[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46006-46116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: [email protected], 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:
[email protected].
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