application data required for all new and existing POTWs (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment Program Required        The code/description         122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
 Indicator.                           indicating if the            122.44(j).
                                      permitted municipality is
                                      required to develop a
                                      pretreatment program.
Pretreatment Program Approved Date.  The date the pretreatment    122.44(j), 403.8(a)...  1,2.
                                      program was approved. The
                                      date data must be provided
                                      in CCYY-MM-DD format where
                                      CC is the century, YY is
                                      the year, MM is the month
                                      and DD is the day.
Approval Authority Name............  The name of the agency that  122.44(j), 403.8(a)...  1,2.
                                      is the designated approval
                                      authority.
Program Modification Date for        EPA's Pretreatment           403.7(h);               1,2.
 Required Pretreatment Streamlining   Streamlining Rule (14        403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(6
 Changes.                             October 2005; 70 Federal     ); 403.8(f)(2)(vi);
                                      Register 60134-60198)        403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A-C
                                      revised several provisions   ); 403.12(b), (e),
                                      of the General               (h);
                                      Pretreatment Regulations     403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(3
                                      (40 CFR part 403). In        ); 403.12(o);
                                      particular, the              403.12(g)(2);
                                      Pretreatment Streamlining    403.12(g)(3), (4),
                                      Rule made 13 more            (6); 403.12(g)(3);
                                      stringent changes to the     403.12(j); 403.12(m).
                                      General Pretreatment
                                      provisions (40 CFR part
                                      403). The rule requires
                                      that EPA and state NPDES
                                      permitting authorities
                                      revise NPDES permits and
                                      approved pretreatment
                                      program authorizations to
                                      require implementation of
                                      these 13 more stringent
                                      changes. This is the date
                                      when the Control Authority
                                      adopted the required 13
                                      changes from the
                                      Pretreatment Streamlining
                                      Rule. The date data must
                                      be provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Program Modification Date for        EPA's Pretreatment           403.8(f)(2)(v) and      1,2.
 Optional Pretreatment Streamlining   Streamlining Rule (14        403.12(e)(2);
 Changes.                             October 2005; 70 Federal     403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A);
                                      Register 60134-60198)        403.3(e),
                                      revised several provisions   403.5(c)(4),
                                      of the General               403.8(f), 403.12(b),
                                      Pretreatment Regulations     (e), and (h); 40 CFR
                                      (40 CFR part 403). In        403.3(v)(2),
                                      particular, the              403.8(f)(2)(v)(B),
                                      Pretreatment Streamlining    403.8(f)(6),
                                      Rule made 7 changes to the   403.12(e)(1),
                                      General Pretreatment         403.12(g), (i), and
                                      provisions (40 CFR part      (q); 40 CFR
                                      403) that provide more       403.8(f)(2)(v)(C),
                                      flexibility. The rule give   403.12(e)(3), and
                                      EPA and state NPDES          403.12(i);
                                      permitting authorities the   403.6(c)(6);
                                      option to revise NPDES       403.6(c)(5).
                                      permits and approved
                                      pretreatment program
                                      authorizations for these 7
                                      changes. This is the date
                                      when the Control Authority
                                      adopted the optional 7
                                      changes from the
                                      Pretreatment Streamlining
                                      Rule. The date data must
                                      be provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.

[[Page 46097]]

 
Program Modification Type for        EPA's Pretreatment           Same as preceding data  1,2.
 Optional Pretreatment Streamlining   Streamlining Rule (14        element..
 Changes.                             October 2005; 70 Federal
                                      Register 60134-60198)
                                      revised several provisions
                                      of the General
                                      Pretreatment Regulations
                                      (40 CFR part 403). In
                                      particular, the
                                      Pretreatment Streamlining
                                      Rule made 7 changes to the
                                      General Pretreatment
                                      provisions (40 CFR part
                                      403) that provide more
                                      flexibility. This data
                                      element identifies which
                                      of the 7 optional
                                      provisions from the
                                      Pretreatment Streamlining
                                      Rule were adopted by the
                                      Control Authority.
Significant Industrial User Name...  The name of each             122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
                                      Significant Industrial       122.44(j).
                                      User (SIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW.
Significant Industrial User Address  The mailing address of each  122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
                                      Significant Industrial       122.44(j).
                                      User (SIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW.
Significant Industrial User City...  The name of the city, town,  122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
                                      village, or other            122.44(j).
                                      locality, when
                                      identifiable, within whose
                                      boundaries (the majority
                                      of) for each Significant
                                      Industrial User (SIU) that
                                      is discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW.
Significant Industrial User State..  The U.S. Postal Service      122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
                                      (USPS) abbreviation that     122.44(j).
                                      represents the state or
                                      state equivalent for the
                                      U.S. for each Significant
                                      Industrial User (SIU) that
                                      is discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW.
Significant Industrial User Zip      The combination of the 5-    122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
 Code.                                digit Zone Improvement       122.44(j).
                                      Plan (ZIP) code and the 4-
                                      digit extension code (if
                                      available) that represents
                                      the geographic segment
                                      that is a sub unit of the
                                      ZIP Code assigned by the
                                      U.S. Postal Service to a
                                      geographic location for
                                      each Significant
                                      Industrial User (SIU) that
                                      is discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW.
Significant Industrial User Subject  This data element will       122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
 to Local Limits.                     identify for each            122.44(j).
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW whether the SIU
                                      is subject to local limits.
Significant Industrial User Subject  This data element will       122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
 to Local Limits More Stringent       identify for each            122.44(j).
 Than Categorical Standards.          Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW whether the SIU
                                      is subject to local limits
                                      that are more stringent
                                      than the applicable
                                      categorical standards.
Industrial User Subject to           This data element will       122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
 Categorical Standards.               identify for each            122.44(j).
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW whether the SIU
                                      is subject to categorical
                                      standards.
Applicable Categorical Standards...  This data element will       122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
                                      identify for each            122.44(j).
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW the applicable
                                      categorical standards.
Significant Industrial User Process  This data element will       122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
 Wastewater Flow Rate.                identify for each            122.44(j).
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW the process
                                      wastewater flow rate (in
                                      gallons per day).
Type of Significant Industrial User  This data element will       122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
 Process Wastewater Flow.             identify for each            122.44(j).
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW the type of
                                      process wastewater flow
                                      (continuous or
                                      intermittent).
Significant Industrial User Non-     This data element will       122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
 Process Wastewater Flow Rate.        identify for each            122.44(j).
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW the non-process
                                      wastewater flow rate (in
                                      gallons per day).
Type of Significant Industrial User  This data element will       122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
 Non-Process Wastewater Flow.         identify for each            122.44(j).
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW the type of non-
                                      process wastewater flow
                                      (continuous or
                                      intermittent).

[[Page 46098]]

 
Industrial User Causing Problems at  This data element will       122.21(j)(6),           1,2.
 POTW.                                identify for each            122.44(j)(2)(ii),
                                      Significant Industrial       403.5(c).
                                      User (SIU) whether it
                                      caused or contributed to
                                      any problems (including
                                      upset, bypass,
                                      interference, pass-
                                      through) at this POTW
                                      within the past four and
                                      one-half years. EPA
                                      regulations require the
                                      Control Authority to
                                      develop and enforce local
                                      limits when the discharge
                                      from an IU causes or
                                      contributes to any
                                      problems (including upset,
                                      interference, bypass) at
                                      the receiving POTW's
                                      effluent discharge or
                                      biosolids.
Receiving RCRA Waste...............  This data element will       122.21(j)(7),           1,2.
                                      identify whether the POTW    122.44(j).
                                      has received RCRA
                                      hazardous waste by truck,
                                      rail, or dedicated pipe
                                      within the last three
                                      years.
Receiving Remediation Waste........  This data element will       122.21(j)(7),           1,2.
                                      identify whether the POTW    122.44(j).
                                      has received RCRA or
                                      CERLCA waste from off-site
                                      remedial activities within
                                      the last three years.
Control Authority Name.............  The name of the Control      122.44(j).............  1,2.
                                      Authority for the
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User discharging to this
                                      POTW. This will be the
                                      name of the State or EPA
                                      Region when they are the
                                      Control Authority. This
                                      field may also come from
                                      the pretreatment
                                      compliance audit or
                                      inspection.
Control Authority NPDES Permit       The NPDES permit number of   122.44(j).............  1,2.
 Number.                              the Control Authority for
                                      the Significant Industrial
                                      User discharging to this
                                      POTW. This field may also
                                      come from the pretreatment
                                      compliance audit or
                                      inspection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Cooling Water Intake Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Facility...................  The unique code/description  CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
                                      that identifies the type     125 Subpart I, J, and
                                      of facility based on         N, 401.14.
                                      regulations, 1 = New
                                      Facility under 40 CFR part
                                      125, Subpart I, 2 = New
                                      Offshore Oil & gas
                                      Facility under 40 CFR part
                                      125, Subpart N, 3 =
                                      Existing Facility under 40
                                      CFR part 125, Subpart J, 4
                                      = BPJ Facility over 2 MGD
                                      under 40 CFR 125.90(b),
                                      401.14.
Number of Cooling Water Intake       The number of cooling water  CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
 Structures (CWISs).                  intake structures (CWISs)    125.86, 125.90(b),
                                      at the facility.             125.136, 401.14.
Design Intake Flow for Cooling       The design intake flow       CWA 316(b),             1,2.
 Water Intake Structure.              (DIF), in units of MGD, is   122.21(r),125.80,
                                      the total designed amount    125.86, 125.90(b),
                                      of flow for each permitted   125.131, 125.136,
                                      cooling water intake         401.14.
                                      structure. This value is
                                      based on maximum design
                                      flow capacities.
Actual Intake Flow for Cooling       This actual flow value, in   CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
 Water Intake Structure.              units of MGD, is intended    125.86, 125.90(b),
                                      to represent on-the-ground   125.136, 401.14.
                                      intake flow capacities in
                                      the preceding year, as
                                      opposed to the DIF, which
                                      is based on maximum design
                                      flow capacities.
Average Reported Intake Flow for     This average flow value, in  CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
 Cooling Water Intake Structure.      units of MGD, is intended    125.86, 125.90(b),
                                      to represent on-the-ground   125.136, 401.14.
                                      intake flow capacities in
                                      the preceding year, as
                                      opposed to the DIF, which
                                      is based on maximum design
                                      flow capacities.
Percentage of Intake for Cooling     This is the percentage of    CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
 Purposes.                            water intake that is used    125.81, 125.90(b),
                                      for cooling purposes for     125.131, 401.14.
                                      each permitted cooling
                                      water intake structure.
Location Type for Cooling Water      The unique code/description  CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
 Intake Structure.                    that identifies the          125.86, 125.90(b),
                                      location and description     125.136, 401.14.
                                      for each intake. These
                                      values are 1=shoreline
                                      intake description
                                      (flushed, recessed),
                                      2=intake canal,
                                      3=embayment, bank, or
                                      cove, 4=submerged offshore
                                      intake, 5=near-shore
                                      submerged intake,
                                      6=shoreline submerged
                                      intake.
Distance Offshore for Submerged      The distance (in feet) from  CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
 Cooling Water Intake Structure.      shore for each CWIS.         125.86, 125.90(b),
                                                                   125.136, 401.14.
Maximum Through-Screen Velocity....  This is the maximum          CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
                                      velocity (in feet/second)    125.86, 125.90(b),
                                      of the water intake          125.136, 401.14.
                                      through the screen for
                                      each permitted cooling
                                      water intake structure.
Average Through-Screen Velocity....  This is the average through- CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
                                      screen velocity (in feet/    125.86, 125.90(b),
                                      second) of the water         125.136, 401.14.
                                      intake through the screen
                                      for each permitted cooling
                                      water intake structure.

[[Page 46099]]

 
Percentage of Mean Annual Flow       The percentage of the        CWA 316(b), 125.84,     1,2.
 Withdrawn--Fresh Water Facilities.   source water annual mean     125.90(b), 401.14.
                                      flow withdrawn as compared
                                      to the total design intake
                                      flow from all cooling
                                      water intake structures
                                      located in a freshwater
                                      river or stream at the
                                      permitted facility.
Percentage of Design Intake Flow     The percentage of the        CWA 316(b), 125.84,     1,2.
 over Tidal Cycle--Tidal River or     volume of the water column   125.90(b), 401.14.
 Estuary Facilities.                  within the area centered
                                      about the opening of the
                                      intake in a tidal river or
                                      estuary with a diameter
                                      defined by the distance of
                                      one tidal excursion at the
                                      mean low water level as
                                      compared to the facility's
                                      total design intake flow
                                      over one tidal cycle of
                                      ebb and flow.
Waterbody Type.....................  The unique code/description  CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
                                      that describes the           125.86, 125.90(b),
                                      impingement control          125.136, 401.14.
                                      technologies for each
                                      CWIS. A value of 1 =
                                      Ocean, 2 = Estuary, 3 =
                                      Great Lake, 4 = Fresh
                                      River, 5 = Lake/Reservoir.
Canal/Fish Return Length...........  This is the length for any   CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
                                      fish return system at the    125.86, 125.90(b),
                                      permitted facility.          125.136, 401.14.
Significant Navigation or Waterbody  The unique code/description  CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
 Use Type Near The Intake Entrance.   for the type of navigation   125.86, 125.90(b),
                                      or waterbody use near each   125.136, 401.14.
                                      CWIS. A value of 1 (one)
                                      indicates the intake is
                                      located where boat/barge
                                      navigation near the intake
                                      is a consideration when
                                      making any potential
                                      modifications to the
                                      intake. A value of 0
                                      (zero) indicates
                                      navigation does not occur
                                      in the vicinity of the
                                      intake. Navigational
                                      considerations affect
                                      which impingement and
                                      entrainment technologies
                                      may be used by intakes
                                      located in embayments,
                                      banks, or coves.
Mean Intake Water Depth............  This is the mean depth (in   CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
                                      feet) for each CWIS. This    125.80(a) and (b),
                                      value is used for the        125.90(b), 125.131(c)
                                      estimation of total          and (d), 401.14.
                                      existing screen width.
Intake Well Depth..................  The intake well depth (in    CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
                                      feet) is the distance from   125.86, 125.90(b),
                                      the intake deck to the       125.136, 401.14.
                                      bottom of the screen well
                                      for each CWIS, and
                                      includes both water depth
                                      and distance from the
                                      water surface to the deck.
                                      The intake well depth is
                                      used to select the depth
                                      of the required screen.
Debris Loading.....................  The unique code/description  CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
                                      that describes the amount    125.80(a) and (b),
                                      of debris near each CWIS.    125.90(b), 125.131(c)
                                      A value of 1 (one)           and (d), 401.14.
                                      indicates high levels of
                                      debris and trash near the
                                      intake. A value of 0
                                      (zero) indicates debris is
                                      low or negligible. A
                                      facility that uses a trash
                                      rack is likely to have a
                                      high debris loading.
Impingement Control Technology In-   The unique code/description  CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
 Place.                               that describes the           125.80(a) and (b),
                                      impingement control          125.90(b), 125.131(c)
                                      technologies for each        and (d), 401.14.
                                      CWIS. A value of 1=
                                      Modified Traveling
                                      Screens, 2= Passive Intake
                                      (Velocity Cap, Coarse
                                      Wedgewire Screens, Porous
                                      Dam, Leaky Dike, etc.), 3=
                                      Barrier net, and 4 = Fish
                                      Diversion or Avoidance
                                      (Louvers, Acoustics,
                                      etc.), 5 = Other
                                      technology. A value of
                                      zero means no controls.
Entrainment Control Technology in-   The unique code/description  CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
 Place.                               that describes the           125.80(a) and (b),
                                      entrainment control          125.90(b), 125.131(c)
                                      technologies for each        and (d), 401.14.
                                      CWIS. A value of 1 =
                                      Traveling Screens w/Fine
                                      Mesh, 2 = Far Offshore
                                      Intake, and 3 = Passive
                                      Screens w/Fine Mesh, 4 =
                                      Closed-Cycle Recirculating
                                      System, 5 = Other
                                      Technology. A value of
                                      zero means no controls.
Track II Comprehensive               The date of any submission   CWA 316(b),             1,2.
 Demonstration Study Submission       of any Track II              125.86(c)(2),
 Date.                                Comprehensive                125.136(c)(2).
                                      Demonstration Study. The
                                      date data must be provided
                                      in CCYY-MM-DD format where
                                      CC is the century, YY is
                                      the year, MM is the month
                                      and DD is the day.
Design and Construction Technology   The submission date of any   CWA 316(b), 125.80(a)   1,2.
 Plan Submission Date.                Design and Construction      and (b),
                                      Technology Plan. The date    125.86(b)(4),
                                      data must be provided in     125.131(c) and (d).
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.

[[Page 46100]]

 
Source Water Biological Study        The submission date of any   CWA 316(b), 125.86(c),  1,2.
 Submission Date.                     Source Water Biological      125.136(c).
                                      Study. The date data must
                                      be provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Verification Monitoring Plan         The submission date of any   CWA 316(b), 125.86(c),  1,2.
 Submission Date.                     Verification Monitoring      125.136(c).
                                      Plan. The date data must
                                      be provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Source Water Physical Data           The submission date of any   CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
 Submission Date.                     Source Water Physical        125 Subpart I and N.
                                      Data. The date data must
                                      be provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Cooling Water Intake Structure Data  The submission date of any   CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
 Submission Date.                     Cooling Water Intake         125 Subpart I and N.
                                      Structure Data. The date
                                      data must be provided in
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Source Water Baseline Biological     The submission date of any   CWA 316(b), 122.21(r),  1,2.
 Characterization Data Submission     Source Water Baseline        125 Subpart I and N.
 Date.                                Biological
                                      Characterization Data. The
                                      date data must be provided
                                      in CCYY-MM-DD format where
                                      CC is the century, YY is
                                      the year, MM is the month
                                      and DD is the day.
New Facilities--Alternative          The approval date of any     CWA 316(b), 125.85,     1,2.
 Requirements Provision Request       request under the            125.135.
 Approval Date.                       Alternative Requirements
                                      provision as defined under
                                      40 CFR 125.85 or 40 CFR
                                      125.135. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         CWA Section 316(a) Thermal Variance Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermal Variance Unit..............  This is the unit of measure  CWA 316(a), 125         1,2.
                                      (e.g., [deg]F or [deg]C of   Subpart H.
                                      discharged effluent,
                                      [deg]F or [deg]C different
                                      between discharged
                                      effluent and receiving
                                      waterbody, [deg]F or
                                      [deg]C different between
                                      discharged effluent and
                                      inlet water source)
                                      associated with numeric
                                      value of the alternative
                                      effluent limitation
                                      granted.
Thermal Variance Granted...........  This is a flag indicating    CWA 316(a), 125         1,2.
                                      whether the permitting       Subpart H.
                                      authority has granted the
                                      permittee a CWA 316(a)
                                      variance for the
                                      controlling NPDES permit.
Thermal Variance Value.............  This is the numeric value    CWA 316(a), 125         1,2.
                                      of the alternative           Subpart H.
                                      effluent limitation
                                      granted.
Thermal Variance Date..............  This is the date when the    CWA 316(a), 125         1,2.
                                      permitting authority         Subpart H.
                                      granted the permittee a
                                      CWA 316(a) variance for
                                      the controlling NPDES
                                      permit. The date data must
                                      be provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Thermal Variance Study Date........  This is the date when the    CWA 316(a), 125         1,2.
                                      facility submitted new       Subpart H.
                                      studies/data based on
                                      actual operation
                                      experience to support the
                                      continuation of the
                                      variance. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Compliance Monitoring Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permitted Feature Identifier.......  The unique identifier for    123.26................  1.
                                      the permitted feature
                                      number entered by the user
                                      for the inspected
                                      permitted feature. This
                                      data element will provide
                                      a linkage to location data
                                      from the NPDES permit
                                      application.
Compliance Monitoring Activity       The actual date on which     CWA 308...............  1.
 Actual End Date.                     the compliance monitoring
                                      activity ended. The date
                                      data must be provided in
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Compliance Monitoring Activity       The planned date for the     CWA 308...............  1.
 Planned End Date.                    compliance monitoring
                                      activity to end. The date
                                      data must be provided in
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.

[[Page 46101]]

 
Compliance Monitoring State........  The US Postal Service        none..................  1.
                                      abbreviation that
                                      represents that state or
                                      state equivalent for the
                                      U.S. in which the
                                      compliance monitoring
                                      activity occurred.
Compliance Activity................  The unique code/description  CWA 308...............  1.
                                      that identifies a type of
                                      compliance event or
                                      enforcement action. For
                                      example, there are codes
                                      for inspection,
                                      investigation, information
                                      request, and offsite
                                      records review.
Compliance Monitoring Type.........  The code/description         CWA 308...............  1.
                                      indicating the type of
                                      compliance monitoring
                                      activity taken by a
                                      regulatory Agency. Each
                                      compliance monitoring
                                      activity has a variety of
                                      different types, such as
                                      audit, sampling, case
                                      development, follow-up,
                                      reconnaissance without
                                      sampling, etc.
Biomonitoring Inspection Method....  The unique code that         CWA 308...............  1.
                                      identifies the type of
                                      biomonitoring inspection
                                      method. This data element
                                      supplements the Compliance
                                      Monitoring Category and
                                      Compliance Monitoring Type
                                      Inspection Type recorded
                                      for all inspections.
Compliance Monitoring Category.....  The unique code/description  CWA 308...............  1.
                                      identifying the compliance
                                      monitoring or inspection
                                      category code/description.
Compliance Monitoring Action Reason  The unique code that         CWA 308...............  1.
                                      identifies the purpose of
                                      an activity.
Was this a State, Federal or Joint   The flag indicating if the   CWA 308...............  1.
 (State/Federal) Inspection?.         inspection is a joint
                                      inspection by federal,
                                      state, tribal, or
                                      territorial personnel.
Compliance Monitoring Agency Type..  An indicator whether the     CWA 308...............  1.
                                      compliance monitoring
                                      activity was designated as
                                      an EPA or state activity/
                                      inspection.
Law Sections Evaluated.............  The unique identifier for    CWA 308...............  1.
                                      the section(s) of law
                                      evaluated in or pertinent
                                      to the activity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Compliance Monitoring Activity (Biosolids Inspections)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deficiencies Identified Through the  This field will identify     CWA 308...............  1.
 Biosolids Inspection.                the deficiency or
                                      deficiencies identified in
                                      that facility's biosolids
                                      implementation for each
                                      biosolids inspection.
                                      These deficiencies will
                                      allow users to distinguish
                                      between Category I and
                                      Category 2 violations for
                                      determining significant
                                      noncompliance (SNC).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Compliance Monitoring Activity (AFO/CAFO Inspections)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Type........................  The unique code/description  122.23................  1.
                                      that identifies the
                                      operation's applicable
                                      animal sector(s) on the
                                      site.
Total Number of Animals............  The total number of each     122.23................  1.
                                      type of livestock at the
                                      facility.
Total Number of Animals in Open      The total number of each     122.23................  1.
 Confinement.                         type of livestock at the
                                      facility in open
                                      confinement.
Animal Maximum Capacity............  The maximum number of each   122.23................  1.
                                      type of livestock at the
                                      facility.
Containment Type...................  The unique code/description  122.23................  1.
                                      for each type of
                                      containment used by the
                                      operation.
Containment Total Capacity.........  The total capacity, in       122.23................  1.
                                      gallons, of the
                                      containment structure.
CAFO Designation Date..............  The date on which the        122.23................  1.
                                      facility is designated as
                                      a Concentrated Animal
                                      Feeding Operation (CAFO).
                                      The date data must be
                                      provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Designation Reason.................  If the facility was          122.23................  1.
                                      designated, indicate the
                                      reason that the facility
                                      was designated, such as
                                      the amount of waste
                                      reaching waters, location,
                                      slope, rainfall, etc.
Is the Animal Facility Type a CAFO?  The flag to indicate if the  122.23................  1.
                                      facility is classified as
                                      a CAFO or not.
Did Facility Make a No Discharge     A code identifying whether   122.23................  1.
 Certification?.                      the facility made a
                                      certification of no
                                      discharge to the EPA or
                                      State NPDES permitting
                                      authority.
Is an NMP Being Implemented?.......  A code identifying whether   122.23................  1.
                                      the facility is
                                      implementing a Nutrient
                                      Management Plan (NMP).

[[Page 46102]]

 
Is an NMP Being Updated Annually?..  A code identifying whether   122.23................  1.
                                      the facility is annually
                                      updating its Nutrient
                                      Management Plan (NMP).
Land Application BMP Type..........  The unique code/description  122.23................  1.
                                      for each type of best
                                      management practice used
                                      in conjunction with land
                                      application.
Mortality Disposal Method..........  The unique code/description  122.23................  1.
                                      for each type of animal
                                      mortality disposal.
Monitoring Well Data Availability..  A code identifying whether   122.23................  1.
                                      there is monitoring well
                                      data available for the
                                      facility.
Storage Type.......................  The unique code/description  122.23................  1.
                                      that describes the type of
                                      manure, litter, and
                                      process wastewater storage
                                      used by the operation.
Storage Total Capacity.............  The total capacity, in       122.23................  1.
                                      tons, of the manure,
                                      litter, and process
                                      wastewater storage
                                      structure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Compliance Monitoring Activity (Sewer Overflows Inspections and Audits)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sewer Overflow Longitude...........  This data element is         123.26................  1.
                                      required for sewer
                                      overflow inspections
                                      without a permitted
                                      feature identifier. The
                                      measure of the angular
                                      distance on a meridian
                                      east or west of the prime
                                      meridian for the sewer
                                      overflow. Entered in
                                      either decimal degrees or
                                      in degrees minutes
                                      seconds; stored in decimal
                                      degrees. This data element
                                      will enable users to
                                      compare this inspection to
                                      a sewer overflow incident
                                      report. These data are
                                      provided in accordance
                                      with Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Sewer Overflow Latitude............  This data element is         123.26................  1.
                                      required for sewer
                                      overflow inspections
                                      without a permitted
                                      feature identifier. The
                                      measure of the angular
                                      distance on a meridian
                                      north or south of the
                                      equator for the sewer
                                      overflow. Entered in
                                      either decimal degrees or
                                      in degrees minutes
                                      seconds; stored in decimal
                                      degrees. This data element
                                      will enable users to
                                      compare this inspection to
                                      a sewer overflow incident
                                      report. These data are
                                      provided in accordance
                                      with Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Type of Sewer Overflow.............  A code identifying the type  123.26................  1.
                                      of sewer overflow
                                      (including CSO, SSO,
                                      Bypass, Other Discharge
                                      from the Collection System
                                      or Treatment Works).
Sewer Overflow Cause...............  The likely cause of the      123.26................  1.
                                      overflow event (e.g.,
                                      broken pipe, fats/oil/
                                      grease, mechanical
                                      failure, pump station
                                      electrical failure, etc.).
Duration of Sewer Overflow event     Duration of the sewer        123.26................  1.
 (hours).                             overflow event (in hours).
                                      If the discharge has not
                                      been corrected, the best
                                      professional judgment from
                                      the compliance inspector
                                      of the time the sewer
                                      overflow is expected to
                                      continue.
Sewer Overflow Discharge Volume....  Best professional judgment   123.26................  1.
                                      from the compliance
                                      inspector on the estimated
                                      number of gallons of sewer
                                      overflow.
Failure to Submit Sewer Overflow     This data element would      122.41(l)(6) and (7)..  1.
 Incident Report.                     indicate whether the POTW
                                      has failed to provide 24-
                                      hr. notification of sewer
                                      overflows or failed to
                                      submit sewer overflow
                                      incident follow-up reports
                                      within the required five
                                      days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Compliance Monitoring Activity (Pretreatment Inspections and Audits)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Authority Status and           This data element would      See Data Description..  1.
 Deficiencies.                        identify if legal
                                      authority to implement the
                                      pretreatment program was
                                      sufficient or if the
                                      pretreatment compliance
                                      audit or inspection
                                      identified particular
                                      deficiencies, identified
                                      in a drop-down list. This
                                      data element is consistent
                                      with the ``FY 1990
                                      Guidance for Reporting and
                                      Evaluating POTW
                                      Noncompliance with
                                      Pretreatment
                                      Implementation
                                      requirements'', from EPA,
                                      27 September 1989.

[[Page 46103]]

 
Failure of the Control Authority to  This data element would be   See description.......  1.
 Enforce Against Pass-Through or      a simple ``yes/no''
 Interference.                        indicator as to whether
                                      the pretreatment
                                      compliance audit or
                                      inspection identified a
                                      deficiency related to the
                                      control authority's
                                      failure to enforce against
                                      pass-through or
                                      interference. This data
                                      element is consistent with
                                      the ``FY 1990 Guidance for
                                      Reporting and Evaluating
                                      POTW Noncompliance with
                                      Pretreatment
                                      Implementation
                                      requirements'', from EPA,
                                      27 September 1989.
Failure of the Control Authority to  This data element would be   See description.......  1.
 Submit Required Reports Within 30    a simple ``yes/no''
 Days.                                indicator as to whether
                                      the pretreatment
                                      compliance audit or
                                      inspection identified a
                                      deficiency related to the
                                      control authority's
                                      failure to submit required
                                      pretreatment reports
                                      within thirty days of the
                                      due date. This data
                                      element is consistent with
                                      the ``FY 1990 Guidance for
                                      Reporting and Evaluating
                                      POTW Noncompliance with
                                      Pretreatment
                                      Implementation
                                      requirements'', from EPA,
                                      27 September 1989.
Failure of the Control Authority To  This data element would be   See description.......  1.
 Meet Compliance Schedule Milestone   a simple ``yes/no''
 Dates Within 90 Days.                indicator as to whether
                                      the pretreatment
                                      compliance audit or
                                      inspection identified a
                                      deficiency related to the
                                      control authority's
                                      failure to meet compliance
                                      schedule milestone dates
                                      within 90 days of the due
                                      date. This data element is
                                      consistent with the ``FY
                                      1990 Guidance for
                                      Reporting and Evaluating
                                      POTW Noncompliance with
                                      Pretreatment
                                      Implementation
                                      requirements'', from EPA,
                                      27 September 1989.
Failure of the Control Authority to  This data element would be   See description.......  1.
 Issue or Reissue Control             a simple ``yes/no''
 Mechanisms.                          indicator as to whether
                                      the pretreatment
                                      compliance audit or
                                      inspection identified a
                                      deficiency related to the
                                      control authority's
                                      failure to issue or
                                      reissue control
                                      mechanisms. If at least
                                      90% of the significant
                                      industrial users have
                                      valid control mechanisms
                                      in the past six-month
                                      period, then this would
                                      not be identified as a
                                      deficiency. This data
                                      element is consistent with
                                      the ``FY 1990 Guidance for
                                      Reporting and Evaluating
                                      POTW Noncompliance with
                                      Pretreatment
                                      Implementation
                                      requirements'', from EPA,
                                      27 September 1989.
Failure of the Control Authority To  This data element would be   See description.......  1.
 Inspect or Sample.                   a simple ``yes/no''
                                      indicator as to whether
                                      the pretreatment
                                      compliance audit or
                                      inspection identified a
                                      deficiency related to the
                                      control authority's
                                      failure to inspect or
                                      sample. If at least 80% of
                                      the significant industrial
                                      users have been inspected
                                      or sampled in the past
                                      twelve months, then this
                                      would not be identified as
                                      a deficiency. This data
                                      element is consistent with
                                      the ``FY 1990 Guidance for
                                      Reporting and Evaluating
                                      POTW Noncompliance with
                                      Pretreatment
                                      Implementation
                                      requirements'', from EPA,
                                      27 September 1989.
Failure of the Control Authority to  This data element would be   See description.......  1.
 Enforce Pretreatment Standards and   a simple ``yes/no''
 Reporting Requirements.              indicator as to whether
                                      the pretreatment
                                      compliance audit or
                                      inspection identified a
                                      deficiency related to the
                                      control authority's
                                      failure to inspect or
                                      sample. If less than 15%
                                      of the significant
                                      industrial users have been
                                      in significant
                                      noncompliance in the past
                                      twelve months, then this
                                      would not be identified as
                                      a deficiency. This data
                                      element is consistent with
                                      the ``FY 1990 Guidance for
                                      Reporting and Evaluating
                                      POTW Noncompliance with
                                      Pretreatment
                                      Implementation
                                      requirements'', from EPA,
                                      27 September 1989.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Monitoring Activity (Discharge Monitoring Report, and Pretreatment SIU Periodic Compliance Reports in
                            Municipalities without an Approved Pretreatment Program)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permitted Feature..................  The identifier assigned for  CWA 301(d), 304(b),     1,2,3,6,8.
                                      each location at which       and 304(m).
                                      conditions are being
                                      applied.
Limit Set..........................  The unique identifier tying  CWA 301(d), 304(b),     1,2,3,6,8.
                                      the DMR form to its Limit    and 304(m).
                                      Set record.

[[Page 46104]]

 
Parameter Code.....................  The unique code/description  CWA 301(d), 304(b),     1,2,3,6,8.
                                      identifying the parameter    and 304(m).
                                      reported on the DMR.
Monitoring Location................  The code/description of the  CWA 301(d), 304(b),     1,2,3,6,8.
                                      monitoring location at       and 304(m).
                                      which the sampling
                                      occurred for a DMR
                                      parameter.
Monitoring Period End Date.........  The date that the            CWA 301(d), 304(b),     1,2,3,6,8.
                                      monitoring period for the    and 304(m).
                                      values covered by this DMR
                                      form ends. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
NODI...............................  The unique code/description  CWA 301(d), 304(b),     1,2,3,6,8.
                                      that indicates the reason    and 304(m).
                                      that ``No Discharge'' or
                                      ``No Data'' was reported
                                      in place of the DMR value.
Value..............................  The DMR value number         122.41(l)(4)(i)/CWA     1,2,3,6,8.
                                      reported on the DMR form.    301(d), 304(b), and
                                                                   304(m).
Concentration Units/Quantity Units.  The code/description         CWA 301(d), 304(b),     1,2,3,6,8.
                                      representing the unit of     and 304(m).
                                      measure applicable to
                                      quantity or concentration
                                      limits and measurements as
                                      entered by the user on the
                                      DMR form.
Value Received Date................  The date the DMR value was   ......................  1.
                                      received by the regulatory
                                      authority. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Value Type.........................  The unique code/description  CWA 301(d), 304(b),     1,2,3,6,8.
                                      identifying a DMR value      and 304(m).
                                      type (i.e. Quantity 1,
                                      Quantity 2, Concentration
                                      1, Concentration 2,
                                      Concentration 3).
Qualifier..........................  The unique code identifying  ......................  1,2,3,6,8.
                                      the limit value operator
                                      (e.g., <, =, >).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Compliance Monitoring Activity (Periodic Program Reports)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Report Received...............  The date the report was      These are data          4 through 9.
                                      received. The date data      elements that are
                                      must be provided in CCYY-    common to reports
                                      MM-DD format where CC is     required in Parts
                                      the century, YY is the       122, 123, 403, and
                                      year, MM is the month and    503.
                                      DD is the day.
Start Date of Reporting Period.....  The start date of the        These are data          4 through 9.
                                      reporting period. The date   elements that are
                                      data must be provided in     common to reports
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC   required in Parts
                                      is the century, YY is the    122, 123, 403, and
                                      year, MM is the month and    503.
                                      DD is the day.
End Date of Reporting Period.......  The end date of the          These are data          4 through 9.
                                      reporting period. The date   elements that are
                                      data must be provided in     common to reports
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC   required in Parts
                                      is the century, YY is the    122, 123, 403, and
                                      year, MM is the month and    503.
                                      DD is the day.
Federal Regulatory Section(s)        The Federal regulatory       These are data          4 through 9.
 Requiring the Program Report.        section(s) that are the      elements that are
                                      underlying legal basis for   common to reports
                                      requiring the program        required in Parts
                                      report to be submitted.      122, 123, 403, and
                                                                   503.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Compliance Monitoring Activity (Data Elements Specific to Biosolids Annual Program Reports)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment Processes................  This data element            503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      identifies the biosolids
                                      treatment processes at the
                                      facility. For example,
                                      this may indicate whether
                                      primary, secondary, and
                                      tertiary treatment is
                                      being used, and the type
                                      of the sewage sludge
                                      treatment process or
                                      processes used, including
                                      drying processes.
Biosolids Class....................  This data element will       503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      identify the class or
                                      classes (e.g., Class A,
                                      Class A EQ, Class B) of
                                      biosolids generated by the
                                      facility.
Management Practice................  This data element will       503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      identify the type of
                                      biosolids management
                                      practice or practices
                                      (e.g., land application,
                                      surface disposal,
                                      incineration) for
                                      biosolids generated by the
                                      facility.
Sampling and analytical methods....  Describe the representative  503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      sampling processes for
                                      compliance with 40 CFR
                                      part 503, 40 CFR part 136,
                                      or an issued NPDES permit
                                      including analytical
                                      methods used to analyze
                                      for enteric viruses, fecal
                                      coliforms, helminth ova,
                                      Salmonella sp., and
                                      regulated metals, as well
                                      as the reporting limit.

[[Page 46105]]

 
Biosolids Volume Amount............  This is the amount (in dry   503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      metric tons) of biosolids.
                                      If there is more than one
                                      biosolids class, then the
                                      facility will separately
                                      report a biosolids volume
                                      amount for each biosolids
                                      class and management
                                      practice.
Biosolids Receiving Site Name......  This is the name of the off- 503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      site facility receiving
                                      biosolids from this
                                      facility. If the biosolids
                                      generator sends biosolids
                                      to more than one receiving
                                      facility, then the
                                      biosolids generator will
                                      report each site name for
                                      each biosolids class code
                                      and management practice
                                      code.
Biosolids Receiving Site Street      This is the street address,  503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
 Address.                             if applicable, of the
                                      Biosolids Receiving Site.
Biosolids Receiving Site City......  This is the city name of     503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      the Biosolids Receiving
                                      Site, if applicable.
Biosolids Receiving Site State.....  This is the state code of    503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      the Biosolids Receiving
                                      Site, if applicable.
Biosolids Receiving Site Zip Code..  This is the zip code of the  503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      Biosolids Receiving Site,
                                      if applicable.
Biosolids Receiving Site Latitude..  The measure of the angular   503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      distance on a meridian
                                      north or south of the
                                      equator for the Biosolids
                                      Receiving Site. If this is
                                      a field, the measurement
                                      should be made at the
                                      center of the field.
                                      Entered in either Decimal
                                      Degrees or in Degrees
                                      Minutes Seconds; stored in
                                      decimal degrees. These
                                      data are provided in
                                      accordance with
                                      Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Biosolids Receiving Site Longitude.  The measure of the angular   503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      distance on a meridian
                                      east or west of the prime
                                      meridian for the Biosolids
                                      Receiving Site. If this is
                                      a field, the measurement
                                      should be made at the
                                      center of the field.
                                      Entered in either Decimal
                                      Degrees or in Degrees
                                      Minutes Seconds; stored in
                                      decimal degrees. These
                                      data are provided in
                                      accordance with
                                      Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Biosolids Monitored Parameter......  This is the monitored        503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      parameter for each
                                      biosolids class code and
                                      each management practice.
                                      If the biosolids generator
                                      produces more than one
                                      biosolids class, then the
                                      biosolids generator will
                                      separately report each
                                      monitored parameter for
                                      each biosolids class and
                                      management practice.
Biosolids Monitored Parameter        This is the concentration    503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
 Concentration.                       value of the Biosolids
                                      Monitored Parameter.
Biosolids Monitored Parameter Units  This is the measurement      503.18, 503.28, 503.48  4.
                                      unit (e.g., mg/l)
                                      associated with the
                                      Biosolids Monitored
                                      Parameter Concentration.
Actual Measured Cumulative           This is the measured         503.13................  4.
 Pollutant Loading Rate.              cumulative amount of a
                                      pollutant (on a dry weight
                                      basis) that has been
                                      applied to an area of land
                                      (Biosolids Receiving Site)
                                      as specified in the
                                      regulations at 40 CFR part
                                      503. The list of
                                      pollutants to be measured
                                      is at 40 CFR 503.13, Table
                                      2. This value is the total
                                      mass of a particular
                                      pollutant (on a dry weight
                                      basis) that has been
                                      applied to a unit area of
                                      land during the entire
                                      life of the application
                                      site. When the Actual
                                      Measured Cumulative
                                      Pollutant Loading Rate
                                      exceeds the Cumulative
                                      Pollutant Loading Rate
                                      (CPLR) limit for any
                                      pollutant, as identified
                                      at 40 CFR 503.13, Table 2,
                                      no additional bulk
                                      biosolids subject to CPLR
                                      limits may be applied to
                                      the site.
Actual Measured Annual Application   This is the measured annual  503.13................  4.
 Rate.                                application rate (on a dry
                                      weight basis) that has
                                      been applied to an area of
                                      land (Biosolids Receiving
                                      Site). This value is
                                      compared against the
                                      Annual Pollutant Loading
                                      Rate (see 40 CFR 503.13,
                                      Table 4) to determine
                                      compliance for each
                                      Biosolids Receiving Site
                                      for each year.

[[Page 46106]]

 
Disposition of Incinerator Ash.....  This provides information    ......................  4.
                                      regarding the method of
                                      disposal of incinerator
                                      ash (e.g., in surface
                                      disposal units, use in
                                      cement kilns, or other
                                      practice).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Compliance Monitoring Activity (Data Elements Specific to CAFO Annual Program Reports)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Types.......................  The unique code/description  122.42(e)(4)(i).......  5.
                                      that identifies the
                                      permittee's applicable
                                      animal sector(s) in the
                                      previous 12 months. This
                                      includes (but not limited
                                      to) beef cattle, broilers,
                                      layers, swine weighing 55
                                      pounds or more, swine
                                      weighing less than 55
                                      pounds, mature dairy cows,
                                      dairy heifers, veal
                                      calves, sheep and lambs,
                                      horses, ducks, and turkeys.
Total Number.......................  The total number of each     122.42(e)(4)(i).......  5.
                                      type of livestock at the
                                      facility in the previous
                                      12 months.
Total Number of Animals in Open      The total number of each     122.42(e)(4)(i).......  5.
 Confinement.                         type of livestock at the
                                      facility in open
                                      confinement in the
                                      previous 12 months.
CAFO Waste Type....................  The type of CAFO waste       122.42(e)(4)(ii)......  5.
                                      described (i.e., manure,
                                      litter, process
                                      wastewater).
Amount of CAFO Waste...............  The amount of CAFO waste     122.42(e)(4)(ii)......  5.
                                      described, in gallons, as
                                      a total for the previous
                                      12 months.
Status of the CAFO Waste...........  The status of the CAFO       122.42(e)(4)(ii)......  5.
                                      waste described (i.e.,
                                      generated, generated and
                                      transferred, or applied
                                      onsite).
Total Number of Acres for Land       Total number of acres (to    122.42(e)(4)(iv)......  5.
 Application Covered by the           the nearest quarter acre)
 Nutrient Management Plan.            for land application
                                      covered by the nutrient
                                      management plan in the
                                      previous 12 months.
Total Number of Acres Used for Land  The total number of acres    122.42(e)(4)(v).......  5.
 Application.                         (to the nearest quarter
                                      acre) under control of the
                                      CAFO used for land
                                      application in past 12
                                      months.
Discharges During Year from          The flag indicating if       122.42(e)(4)(vi)......  5.
 Production Area.                     there is any discharge
                                      from the production area
                                      in the previous 12 months.
Discovery Dates of Discharges from   The date of each discharge   122.42(e)(4)(vi)......  5.
 Production Area.                     from the permittee's
                                      production area in the
                                      previous 12 months. The
                                      date data must be provided
                                      in CCYY-MM-DD format where
                                      CC is the century, YY is
                                      the year, MM is the month
                                      and DD is the day.
Duration of Discharge from           The duration (in hours) of   122.42(e)(4)(vi)......  5.
 Production Area.                     each discharge from the
                                      permittee's production
                                      area in the previous 12
                                      months. If the discharge
                                      is continual, the best
                                      professional judgment from
                                      the permitted facility of
                                      the time the discharge
                                      from the permittee's
                                      production area is
                                      expected to continue.
Approximate Volume of Discharges     Best professional judgment   122.42(e)(4)(vi)......  5.
 from Production Area.                from the permittee on the
                                      estimated number of
                                      gallons for each discharge
                                      from the permittee's
                                      production area in the
                                      previous 12 months.
Whether NMP Approved or Developed    A flag indicating whether    122.42(e)(4)(vii).....  5.
 by Certified Planner.                the NMP was approved or
                                      developed by a certified
                                      nutrient management
                                      planner.
Actual Crop(s) Planted for Each      Actual crop(s) planted for   122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
 Field.                               each field.
Actual Crop Yield(s) for Each Field  Actual crop yield(s) for     122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
                                      each field (amount of
                                      production that was grown
                                      on each field, e.g., 300
                                      bushels per acre).
Concentration Units/Quantity Units.  The code/description         122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
                                      representing the unit of
                                      measure applicable to
                                      quantity or concentration
                                      limits and measurements as
                                      entered by the permittee.
                                      The same units must be
                                      used across all sampling
                                      data for manure, litter,
                                      process wastewater, and
                                      fertilizer as well as the
                                      maximum calculation
                                      methods specified in the
                                      Linear Approach [40 CFR
                                      122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the
                                      Narrative Rate Approach
                                      [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)].

[[Page 46107]]

 
Nitrogen Content of the CAFO Waste   Results of sampling and      122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
 Type.                                analysis of a particular
                                      CAFO waste type (i.e.,
                                      manure, litter, or process
                                      wastewater). The same form
                                      of nitrogen must be used
                                      across all sampling data
                                      for manure, litter,
                                      process wastewater, and
                                      fertilizer as well as the
                                      maximum calculation
                                      methods specified in the
                                      Linear Approach [40 CFR
                                      122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the
                                      Narrative Rate Approach
                                      [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)].
Phosphorus Content of the CAFO       Results of sampling and      122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
 Waste Type.                          analysis of a particular
                                      CAFO waste type (i.e.,
                                      manure, litter, or process
                                      wastewater). The same form
                                      of phosphorus must be used
                                      across all sampling data
                                      for manure, litter,
                                      process wastewater, and
                                      fertilizer as well as the
                                      maximum calculation
                                      methods specified in the
                                      Linear Approach [40 CFR
                                      122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the
                                      Narrative Rate Approach
                                      [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)].
Method for Calculating Maximum       Flag identifying for each    122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
 Amounts of Manure, Litter, and       field whether the CAFO
 Process Wastewater.                  used the Linear Approach
                                      [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)]
                                      or the Narrative Rate
                                      Approach [40 CFR
                                      122.42(e)(5)(ii)].
Field Identification Number........  A unique field number to     122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
                                      which CAFO waste was or
                                      will be applied. This data
                                      element will be used
                                      whether the term ``for
                                      each field'' is used in
                                      the CAFO Annual Program
                                      Report.
Calculated Maximum Amount of That    The maximum amount of        122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
 CAFO Waste to Be Land Applied to     manure, litter, or process
 that Field.                          wastewater (in gallons)
                                      that can be applied to
                                      each field in the previous
                                      12 months in accordance
                                      with procedures in the
                                      Linear Approach [40 CFR
                                      122.42(e)(5)(i)(B)] or the
                                      Narrative Rate Approach
                                      [40 CFR
                                      122.42(e)(5)(ii)(D)].
Actual Amount of That CAFO Waste     The actual amount of a       122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
 Applied to that Field.               particular CAFO waste
                                      (i.e., manure, litter, or
                                      process wastewater)
                                      applied to a particular
                                      filed in the previous 12
                                      months.
CAFO Waste Type Applied to That      The type of CAFO waste       122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
 Field.                               (i.e., manure, litter, or
                                      process wastewater)
                                      applied to that particular
                                      field.
Pollutant Parameter Measured in the  The pollutant parameter      122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
 Soil Test, under the Narrative       (i.e., nitrogen or
 Rate Approach.                       phosphorus) of the CAFO
                                      waste measured, in
                                      accordance with procedures
                                      in the Narrative Rate
                                      Approach [40 CFR
                                      122.42(e)(5)(ii)(D)].
Nitrogen Amount of Any Supplemental  For CAFOs using the          122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
 Fertilizer Applied.                  Narrative Rate Approach
                                      [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)]
                                      the nitrogen amount of
                                      supplemental fertilizer
                                      (in pounds or gallons)
                                      that was applied to each
                                      field in the previous 12
                                      months.
Phosphorus Amount of Any             For CAFOs using the          122.42(e)(4)(viii)....  5.
 Supplemental Fertilizer Applied.     Narrative Rate Approach
                                      [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)]
                                      the phosphorous amount of
                                      supplemental fertilizer
                                      (in pounds or gallons)
                                      that was applied to each
                                      field in the previous 12
                                      months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Monitoring Activity (Data Elements Specific to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Program Reports)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS4 Reliance on Other Government     Names of all municipalities  122.34(g)(v)..........  6.
 Entities.                            that are included in the
                                      permit coverage..
Unique Number for Each Municipality  Unique number for each       122.34(g)(3) and        6.
 Covered Under MS4 Permit.            municipality covered under   122.42(c).
                                      MS4 permit. This will
                                      allow greater geographic
                                      resolution for the MS4
                                      components being tracked
                                      and ensure consistency
                                      from year to year. The
                                      number would essentially
                                      be similar to an outfall
                                      number, for distinguishing
                                      compliance at various
                                      locations.
Listing of MS4 Permit Components...  This code/description will   122.34(g)(3) and        6.
                                      identify for each            122.42(c).
                                      municipality all of the
                                      permitted components that
                                      are included in the MS4
                                      permit. The groupings of
                                      these MS4 components will
                                      include public education
                                      and outreach on stormwater
                                      impacts; public
                                      involvement/participation;
                                      illicit discharge
                                      detection and elimination;
                                      construction site
                                      stormwater runoff; post-
                                      construction stormwater
                                      management in new
                                      development and
                                      redevelopment; and
                                      pollution prevention/good
                                      housekeeping for municipal
                                      operations.

[[Page 46108]]

 
Identified Measurable Goal for Each  Identified measurable goal   122.34(g)(3) and        6.
 MS4 Permit Component.                for each MS4 permit          122.42(c).
                                      component for each
                                      municipality.
Status and Assessment of             Status and assessment of     122.34(g)(3) and        6.
 Implementing MS4 Components in       each MS4 permit component    122.42(c).
 Permit.                              for each municipality.
Number of Notice of Violations.....  For each municipality        122.34(g)(3) and        6.
                                      covered under the MS4        122.42(c).
                                      permit, identify the
                                      number notice of
                                      violations. The MS4
                                      permittee will identify
                                      ``No Authority'' if the
                                      MS4 permittee does not
                                      have the authority to
                                      conduct this enforcement
                                      action.
Number of Administrative Fines.....  For each municipality        122.34(g)(3) and        6.
                                      covered under the MS4        122.42(c).
                                      permit, identify the
                                      number of administrative
                                      fines. The MS4 permittee
                                      will identify ``No
                                      Authority'' if the MS4
                                      permittee does not have
                                      the authority to conduct
                                      this enforcement action.
Number of Stop Work Orders.........  For each municipality        122.34(g)(3) and        6.
                                      covered under the MS4        122.42(c).
                                      permit, identify the
                                      number of stop work
                                      orders. The MS4 permittee
                                      will identify ``No
                                      Authority'' if the MS4
                                      permittee does not have
                                      the authority to conduct
                                      this enforcement action.
Number of Civil Penalties..........  For each municipality        122.34(g)(3) and        6.
                                      covered under the MS4        122.42(c).
                                      permit, identify the
                                      number of civil penalties.
                                      The MS4 permittee will
                                      identify ``No Authority''
                                      if the MS4 permittee does
                                      not have the authority to
                                      conduct this enforcement
                                      action.
Number of Criminal Actions.........  For each municipality        122.34(g)(3) and        6.
                                      covered under the MS4        122.42(c).
                                      permit, identify the
                                      number of criminal
                                      actions. The MS4 permittee
                                      will identify ``No
                                      Authority'' if the MS4
                                      permittee does not have
                                      the authority to conduct
                                      this enforcement action.
Number of Administrative Orders....  For each municipality        122.34(g)(3) and        6.
                                      covered under the MS4        122.42(c).
                                      permit, identify the
                                      number of administrative
                                      orders. The MS4 permittee
                                      will identify ``No
                                      Authority'' if the MS4
                                      permittee does not have
                                      the authority to conduct
                                      this enforcement action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Compliance Monitoring Activity (Data Elements Specific to Pretreatment Program Annual Reports and SIU Periodic
                 Compliance Reports in Municipalities without an Approved Pretreatment Program)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNC Published in Newspaper Flag....  An indication as to which    403.12(i)(2),           7.
                                      Significant Industrial       403.8(f)(2)(viii).
                                      Users (SIUs) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial Users (NSCIUs)
                                      in SNC were published in
                                      the newspapers.
SNC with Pretreatment Schedule Flag  An indication as to which    403.12(i)(2),           7.
                                      Significant Industrial       403.8(f)(2)(viii).
                                      Users (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial Users (NSCIU)
                                      were in SNC with
                                      pretreatment schedules.
Date of Most Recent Adoption of      The date on which the        403.5(c),               7.
 Technically Based Local Limits.      Control Authority has        403.12(i)(4),
                                      technically evaluated the    403.8(f)(4).
                                      need for local limits. The
                                      date data must be provided
                                      in CCYY-MM-DD format where
                                      CC is the century, YY is
                                      the year, MM is the month
                                      and DD is the day.
Date of Most Recent Technical        The date on which the        403.5(c),               7.
 Evaluation & or Local Limits.        Control Authority adopted    403.12(i)(4),
                                      local limits for             403.8(f)(4).
                                      pollutants. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Local Limits Pollutants............  This is the list of the      403.5(c), 403.12(i)(4)  7.
                                      pollutants for which the
                                      Control Authority derived,
                                      which is calculated using
                                      data from the headworks of
                                      the POTW.
POTW Discharge Contamination         The flag indicating if       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 Indicator (Program Report).          there have been any
                                      problems (including upset,
                                      bypass, interference, pass-
                                      through) with the
                                      receiving POTW's effluent
                                      discharge within the
                                      previous 12 months.
POTW Biosolids Contamination         The flag indicating if       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 Indicator (Program Report).          there have been any
                                      problems (including upset,
                                      bypass, interference, pass-
                                      through) with the
                                      receiving POTW's biosolids
                                      within the previous 12
                                      months.
Removal Credits Application Status.  The status of the POTW's     403.12(i), 403.7......  7.
                                      application for
                                      administering removal
                                      credits.

[[Page 46109]]

 
Date of Most Recent Removal Credits  This is the date the POTW's  403.12(i)(4), 403.7...  7.
 Approval.                            application for removal
                                      credits was approved by
                                      the Approval Authority.
                                      The date data must be
                                      provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Removal Credits Pollutants.........  This field contains a list   403.12(i)(4)..........  7.
                                      of pollutants for which
                                      the Approval Authority
                                      granted the POTW
                                      authorization to
                                      administer removal credits.
Industrial User Name (Program        The name of each             403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7, 8.
 Report).                             Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      that is discharging
                                      (including truck
                                      transportation) to this
                                      POTW.
Industrial User Address (Program     The mailing address of each  403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7, 8.
 Report).                             Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      that is discharging
                                      (including truck
                                      transportation) to this
                                      POTW.
Industrial User City (Program        The name of the city, town,  403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7, 8.
 Report).                             village, or other
                                      locality, when
                                      identifiable, within whose
                                      boundaries (the majority
                                      of) for each Significant
                                      Industrial User (SIU) and
                                      Non-Significant
                                      Categorical Industrial
                                      User (NSCIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW.
Industrial User State (Program       The U.S. Postal Service      403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7, 8.
 Report).                             (USPS) abbreviation that
                                      represents the state or
                                      state equivalent for the
                                      U.S. for each Significant
                                      Industrial User (SIU) and
                                      Non-Significant
                                      Categorical Industrial
                                      User (NSCIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW.
Industrial User Zip Code (Program    The combination of the 5-    403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7, 8.
 Report).                             digit Zone Improvement
                                      Plan (ZIP) code and the 4-
                                      digit extension code (if
                                      available) that represents
                                      the geographic segment
                                      that is a sub unit of the
                                      ZIP Code assigned by the
                                      U.S. Postal Service to a
                                      geographic location for
                                      each Significant
                                      Industrial User (SIU) and
                                      Non-Significant
                                      Categorical Industrial
                                      User (NSCIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW.
Industrial User SIU Flag...........  This code/description will   403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
                                      identify whether the
                                      Industrial User is a
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      Users (SIU).
Industrial User Control Mechanism    This code/description will   403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 Flag.                                identify whether the
                                      Industrial User has a
                                      Control Mechanism.
Industrial User Control Mechanism    The date when the Control    403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 Expiration Date.                     Mechanism for the
                                      Industrial User will
                                      expire. The date data must
                                      be provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Industrial User Subject to           This code/description will   403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 Categorical Standards and Type       identify whether the
 (Program Report).                    Industrial User is a
                                      Categorical Industrial
                                      Users (CIU) and its type
                                      (including Standard CIU,
                                      Non-Significant
                                      Categorical Industrial
                                      User (NSCIU), and Middle
                                      Tier Categorical
                                      Industrial User).
Applicable Categorical Standards     This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 (Program Report).                    identify for each
                                      Categorical Industrial
                                      User (CIU) that is
                                      discharging (including
                                      truck transportation) to
                                      this POTW the applicable
                                      categorical pretreatment
                                      standards.
Industrial User Subject to Local     This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 Limits (Program Report).             identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      that is discharging
                                      (including truck
                                      transportation) to this
                                      POTW whether the IU is
                                      subject to local limits.
Industrial User Subject to Local     This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 Limits More Stringent Than           identify for each
 Categorical Standards (Program       Significant Industrial
 Report).                             User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      that is discharging
                                      (including truck
                                      transportation) to this
                                      POTW whether the IU is
                                      subject to local limits
                                      that are more stringent
                                      than the applicable
                                      categorical standards.

[[Page 46110]]

 
SNC with Pretreatment Standards      This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 (Program Report).                    identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      that is discharging
                                      (including truck
                                      transportation) to this
                                      POTW whether the IU was in
                                      Significant Non-Compliance
                                      (SNC) with discharge
                                      requirements (including
                                      effluent limit violations)
                                      in the previous 12 months.
SNC with Reporting Requirements      This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 (Program Report).                    identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      that is discharging
                                      (including truck
                                      transportation) to this
                                      POTW whether the IU was in
                                      Significant Non-Compliance
                                      (SNC) with reporting
                                      requirements (including
                                      baseline monitoring
                                      reports, notice of
                                      potential problems,
                                      periodic self monitoring
                                      reports, notice of change
                                      in Industrial User
                                      discharge, hazardous waste
                                      notification and BMP
                                      certification) in the
                                      previous 12 months.
SNC with Other Control Mechanism     This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 Requirements (Program Report).       identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      that is discharging
                                      (including truck
                                      transportation) to this
                                      POTW whether the IU was in
                                      Significant Non-Compliance
                                      (SNC) with any other
                                      control mechanism
                                      requirements in the
                                      previous 12 months.
Number of Quarters in SNC..........  This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
                                      identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      that is discharging
                                      (including truck
                                      transportation) to this
                                      POTW the number of yearly
                                      quarters the IU is in SNC
                                      in the previous 12 months.
Number of Industrial User            This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 Inspections.                         identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      the number of inspections
                                      conducted by the Control
                                      Authority in the previous
                                      12 months.
Number of Industrial User Sampling   This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 Events.                              identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      the number of sampling
                                      events conducted by the
                                      Control Authority in the
                                      previous 12 months.
Number of Industrial User Violation  This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 Notices.                             identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      the number of formal
                                      notices of violation or
                                      equivalent actions issued
                                      by the Control Authority
                                      in the previous 12 months.
Administrative Orders Issued to IUs  This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 (Program Report).                    identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      the number of
                                      administrative orders
                                      issued by the Control
                                      Authority in the previous
                                      12 months.
Civil Suits Filed Against IUs        This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 (Program Report).                    identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      the number of civil suits
                                      filed by the Control
                                      Authority in the previous
                                      12 months.
Criminal Suits Filed Against IUs     This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7.
 (Program Report).                    identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      the number of criminal
                                      suits filed by the Control
                                      Authority in the previous
                                      12 months.
Industrial User Cash Civil Penalty   For civil judicial           CWA Section 309.......  7.
 Amount Assessed.                     Enforcement Actions, the
                                      dollar amount of the
                                      penalty assessed against
                                      each Significant
                                      Industrial User (SIU) and
                                      Non-Significant
                                      Categorical Industrial
                                      User (NSCIU) in the
                                      previous 12 months as
                                      specified in the final
                                      entered Consent Decree or
                                      Court Order. For
                                      Administrative Enforcement
                                      Actions, it is the dollar
                                      amount of the penalty
                                      assessed in the Consent/
                                      Final Order.

[[Page 46111]]

 
Industrial User Cash Civil Penalty   For civil judicial           CWA Section 309.......  7.
 Amount Collected.                    Enforcement Actions, the
                                      dollar amount of the
                                      penalty collected from
                                      each Significant
                                      Industrial User (SIU) and
                                      Non-Significant
                                      Categorical Industrial
                                      User (NSCIU) in the
                                      previous 12 months. For
                                      Administrative Enforcement
                                      Actions, it is the dollar
                                      amount collected of the
                                      penalty assessed in the
                                      Consent/Final Order.
Industrial User POTW Discharge       This data element will       403.5(c), 403.8(f),     7.
 Contamination Indicator (Program     identify for each            403.12(i).
 Report).                             Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      whether the Industrial
                                      User caused or contributed
                                      to any problems with the
                                      receiving POTW's effluent
                                      discharge in the previous
                                      reporting period. EPA
                                      regulations require the
                                      Control Authority to
                                      develop and enforce local
                                      limits when the discharge
                                      from an IU causes or
                                      contributes to any
                                      problems (including upset,
                                      bypass, interference, pass-
                                      through) at the receiving
                                      POTW.
Industrial User Biosolids            This data element will       403.5(c), 403.8(f),     7.
 Contamination Indicator (Program     identify for each            403.12(i).
 Report).                             Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      whether the Industrial
                                      User caused or contributed
                                      to any problems with the
                                      receiving POTW's biosolids
                                      in the previous reporting
                                      period. EPA regulations
                                      require the Control
                                      Authority to develop and
                                      enforce local limits when
                                      the discharge from an IU
                                      causes or contributes to
                                      any problems (including
                                      upset, bypass,
                                      interference, pass-
                                      through) at the receiving
                                      POTW.
Industrial User Process Wastewater   This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7, 8.
 Flow Rate (Program Report).          identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      that is discharging
                                      (including truck
                                      transportation) to this
                                      POTW the process
                                      wastewater flow rate (in
                                      gallons per day).
Type of Significant Industrial User  This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7, 8.
 Process Wastewater Flow (Program     identify for each
 Report).                             Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      that is discharging
                                      (including truck
                                      transportation) to this
                                      POTW the type of process
                                      wastewater flow
                                      (continuous or
                                      intermittent).
Significant Industrial User Non-     This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7, 8.
 Process Wastewater Flow Rate         identify for each
 (Program Report).                    Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      that is discharging
                                      (including truck
                                      transportation) to this
                                      POTW the non-process
                                      wastewater flow rate (in
                                      gallons per day).
Type of Significant Industrial User  This data element will       403.8(f), 403.12(i)...  7, 8.
 Non-Process Wastewater Flow          identify for each
 (Program Report).                    Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      that is discharging
                                      (including truck
                                      transportation) to this
                                      POTW the type of non-
                                      process wastewater flow
                                      (continuous or
                                      intermittent).
Industrial User Removal Credits      This code/description will   403.7, 403.12(i)......  7.
 Flag.                                identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      whether the POTW has
                                      granted the IU removal
                                      credits.
Industrial User Removal Credits      This code/description will   403.12(i)(4)..........  7.
 Pollutants.                          identify for each
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      the list of pollutants for
                                      which POTW has granted the
                                      IU removal credits.
Industrial User Reduced Reporting    This code/description will   403.12(e)(3),           7.
 Flag.                                identify for each            403.12(i)(2).
                                      Significant Industrial
                                      User (SIU) and Non-
                                      Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      whether the Control
                                      Authority has granted
                                      reduced reporting
                                      requirements
                                      [403.12(e)(3)].
Non-Significant Categorical          This code/description will   403.12(i)(2),           7, 8.
 Industrial User (NSCIU)              identify for each Non-       403.12(q).
 Certification to Control Authority.  Significant Categorical
                                      Industrial User (NSCIU)
                                      whether it has given its
                                      annual compliance
                                      certification.
Control Authority Budget Resources.  Annual pretreatment          403.12(i)(4)..........  7.
                                      implementation budget.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46112]]

 
             Compliance Monitoring Activity (Data Elements Specific to Sewer Overflow Event Reports)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sewer Overflow Longitude (Sewer      This data element is         122.41(l)(6) and (7)..  9.
 Overflow Event Report).              required for sewer
                                      overflows that do not have
                                      a permitted feature
                                      identifier, which is
                                      reported on the NPDES
                                      permit application or
                                      Notice of Intent for NPDES
                                      permit coverage. The
                                      measure of the angular
                                      distance on a meridian
                                      east or west of the prime
                                      meridian for the sewer
                                      overflow. Entered in
                                      either Decimal Degrees or
                                      in Degrees Minutes
                                      Seconds; stored in decimal
                                      degrees. These data are
                                      provided in accordance
                                      with Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Sewer Overflow Latitude (Sewer       This data element is         122.41(l)(6) and (7)..  9.
 Overflow Event Report).              required for sewer
                                      overflows that do not have
                                      a permitted feature
                                      identifier, which is
                                      reported on the NPDES
                                      permit application or
                                      Notice of Intent for NPDES
                                      permit coverage. The
                                      measure of the angular
                                      distance on a meridian
                                      north or south of the
                                      equator for the sewer
                                      overflow. Entered in
                                      either Decimal Degrees or
                                      in Degrees Minutes
                                      Seconds; stored in decimal
                                      degrees. These data are
                                      provided in accordance
                                      with Environmental Data
                                      Standards Council,
                                      Latitude/Longitude Data
                                      Standard, Standard No.:
                                      EX000017.2, January 6,
                                      2006.
Type of Sewer Overflow (Sewer        A code identifying the type  122.41(l)(6) and (7)..  9.
 Overflow Event Report).              of sewer overflow
                                      (including CSO, SSO,
                                      Bypass, Other Discharge
                                      from the Collection System
                                      or Treatment Works).
Sewer Overflow Cause...............  The likely cause of the      122.41(l)(6) and (7)..  9.
                                      overflow event (e.g.,
                                      broken pipe, fats/oil/
                                      grease, mechanical
                                      failure, pump station
                                      electrical failure,
                                      inadequate sewer system
                                      capacity, etc.).
Date of Sewer Overflow Discovery     Date when the sewer          122.41(l)(6) and (7)..  9.
 (Sewer Overflow Event Report).       overflow is discovered by
                                      EPA or the delegated NPDES
                                      program authority, the
                                      permitted facility, or
                                      when the sewer overflow is
                                      reported by the public to
                                      the permitted facility.
                                      The date data must be
                                      provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Duration of Sewer Overflow event     Duration of the sewer        122.41(l)(6) and (7)..  9.
 (hours) (Sewer Overflow Event        overflow event (in hours).
 Report).                             If the discharge has not
                                      been corrected, the best
                                      professional judgment from
                                      the permitted facility of
                                      the time the sewer
                                      overflow is expected to
                                      continue.
Sewer Overflow Discharge Volume      Best professional judgment   122.41(l)(6) and (7)..  9.
 (Sewer Overflow Event Report).       from the permitted
                                      facility on the estimated
                                      number of gallons of sewer
                                      overflow.
Receiving Waterbody Name for         This data element is         122.41(l)(6) and (7)..  9.
 Permitted Feature (Sewer Overflow    required for sewer
 Event Report).                       overflow inspections
                                      without a permitted
                                      feature identifier. Best
                                      professional judgment from
                                      the permitted facility of
                                      the name of the waterbody
                                      that is or will likely
                                      receive the discharge from
                                      each sewer overflow.
Dry or Wet Weather Occurrence for    Best professional judgment   122.41(l)(6) and (7)..  9.
 Sewer Overflow.                      from the permitted
                                      facility on whether the
                                      sewer overflow event
                                      occurred during dry or wet
                                      weather.
Corrective Actions Taken or Planned  The unique code/description  122.41(l)(6) and (7)..  9.
 for Sewer Overflows (Sewer           that describes the steps
 Overflow Event Report).              taken or planned to
                                      reduce, eliminate, and
                                      prevent reoccurrence of
                                      future sewer overflows.
Type of Potential Impact of Sewer    This describes the type of   122.41(l)(6) and (7)..  9.
 Overflow Event (Sewer Overflow       potential human health or
 Event Report).                       environmental impact(s) of
                                      the sewer overflow event
                                      (e.g., beach closure).
                                      Under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6),
                                      ``the permittee shall
                                      report any noncompliance
                                      which may endanger health
                                      or the environment.'' This
                                      data element would provide
                                      information regarding the
                                      nature of such potential
                                      endangerment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46113]]

 
                                                    Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violation Code.....................  The code/description         123.45................  1.
                                      identifying which type of
                                      Violation has occurred.
                                      The code may a single
                                      event violation (SEV)
                                      code; some violation codes
                                      can be automatically
                                      generated in ICIS-NPDES
                                      based upon DMRs,
                                      schedules, etc.
Agency Identifying the Single Event  The code/description         123.45................  1.
 Violation (SEV).                     identifying the agency
                                      that identified the Single
                                      Event Violation (SEV).
Single Event Start Date............  If the single event          123.45................  1.
                                      violation (SEV) occurred
                                      over multiple days, the
                                      date the occurrence began.
                                      The date data must be
                                      provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Single Event End Date..............  If the single event          123.45................  1.
                                      violation (SEV) occurred
                                      over multiple days, the
                                      date the occurrence ended.
                                      The date data must be
                                      provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
RNC Detection Code.................  The type of RNC detected.    123.45................  1.
                                      It can be entered
                                      automatically by the
                                      system or it can be
                                      entered manually.
RNC Detection Date.................  The date that RNC was        123.45................  1.
                                      detected. It can be
                                      entered manually or
                                      automatically. In cases in
                                      which RNC is detected by
                                      ICIS-NPDES, the detection
                                      date entered will vary
                                      according to the type of
                                      violation detected. The
                                      date data must be provided
                                      in CCYY-MM-DD format where
                                      CC is the century, YY is
                                      the year, MM is the month
                                      and DD is the day.
RNC Resolution Code................  The RNC status (i.e.,        123.45................  1.
                                      noncompliant, resolved
                                      pending, waiting
                                      resolution, resolved) of
                                      the violation. It can be
                                      entered manually or
                                      automatically by the
                                      system.
RNC Resolution Date................  The date RNC was marked to   123.45................  1.
                                      its current resolution
                                      status. It can be entered
                                      manually or automatically.
                                      The date data must be
                                      provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Enforcement Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement Action Identifier......  The number of the            CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      Enforcement Action; for a
                                      judicial action, the
                                      number as referred to by
                                      the Court where the action
                                      was filed.
Enforcement Action Name............  The name associated with     CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      this enforcement action.
Enforcement Action Type............  A code/description that      CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      uniquely identifies the
                                      type of formal or informal
                                      enforcement action. This
                                      code identifies, for
                                      example, whether the
                                      enforcement action is a
                                      civil judicial referral, a
                                      notice of violation, an
                                      administrative penalty
                                      order, administrative
                                      order, etc.
Law Sections Violated..............  The primary law sections     CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      that were violated by the
                                      facility.
Programs Violated..................  The code that identifies     CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      the program (e.g.,
                                      pretreatment) associated
                                      with the enforcement
                                      activity.
Violation Code.....................  The code/description         CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      identifying which type of
                                      violation has occurred and
                                      is being addressed by this
                                      enforcement action.
Violation Date.....................  If there is a Single Event   CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      Violation, use Single
                                      Event Violation Date; if
                                      DMR reporting violation,
                                      use DMR Due Date; if DMR
                                      measurement violation, use
                                      Monitoring Period End
                                      Date; if Permit Schedule
                                      violation, use Permit
                                      Schedule Date; if a
                                      Compliance Schedule
                                      violation, use Compliance
                                      Schedule Date. The date
                                      data must be provided in
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46114]]

 
                                                  Final Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Order Type...................  A code/description that      CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      uniquely identifies the
                                      regulatory instrument used
                                      by the EPA to settle the
                                      Enforcement Action. This
                                      code identifies, for
                                      example, whether the final
                                      order is an administrative
                                      compliance order, an
                                      administrative penalty
                                      order, Federal Facility
                                      agreement, etc.
Violation Code.....................  The code/description         CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      identifying which type of
                                      Violation has occurred
                                      (e.g., D80 = Required
                                      Monitoring DMR Value Non-
                                      Receipt, E90 = Effluent
                                      Violation, C20 = Schedule
                                      Event Achieved Late).
Violation Date.....................  If there is a Single Event   CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      Violation, use Single
                                      Event Violation Date; if
                                      DMR reporting violation,
                                      use DMR Due Date; if DMR
                                      measurement violation, use
                                      Monitoring Period End
                                      Date; if Permit Schedule
                                      violation, use Permit
                                      Schedule Date; if a
                                      Compliance Schedule
                                      violation, use Compliance
                                      Schedule Date. The date
                                      data must be provided in
                                      CCYY-MM-DD format where CC
                                      is the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Final Order Issued/Entered Date....  The civil case date the      CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      Final Order is signed by
                                      the presiding Judge and
                                      entered by the Clerk of
                                      the Court; it is the date
                                      the Clerk stamps on the
                                      document. For an
                                      Administrative Formal EA,
                                      this is the Final Order
                                      Issued Date; for a
                                      Judicial EA, this is the
                                      Final Order Entered Date.
                                      The date data must be
                                      provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civil Penalty Amount Assessed......  For civil judicial           CWA Section 309.......  1 through 9.
                                      Enforcement Actions, the
                                      dollar amount of the
                                      penalty assessed against
                                      the defendant(s) as
                                      specified in the final
                                      entered Consent Decree or
                                      Court Order. For
                                      Administrative Enforcement
                                      Actions, it is the dollar
                                      amount of the penalty
                                      assessed in the Consent/
                                      Final Order.
Civil Penalty Amount Collected.....  For civil judicial           CWA Section 309.......  1 through 9.
                                      Enforcement Actions, the
                                      dollar amount of the
                                      penalty collected from the
                                      defendant(s). For
                                      Administrative Enforcement
                                      Actions, it is the dollar
                                      amount collected of the
                                      penalty assessed in the
                                      Consent/Final Order.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Compliance Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Schedule Number.........  A two-digit number which in  CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      combination with the
                                      Schedule Type and NPDES ID
                                      uniquely identifies a
                                      Compliance Schedule.
Schedule Descriptor................  The code/description         CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      indicating the type of
                                      Narrative Condition
                                      applies for the schedule.
Schedule (Start) Date..............  The date the event is        CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      scheduled to be completed
                                      (i.e., the due date). The
                                      date data must be provided
                                      in CCYY-MM-DD format where
                                      CC is the century, YY is
                                      the year, MM is the month
                                      and DD is the day.
Actual Date........................  The actual date on which     CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      the Compliance Schedule
                                      event was completed/
                                      achieved. The date data
                                      must be provided in CCYY-
                                      MM-DD format where CC is
                                      the century, YY is the
                                      year, MM is the month and
                                      DD is the day.
Report Received Date...............  The date the regulatory      CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      agency received the
                                      Compliance Schedule
                                      report. The date data must
                                      be provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
Schedule Event.....................  The unique code/description  CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      that identifies the
                                      Compliance Schedule event.
Milestones/Sub-activities..........  The unique code/description  CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      that identifies the
                                      milestones/sub-activities.

[[Page 46115]]

 
Sub Activity Type..................  A code/description that      CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      uniquely identifies a type
                                      of sub activities and/or
                                      Enforcement Action
                                      milestones.
Actual Date........................  The date on which the        CWA Section 309.......  1.
                                      milestone was achieved/sub
                                      activity was conducted.
                                      The date data must be
                                      provided in CCYY-MM-DD
                                      format where CC is the
                                      century, YY is the year,
                                      MM is the month and DD is
                                      the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 403--GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR EXISTING AND NEW 
SOURCES OF POLLUTION

0
23. The authority citation for part 403 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

0
24. Amend Sec.  403.10 by adding paragraph (f)(2)(viii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  403.10  Development and submission of NPDES State pretreatment 
programs.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (viii) Regularly notify all Control Authorities of electronic 
submission requirements of 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR 
part 127.
* * * * *
0
25. Amend Sec.  403.12 by revising paragraphs (e)(1), (h), and (i) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  403.12  Reporting requirements for POTW's and industrial users.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Any Industrial User subject to a categorical Pretreatment 
Standard (except a Non-Significant Categorical User as defined in Sec.  
403.3(v)(2)), after the compliance date of such Pretreatment Standard, 
or, in the case of a New Source, after commencement of the discharge 
into the POTW, shall submit to the Control Authority during the months 
of June and December, unless required more frequently in the 
Pretreatment Standard or by the Control Authority or the Approval 
Authority, a report indicating the nature and concentration of 
pollutants in the effluent which are limited by such categorical 
Pretreatment Standards. In addition, this report shall include a record 
of measured or estimated average and maximum daily flows for the 
reporting period for the Discharge reported in paragraph (b)(4) of this 
section except that the Control Authority may require more detailed 
reporting of flows. In cases where the Pretreatment Standard requires 
compliance with a Best Management Practice (or pollution prevention 
alternative), the User shall submit documentation required by the 
Control Authority or the Pretreatment Standard necessary to determine 
the compliance status of the User. At the discretion of the Control 
Authority and in consideration of such factors as local high or low 
flow rates, holidays, budget cycles, etc., the Control Authority may 
modify the months during which the above reports are to be submitted. 
For Industrial Users for which EPA or the authorized state, tribe, or 
territory is the Control Authority, all reports covered under this 
paragraph and submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 
CFR PART 127] shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, 
or their designated representative in compliance with 40 CFR parts 3 
and 127 and Sec.  403.12(l) and with any additional requirements 
imposed by the Control Authority.
* * * * *
    (h) Reporting requirements for Industrial Users not subject to 
categorical Pretreatment Standards. The Control Authority must require 
appropriate reporting from those Industrial Users with Discharges that 
are not subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards. Significant Non-
categorical Industrial Users must submit to the Control Authority at 
least once every six months (on dates specified by the Control 
Authority) a description of the nature, concentration, and flow of the 
pollutants required to be reported by the Control Authority. In cases 
where a local limit requires compliance with a Best Management Practice 
or pollution prevention alternative, the User must submit documentation 
required by the Control Authority to determine the compliance status of 
the User. These reports must be based on sampling and analysis 
performed in the period covered by the report, and in accordance with 
the techniques described in 40 CFR part 136 and amendments thereto. 
This sampling and analysis may be performed by the Control Authority in 
lieu of the significant non-categorical Industrial User. For Industrial 
Users for which EPA or the authorized state, tribe, or territory is the 
Control Authority, all reports submitted after [INSERT TWO YEARS AFTER 
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be submitted 
electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated 
representative in compliance with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 and Sec.  
403.12(l) and with any additional requirements imposed by the Control 
Authority.
    (i) Annual POTW reports. POTWs with approved Pretreatment Programs 
shall provide the Approval Authority with a report that briefly 
describes the POTW's program activities, including activities of all 
participating agencies, if more than one jurisdiction is involved in 
the local program. The report required by this section shall be 
submitted no later than one year after approval of the POTW's 
Pretreatment Program, and at least annually thereafter, and shall 
include, at a minimum, the applicable required data in Appendix A to 40 
CFR part 127. The report required by this section shall also include a 
summary of changes to the POTW's pretreatment program that have not 
been previously reported to the Approval Authority and any other 
relevant information requested by the Approval Authority. All annual 
reports submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR 
PART 127], or if required by the Approval Authority or the applicable 
permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 
127], shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or 
their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR parts 3 and 
127 and Sec.  403.12(l), and with any additional requirements imposed 
by the Approval Authority.
* * * * *

[[Page 46116]]

PART 501--STATE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS

0
26. The authority citation for part 501 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

0
27. Revise Sec.  501.21 to read as follows:


Sec.  501.21  Program reporting to EPA.

    State sludge management programs shall comply with 40 CFR parts 3 
and 127 (including the applicable required data elements in Appendix A 
to 40 CFR part 127).

PART 503--STANDARDS FOR THE USE OR DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE

0
28. The authority citation for part 503 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sections 405(d) and (e) of the Clean Water Act, as 
amended by Pub. L. 95-217, sec. 54(d), 91 Stat. 1591 (33 U.S.C. 
1345(d) and (e)); and Pub. L. 100-4, title IV, sec. 406(a), (b), 101 
Stat., 71, 72 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

0
29. Revise Sec.  503.18 to read as follows:


Sec.  503.18  Reporting.

    (a) Class I sludge management facilities, POTWs (as defined in 
Sec.  501.2 of this chapter) with a design flow rate equal to or 
greater than one million gallons per day, and POTWs that serve 10,000 
people or more shall submit a report on February 19 of each year. All 
annual reports submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the Director or applicable permit 
on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], 
shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their 
designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 
122.22, and 40 CFR part 127 and with any additional requirements 
imposed by the Director.
    (b) [Reserved]


(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 
2040-0157)
0
30. Revise Sec.  503.28 to read as follows:


Sec.  503.28  Reporting.

    Class I sludge management facilities, POTWs (as defined in Sec.  
501.2 of this chapter) with a design flow rate equal to or greater than 
one million gallons per day, and POTWs that serve 10,000 people or more 
shall submit a report on February 19 of each year. All annual reports 
submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 
127], or if required by the Director or applicable permit on or before 
[TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be 
submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated 
representative, in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 
CFR part 127 and any additional requirements imposed by the Director.
0
31. Revise Sec.  503.48 to read as follows:


Sec.  503.48  Reporting.

    Class I sludge management facilities, POTWs (as defined in Sec.  
501.2 of this chapter) with a design flow rate equal to or greater than 
one million gallons per day, and POTWs that serve a population of 
10,000 people or greater shall submit a report on February 19 of each 
year. All annual reports submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the Director or applicable 
permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 
127], shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or 
their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 40 
CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127 and any additional requirements imposed 
by the Director.

[FR Doc. 2013-17551 Filed 7-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P