not have a 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 system registration, savings in paper and
postage, and the potential impact of dual reporting. The majority of
the savings due to the final rule result from electronic reporting of
DMRs. Note, however, that not all of the regulated entities enumerated
in Table 4 submit DMRs. To clarify this point, Table 5 shows the number
of filers under each subprogram for each type of report, including
DMRs.

                          Table 5--Number of Filers by NPDES Subprogram and Report Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Program report
              Subprogram                       Permit type          NOI filers      DMR filers        filers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Industrial Dischargers.......  Individual Major........               0           1,683               0
                                        Individual Nonmajor.....               0          18,993               0
                                        General Nonmajor........          45,948          41,353               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWA section 316(b) Filers \a\...................................               0               0             200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) In Municipalities without                  0               0           2,487
 Pretreatment Program \b\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations  Individual Nonmajor.....               0               0           1,266
                                        General Nonmajor........           5,291               0           5,291
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Industrial & Construction Stormwater
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial............................  Individual Major........               0             132               0
                                        Individual Nonmajor.....               0             563               0
                                        General Nonmajor........          92,282          92,282               0
Construction..........................  Individual Major........               0               0               0
                                        Individual Nonmajor.....               0               6               0
                                        General Nonmajor........      \c\ 83,871           2,432               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Municipal Stormwater \d\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I MS4s..........................  Individual Major........               0             249             249
                                        General Nonmajor........               9               9               9
Phase II MS4s.........................  Individual Nonmajor.....               0               0             204
                                        General Nonmajor........           5,093               0           5,093
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 POTWs and TWTDSs (may have a CSS or a SSS, may also file more than one report)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POTWs with CSSs \e\...................  Individual Major........               0             462         \f\ 462
                                        Individual Nonmajor.....               0             244         \f\ 244
                                        General Nonmajor........              68              68          \f\ 68
POTWs with SSSs only and TWTDSs \e\...  Individual Major........               0           4,312       \f\ 4,312
                                        Individual Nonmajor.....               0          16,706      \f\ 16,706
                                        General Nonmajor........           1,935           1,935       \f\ 1,935
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            POTW NPDES Report Filers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Report Filers   Individual Major........               0               0           4,209
 \a\.                                   Individual Nonmajor.....               0               0             694
Pretreatment Program Report Filers....  Individual Major........               0           1,462           1,462
                                        Individual Nonmajor.....               0             114             114
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ DMR filings by these facilities are captured by CSS POTWs, SSS POTWs, TWTDSs, or standard industrial
  dischargers.
\b\ These industrial facilities discharge to POTWs and are regulated by the NPDES program through EPA's General
  Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part 403) and Categorical Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR parts 405 through
  471). They do not have NPDES permits, but those in municipalities without pretreatment programs would report
  electronically under the rule.
\c\ Assumes 2.9 construction stormwater general permits per firm.
\d\ Nearly all Phase I MS4s are individually permitted facilities. For purposes of cost estimating, the analysis
  treats all individually permitted Phase I MS4s as majors and all Phase II MS4s and nonmajors.
\e\ The analysis divides the total universe of POTWs into CSSs and SSSs and treats those that are only partially
  composed of CSSs as CSSs.
\f\ Accounts for the submission of sewer overflow and bypass event reports.

(b) Data Elements and Data Systems
    Section V describes how and why the inventory of reportable data is
changed by this 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 NPDES data groups
those data elements fall into (e.g., DMR, CAFO Annual Report), 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 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. Paper submissions are the primary
means by which permittees submit data to the states, tribes, and
territories. This means the states, tribes, and territories are
required to 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 benefits of this 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, transmitted directly to the applicable information
systems, and shared with EPA through the National Environmental
Information Exchange Network.
    There is generally 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 might be required to submit data
both electronically and on paper. The costs of such dual reporting are
estimated to range from zero to $86 per entity.
    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 savings compared to the current
mode of operation. This does not mean, however, that every state,
tribe, and territory will experience the same savings from the rule.
Some permitting authorities have already begun shifting to electronic
reporting. Forty-eight states have either implemented EPA's NetDMR or
their own eDMR system or are in the process of doing so. Some
permitting authorities have also begun moving to electronic reporting
in other areas, such as NOI. However, participation in most of the
state, tribe, or territory electronic reporting systems is voluntary,
so participation rates are highly variable. Ohio is one of a few states
that has a mandatory eDMR system and has achieved participation of over
99%. Other states have much lower participation rates, which mean they
are bearing the costs of operating both paper-based and electronic
reporting systems.
(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 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.
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.
(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
variation in 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. Furthermore, many permittees
submit multiple DMR forms per month, which explains (1) why DMR data
elements comprise the largest portion of total data volume, and (2) why
eliminating the need for the states, tribes, and territories to enter
DMR data produces most of the savings from the rule.
    Facility data are 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 modified except during the regular
five-year reviews, or as a result of enforcement actions.
    Enforcement and compliance data are created on an as-needed basis.
For example, inspection data are created at the time a facility is
inspected. It is possible that some permittees will never have any
violations or enforcement actions against them, and therefore very
little enforcement data associated with them beyond routine compliance
monitoring.
    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 and their
frequencies has been evaluated 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 component 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. 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 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 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 II, EPA intends to develop electronic
reporting systems for each of the reports covered by this rule--DMRs,
NOIs, and program reports. Those EPA-developed systems will be offered
to all of the states, tribes, territories, and permittees for their
use. The cost of developing those reporting systems 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 intends to encourage
third-party development of electronic reporting systems. Ultimately
each authorized state, tribe, and territory will decide whether to use,
and allow their permittees to use, the EPA-provided electronic
reporting systems or other systems. Each state, tribe, and territory
has the option of adopting one or more of the EPA systems and rejecting
the others. Although EPA is building, and making available, a
comprehensive set of systems, the EA includes certain state, tribe, and
territory costs to modify and expand their electronic reporting
systems.
    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 system development 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, and territories
within the first year after the effective date of the rule under the
implementation schedule described in Section VII.
    The EA also estimates marginal operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs, over and above current annual costs, for EPA to support the
systems required by the rule. It assumes there are no incremental O&M
costs for states, tribes, and territories specifically to maintain the
upgraded electronic systems (although it does include other ongoing
costs, such as data entry). EPA estimates that most of the state
compliance costs will take place in the first few years after the final
rule.
(j) Additional Implementation Activities
    In addition to system development costs, the EA includes the costs
to EPA and the states, tribes, and territories of the following
activities associated with the implementation of the rule:
     Authorized NPDES programs making decisions regarding their
initial recipient status;
     Authorized NPDES programs demonstrating their attorneys
general accept electronic signatures in lieu of physical signature,
thereby certifying compliance with CROMERR;
     Authorized NPDES programs preparing IPs and EPA review of
those plans;
     Authorized NPDES programs updating their Memoranda of
Agreement with their Regional Administrator;
     Authorized NPDES program and EPA developing criteria for
temporary and permanent waivers from electronic reporting;
     Authorized NPDES program and EPA coordination via training
webinars;
     EPA assessing participation rates and, where appropriate,
conducting oversight using its CWA authority and ICR to compel NPDES-
regulated entities to utilize their NPDES program's electronic
reporting system; and,
     Authorized NPDES programs and EPA modifying permits to
require electronic submissions.
    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 rule.
(k) Consolidating Summary Reports
    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 replaces 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.
(l) 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.
    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 electronic reporting, the number and mix of reports
they submit annually, as well as the number of pages in each report,
and the required postage.
(m) Registration, Electronic Signatures 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. The EA incorporates available data about the extent to which
regulated entities are using electronic reporting systems to submit
DMRs and assumes these entities will not bear additional registration
and training costs.
    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. To use the electronic reporting system for
NetDMR and NeT, individual regulated entities will need to register for
accounts, either on EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) or a similar data
portal provided by their authorized NPDES program. Most regulated
entities (excluding construction operators in states that allow a
Hybrid Approach, as discussed in Section V) will also need to mail
their authorized NPDES program an electronic signature agreement (ESA)
stating that their electronic personal identification number (PIN) is
the legal equivalent of their written signature.
    NetDMR or authorized NPDES program eDMR systems are sufficiently
complex that many regulated entities will need training to effectively
use them. The EA assumes this training will be conducted online.
Experience with currently operating systems has shown that training is
not necessary for submitting NOIs or program reports electronically, as
these systems are less complicated. General permit facilities would
also use these less complicated systems to submit DMRs and, therefore,
not require training.

    The EA also assumes that some permittees would bear additional
minor implementation costs associated with electronic reporting
registration to satisfy EPA's CROMERR requirements. Specifically, some
entities would need to acquire a new business email address and
entities that report less frequently than every 90 days would need to
reset their password when they report. Including registration, ESA,
training, and these minor costs, the EA estimates total initial
implementation costs for individual permittees of $314 or less, with an
additional recurring cost for some permittees of approximately $6 when
the permittee must reset their password. The EA also assumes that EPA
would take over initial recipient status under 40 CFR 127.27(d) in two
states during the ten year period covered by the analysis. Permittees
in these states would need to re-register at an additional cost of $277
or less as most electronic signing credentials are not transferrable
from one electronic reporting system to another.
(n) Reporting During the Transition Period
    As discussed in Section V, during the initial implementation
period, certain regulated entities might be required to submit data to
their authorized state program both electronically and on paper. This
dual reporting during the transition would involve copying information
from paper forms into the appropriate state electronic reporting system
and would occur only under certain conditions (e.g., the regulated
entity's permit conditions explicitly require paper reporting, the
authorized state does not use its enforcement discretion, and the
permittee does not consent to a minor modification of its permit). The
EA incorporates the cost of such dual reporting for a portion of the
affected universe. It assumes the actual number of regulated entities
affected and the resulting cost will decrease over the course of the
transition period, as permits are modified to require electronic,
instead of paper reporting, either on the normal permit cycle or as a
result of state implementation activities. Therefore, the EA assumes
dual reporting will cease once the rule is fully implemented, five
years after the effective date of the rule. The EA estimates the
additional cost to permittees of such dual reporting at $86 or less per
affected entity per year.

D. Summary of Costs and Savings

    The EA for this final rule estimates savings and costs over a ten-
year period, beginning on the date that the rule would become final.
Applying a 3% discount rate, and using 2014 dollars, the largest annual
savings are $44.0 million during the first year of electronic reporting
(Year 1 in Table 6 and Table 7). During the ten-year period, the
highest annual costs are $74.4 million during the first year after the
effective date of the rule (Year 0 in Table 6 and Table 7). Annual
costs are significantly less in all other years. Cumulative savings for
the ten-year period are $406.4 million while cumulative costs are
$250.4 million. As a result the overall economic effect of this rule is
a net cumulative savings of $156.0 million over the ten years of the
projection.
    The following tables summarize the EA cost and savings using the 3%
(Table 6) and 7% (Table 7) discount rates as required by EPA's EA
guidance in 2014 dollars. Each table shows the annual costs and
savings. The ``breakeven point'' is the date after the final rule when
the cumulative savings exceed cumulative costs.
    There are both qualitative and quantitative benefits associated
with this final rule. EPA has estimated some of the benefits of this
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 2014 dollars, the annual total net benefits at full
implementation (five years after the effective date of the rule)
associated with reduced paperwork and management of information are
approximately $26 million, with 93% of those savings going to the
states, tribes, and territories.
    Additional benefits associated with the rule include the potential
for improved compliance and allow for better government and public
decision making; however, EPA was unable to monetize these benefits.
EPA was able to develop a rough monetary estimate of the benefits
associated with reductions in errors in the reported data resulting
from the rule that benefit both regulated entities and permitting
authorities. Using information on the number of errors typically
associated with DMR submissions, EPA developed a rough estimate of the
potential time and cost savings that permitted authorities might
experience annually from no longer having to correct errors in DMR
data. Specifically, EPA estimates total time and cost saving of 130
full-time equivalents (FTEs) and $9.3 million in wages.
    The cost of implementing the final rule during the first year after
the effective date is approximately $74.4 million. The cost is
estimated to drop to a $20.1 million or less per year in subsequent
years, once electronic reporting begins (assuming a 3% discount rate).
During the first year of electronic reporting (Year 1 in Table 6 and
Table 7), annual savings greatly outweigh annual costs, resulting in
net savings of approximately $23.9 million per year, with similar net
savings in subsequent years.

                         Table 6--Ten-Year Projected Costs and Savings--3% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Regulated
                Year                  EPA  headquarters     EPA regions           States            entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................................         $9,720,000           $400,000        $43,100,000        $21,160,000
1...................................          1,040,000             30,000         18,060,000          1,010,000
2...................................          1,230,000             30,000         17,530,000            930,000
3...................................            940,000             30,000         17,020,000          1,240,000
4...................................            850,000             30,000         16,520,000            800,000
5...................................            830,000             30,000         16,000,000            740,000
6...................................          1,330,000             30,000         15,440,000            710,000
7...................................            880,000             30,000         14,990,000            690,000
8...................................            760,000             30,000         14,550,000          1,000,000
9...................................            730,000             30,000         14,130,000            650,000
10..................................            710,000             30,000         13,800,000            630,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................................  .................                $--                $--                $--
1...................................  .................        (2,280,000)       (40,530,000)        (1,210,000)
2...................................  .................        (2,210,000)       (39,350,000)        (1,210,000)
3...................................  .................        (2,150,000)       (38,200,000)        (1,210,000)
4...................................  .................        (2,090,000)       (37,090,000)        (1,210,000)
5...................................  .................        (2,040,000)       (38,610,000)        (1,250,000)
6...................................  .................        (2,060,000)       (38,210,000)        (1,220,000)
7...................................  .................        (2,000,000)       (37,100,000)        (1,180,000)
8...................................  .................        (1,940,000)       (36,020,000)        (1,150,000)
9...................................  .................        (1,890,000)       (34,970,000)        (1,110,000)
10..................................  .................        (1,830,000)       (33,950,000)        (1,080,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Table 7--Ten-Year Projected Costs and Savings--7% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Regulated
                Year                  EPA  headquarters     EPA regions           States            entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................................         $9,720,000           $400,000        $43,100,000        $21,160,000
1...................................          1,000,000             30,000         17,380,000            970,000
2...................................          1,140,000             30,000         16,240,000            870,000
3...................................            840,000             20,000         15,180,000          1,100,000
4...................................            730,000             20,000         14,190,000            690,000
5...................................            680,000             20,000         13,220,000            610,000
6...................................          1,050,000             20,000         12,280,000            570,000
7...................................            680,000             20,000         11,480,000            530,000
8...................................            560,000             20,000         10,730,000            730,000
9...................................            520,000             20,000         10,030,000            460,000
10..................................            490,000             20,000          9,430,000            430,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................................                $--                $--                $--                $--
1...................................                $--        (2,200,000)       (39,010,000)        (1,170,000)
2...................................                $--        (2,050,000)       (36,460,000)        (1,120,000)
3...................................                $--        (1,920,000)       (34,070,000)        (1,080,000)
4...................................                $--        (1,790,000)       (31,850,000)        (1,040,000)
5...................................                $--        (1,690,000)       (31,910,000)        (1,040,000)
6...................................                $--        (1,640,000)       (30,410,000)          (970,000)
7...................................                $--        (1,530,000)       (28,420,000)          (910,000)
8...................................                $--        (1,430,000)       (26,560,000)          (850,000)
9...................................                $--        (1,340,000)       (24,820,000)          (790,000)
10..................................                $--        (1,250,000)       (23,200,000)          (740,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Implementation

A. Overview of Regulatory Implementation Schedule

    EPA developed the implementation schedule for this final rule after
careful analysis and extensive consultation with authorized NPDES
programs and many other stakeholders. This implementation schedule
balances the goals and benefits of electronic reporting with the
practical challenges facing authorized NPDES programs and regulated
entities. For example, some authorized NPDES programs noted that they
compete against other agencies for the time and resources of a central
shared information technology staff. For these authorized NPDES
programs the IP may need to be tailored to account for their unique
circumstances. The transition from paper to electronic reporting will
require close coordination and cooperation between EPA and authorized
NPDES programs. These IPs will provide an effective means for
documenting all necessary tasks for a timely and orderly transition to
electronic reporting.
    As previously noted, the benefits of this final rule include
accelerated resource savings that states, tribes, and territories will
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. These benefits and savings will be
realized sooner the more quickly a state can implement the final rule.
Under the final rule, a complete set of information for the regulated
universe will be required no later than five years after the effective
date of the final rule. In this final rule, EPA is adopting the
timeline recommended by authorized NPDES programs and if participation
goals are not met, EPA will issue individual notices to require NPDES-
regulated entities to use the authorized NPDES program's electronic
reporting system. The combination of the deadlines in this

final rule, current technology, and EPA's plan to issue individual
notices will help maintain a steady and measurable pace towards
electronic reporting in a reasonable time period.
    Given the different types of NPDES program data, EPA is phasing in
the electronic collection, management, and transfer of NPDES program
data (appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) on the following schedule. A
chronological listing of implementation activities are provided in
Table 8.
     Phase 1 Data: Authorized NPDES programs are required to
transmit to EPA basic facility and permit information (see list of data
elements in DCN 0007) for all permits as well as other data necessary
for implementation of Phase 1 data collection within nine months after
the effective date of the final rule. One year after the effective date
of the final rule authorized NPDES programs will also start
electronically transmitting to EPA their state performance data, which
includes information generated from compliance monitoring (e.g.,
inspections), violation determinations, and enforcement actions.
Additionally, one year after the effective date of the final rule,
NPDES regulated entities that are required to submit DMRs (majors and
nonmajors, individually permitted facilities and facilities covered by
general permits) must do so electronically. EPA and authorized NPDES
programs will begin electronically receiving these DMRs from all DMR
filers and start sharing these data with each other. One year after the
effective date of the final rule, all NPDES regulated entities in
states where EPA is the authorized NPDES biosolids program (currently
42 of 50 states and all other tribal lands and territories) must
electronically submit their Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program
Report to EPA.
     Phase 2 Data: Authorized NPDES programs have five years to
begin electronically collecting, managing, and sharing the remaining
set of information in appendix A in 40 CFR part 127. This information
includes: (1) General permit reports [Notice of Intent to be covered
(NOI); Notice of Termination (NOT); No Exposure Certification (NOE);
Low Erosivity Waiver and Other Waivers from Stormwater Controls (LEW)];
Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report (where the state is the
authorized NPDES biosolids program); and all other remaining NPDES
program reports (e.g., CAFO Annual Report, Pretreatment Program Annual
Report). Authorized NPDES programs will also share with EPA all data
necessary for implementation of Phase 2 data collection three months
before the Phase 2 deadline (e.g., general permit parameters).
Additionally, one year after the effective date of the final rule,
authorized NPDES programs are required to submit an IP for meeting the
Phase 2 data requirements to EPA for EPA to review.
     NNCR and Other State Reporting: EPA will replace a number
of currently required state reports (e.g., QNCR and ANCR) with the new
NNCR when EPA has more a timely, complete, more accurate, and
nationally-consistent set of data about the NPDES program. Full
implementation of the NNCR and phase out of certain state reports will
only be possible one full year after full implementation of Phase 2
data collection. A complete set of Phase 1 and 2 data are necessary to
develop and produce the NNCR.

       Table 8--Chronological Listing of Implementation Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Key milestones                            Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule--      Sixty days after
 Effective Date.                              publication in the Federal
                                              Register.
Authorized NPDES programs will start         Effective Date of Final
 incorporating the new electronic reporting   Rule.
 requirements into new or re-issued NPDES
 permits upon the effective date of this
 final rule. Authorized NPDES programs can
 incorporate electronic reporting
 requirements into NPDES permits through
 use of a minor modification process [see
 40 CFR 122.63(f)].
A state, tribe, or territory that seeks      90 days after the Effective
 authorization to implement an NPDES          Date of Final Rule.
 program must describe 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 40
 CFR part 127.
Authorized NPDES programs will decide the    120 days after the
 NPDES data groups for which they wish to     Effective Date of Final
 be the initial recipient of electronic       Rule.
 NPDES information from NPDES-regulated
 entities. The final rule uses an `opt-out'
 approach so these authorized programs will
 need to provide notice to EPA if they wish
 for EPA to be the initial recipient for
 one or more of their NPDES data groups.
 These notices should be sent to EPA within
 120 days of the effective date of the
 final rule.
EPA will publish on its Website and in the   210 days after the
 Federal Register a listing of the initial    promulgation date for the
 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.
Authorized NPDES programs will               Within nine months of the
 electronically transmit to EPA basic         Effective Date of Final
 facility and permit information (see list    Rule.
 of data elements in DCN 0007) for all
 permits as well as other data necessary
 for implementation of Phase 1 data
 collection within nine months after the
 effective date of the final rule.
 Authorized NPDES programs often collect
 these data from paper individual NPDES
 permit applications and forms submitted by
 NPDES regulated entities; however, some
 states collect these data from NPDES
 regulated entities through electronic
 reporting systems.
One year after the effective date of the     Starting one year after the
 final rule, authorized NPDES programs will   Effective Date of Final
 start sharing with EPA their state           Rule.
 performance data, which includes
 information generated from compliance
 monitoring (e.g., inspections), violation
 determinations, and enforcement actions.
EPA and authorized NPDES programs will       Starting one year after the
 begin electronically receiving DMRs from     Effective Date of Final
 all DMR filers [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)] and     Rule.
 start sharing these data with the
 designated EPA and state NPDES data
 systems.
All NPDES regulated entities in states       Starting one year after the
 where EPA is the authorized NPDES            Effective Date of Final
 biosolids program (currently 42 of 50        Rule.
 states and all other tribal lands and
 territories) must electronically submit
 their Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual
 Program Reports [40 CFR part 503] to EPA.

Authorized NPDES programs will submit an IP  One year after the
 to EPA for EPA's review to ensure that       Effective Date of Final
 authorized NPDES programs will meet the      Rule.
 Phase 2 electronic reporting deadline. The
 content of these plans must provide enough
 detail (e.g., tasks, milestones, roles and
 responsibilities, necessary resources) to
 ensure that EPA and authorized NPDES
 programs can work together to successfully
 implement electronic reporting. The IP
 will also document the process for
 evaluating and approving temporary and
 permanent electronic reporting waivers
 from NPDES regulated entities.
EPA will separately calculate the            Eighteen months after the
 electronic reporting participation rate      Effective Date of Final
 for each authorized NPDES program and for    Rule and annually
 DMRs and the Sewage Sludge/Biosolids         thereafter.
 Annual Program Reports. EPA will assess
 the electronic reporting participation
 rate for individually permitted facilities
 separate from the electronic reporting
 participation rate for general permit
 covered facilities for DMRs.
Per existing NPDES regulations [see 40 CFR   Two years after the
 123.62(e)], authorized states, tribes, and   Effective Date of Final
 territories will finish any necessary        Rule.
 regulatory or statutory changes to their
 NPDES programs.
Authorized NPDES programs will               Within four years and nine
 electronically transmit to EPA the data      months of the Effective
 necessary for implementation of Phase 2      Date of Final Rule.
 data collection (three months prior to
 Phase 2 deadline).
NPDES regulated entities will start          Starting five years after
 electronically submitting their Phase 2      the Effective Date of
 data. This information includes:             Final Rule.
     General Permit Reports
     [Notices of Intent to discharge
     (NOIs); Notices of Termination (NOTs);
     No Exposure Certifications (NOEs); Low
     Erosivity Waivers or Other Waivers
     from Stormwater Controls (LEWs)] [40
     CFR 122.26(b)(15), 122.28 and 124.5];
     Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual
     Program Reports [40 CFR part 503]--
     where the state is the authorized
     NPDES program;
     Concentrated Animal Feeding
     Operation (CAFO) Annual Program
     Reports [40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)];
     Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
     System (MS4) Program Reports [40 CFR
     122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c)];
     Pretreatment Program Reports
     [40 CFR 403.12(i)];
     Significant Industrial User
     Compliance Reports in Municipalities
     Without Approved Pretreatment Programs
     [40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)];
     Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event
     Reports [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4), (l)(6)
     and (7), (m)(3)]; and
     CWA section 316(b) Annual
     Reports [40 CFR part 125, subpart J]
Authorized NPDES programs will also need to  Starting five years after
 re-submit their waiver process               the Effective Date of
 descriptions to EPA for review on a five     Final Rule.
 year cycle. EPA will inform the state if
 its waiver process description is
 inadequate. This will allow EPA and
 authorized NPDES programs to assess the
 effectiveness of the waiver process
 against advances in information technology.
EPA will separately calculate the            Five years and six months
 electronic reporting participation rate      after the Effective Date
 for each authorized NPDES program and for    of Final Rule and annually
 each NPDES data group.                       thereafter.
Upon successful implementation of Phase 1    Starting six years after
 and 2, authorized NPDES programs will stop   the Effective Date of
 generating the Quarterly Non-Compliance      Final Rule.
 Report (QNCR), the Annual Non-Compliance
 Report (ANCR), the Semi-Annual Statistical
 Summary Report, and the part 501 annual
 biosolids report.
EPA will starting publishing the NPDES       Starting six years after
 Noncompliance Report (NNCR).                 the Effective Date of
                                              Final Rule with annual and
                                              quarterly updates
                                              thereafter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Roles and Responsibilities

1. Authorized NPDES Programs
    This rule does not change the governing responsibilities of
authorized NPDES programs or EPA. Authorized NPDES programs will start
incorporating the new electronic reporting requirements into new or re-
issued NPDES permits upon the effective date of this final rule. For
example, changes to 40 CFR 122.41 must be incorporated into any NPDES
permit that is issued on or after the effective date of this final
rule.
    Authorized NPDES programs will decide the NPDES data groups for
which they wish to be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES
information from NPDES-regulated entities. The final rule uses an `opt-
out' approach so these authorized programs will need to provide notice
to EPA if they wish for EPA to be the initial recipient for one or more
of their NPDES data groups. These notices should be sent to EPA within
120 days of the effective date of the final rule.
    Authorized NPDES programs will electronically transmit to EPA basic
facility and permit information (see list of data elements in DCN 0007)
for all permits as well as other data necessary for implementation of
Phase 1 data collection within nine months after the effective date of
the final rule. Authorized NPDES programs often collect these data from
paper individual NPDES permit applications and forms submitted by NPDES
regulated entities; however, some states collect these data from NPDES
regulated entities through electronic reporting systems.
    One year after the effective date of the final rule, authorized
NPDES programs will start sharing with EPA their state performance
data, which includes information generated from compliance monitoring
(e.g., inspections), violation determinations, and enforcement actions.
Additionally, no later than one year after the effective date of the
final rule, EPA and authorized NPDES programs will begin electronically
receiving DMRs from all DMR filers and start sharing these data with
the designated EPA and state NPDES data systems. To support the
electronic collection, management, and sharing of DMR data, authorized
NPDES programs will need to update their technology and infrastructure.
For example, authorized NPDES programs may elect to use EPA's NPDES
data system (ICIS-NPDES) and electronic reporting system (NetDMR) to
collect, manage, and share DMR data or authorized NPDES programs may
choose devote their resources to develop their own such

data systems while meeting the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR part 3
(including, in all cases, subpart D), 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR part
127. EPA will continue to closely work with authorized NPDES programs
to help them develop their NPDES data systems in a cost-effective
manner.
    Authorized NPDES programs will also likely need to provide training
materials and resources to NPDES regulated entities (e.g., staff time
to answer questions from NPDES regulated entities). These training
materials and resources will help provide NPDES regulated entities with
the necessary guidance and knowledge to utilize the appropriate
electronic reporting system. In particular, NPDES regulated entities
will need to learn how to obtain an electronic signature as well as how
to register and maintain their login information for the appropriate
electronic reporting system.
    Similarly, no later than five years after the effective date of the
final rule EPA and authorized NPDES programs will start electronically
receiving Phase 2 data from all NPDES regulated entities and start
sharing these data with the designated EPA and state NPDES data
systems. Authorized NPDES programs will submit an IP to EPA for EPA's
review to ensure that authorized NPDES programs will meet this Phase 2
deadline. The content of these plans must provide enough detail (e.g.,
tasks, milestones, roles and responsibilities, necessary resources) to
ensure that EPA and authorized NPDES programs can work together to
successfully implement electronic reporting. See Section V.B.2. These
IPs need to be submitted to EPA for review within one year of the
effective date of the final rule. EPA will inform the state if its
implementation plan is inadequate. EPA will post the IPs on its Web
site to provide the public with greater transparency on the milestones
and tasks each state will be taking to move towards electronic
reporting. Authorized NPDES program will also share with EPA all data
necessary for implementation of Phase 2 data collection three months
before the applicable Phase 2 deadline. EPA will work with each
authorized NPDES program to identify the appropriate deadline for the
Phase 2 implementation data. Authorized NPDES programs will also need
to update their state NPDES data system to support electronic reporting
as well as develop training materials and resources for NPDES regulated
entities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA notes that some authorized NPDES programs have adopted
EPA's national NPDES data system (ICIS-NPDES).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, authorized NPDES programs will also need to document and
submit to EPA for approval their process for evaluating and approving
temporary and permanent electronic reporting waivers from NPDES
regulated entities. This discussion will be contained in the IP.
Authorized NPDES programs will also need to re-submit their waiver
process descriptions to EPA for review on a five year cycle. EPA will
inform the state if its waiver process description is inadequate. This
will allow EPA and authorized NPDES programs to assess the
effectiveness of the waiver process against advances in information
technology. To facilitate an orderly transition to electronic
reporting, authorized NPDES programs may issue temporary waivers to DMR
filers prior to EPA's review of the program's IP or waiver process
description submission to EPA. These waivers may not have a duration
longer than five years.
    EPA estimates that some authorized NPDES programs may need to
update their regulations or statutes to make clear that electronic
reporting is required for the reports listed in Table 1 of appendix A
and that these electronic submissions must be compliant with 40 CFR
part 127 (including appendix A) and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in all
cases, subpart D) (CROMERR--authentication and encryption standards).
Existing EPA regulations at 40 CFR 123.62(e) require that any updates
to the authorized NPDES program take place within one-year of the
effective date of the final rule (if only a regulatory change is
required) and within two years of the effective date of the final rule
(if a state statute change is required). Accordingly, all authorized
NPDES programs should complete any necessary updates to their state
regulations and statutes within two years of the effective date of the
final rule.
    Finally, the final rule will also lighten the reporting burden
currently placed on the authorized NPDES programs. Upon successful
implementation of Phase 1 and 2, the final rule will provide authorized
NPDES programs 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
authorized NPDES programs. EPA will coordinate the switch over from the
existing set of state reporting requirements to the new EPA generated
NNCR.
2. NPDES Regulated Entities
    NPDES permitted entities should expect to see new electronic
reporting requirements in NPDES permits that are issued on or after the
effective date of this final rule. In particular, NPDES permitted
entities will be required to identify the initial recipient for their
NPDES data submissions (in compliance with 40 CFR 122.41). In
particular, NPDES permittees will consult EPA's Web site to identify
the initial recipient for their NPDES data submissions. EPA will update
and maintain the listing of initial recipients.
    NPDES permitted entities should expect to electronically submit
their DMRs no later than one year after the effective date of the final
rule. NPDES permittees will need to be familiar on how to
electronically report their DMRs using the approved electronic
reporting system. Their permitting authority will provide training
materials and resources to help NPDES regulated entities with the
necessary guidance and knowledge to utilize the appropriate electronic
reporting system. In particular, NPDES regulated entities will need to
learn how to register and maintain an electronic signature as well as
how to register and maintain their login information for the
appropriate electronic reporting system.
    Similarly, five years after the effective date of the final rule,
NPDES regulated entities will start electronically submitting their
Phase 2 data. NPDES permitted entities will identify the initial
recipient for their Phase 2 data submissions (in compliance with 40 CFR
122.41) by consulting with EPA's Web site. EPA's Web site will also
provide notice of the deadline for these Phase 2 electronic data
submissions and information on the approved electronic reporting
systems. NPDES regulated entities should also note that they may be
required to use more than one electronic reporting system for their
Phase 1 and 2 data submissions. For example, a POTW may be required to
use a state e-DMR system to electronically report its DMRs (as the
state is the authorized NPDES program for NPDES permits) and EPA's NeT
to report their Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report (as EPA
is the NPDES program for the Federal biosolids program). For NPDES-
regulated entities that will use EPA's electronic reporting systems,
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.
    Finally, as previously noted, the purpose of appendix A is to
ensure that

there is consistent and complete reporting nationwide, and to expedite
the collection and processing of the data, thereby reducing burden and
making the data more timely, accurate, complete, useful, and
transparent for everyone. This final rule changes the mode of
transmission of NPDES data but does not increase the amount of NPDES
information required to be reported under existing regulations. The
evolution of appendix A reflects over ten years of EPA working closely
with the states to identify the critical data elements that permitting
authorities need to implement the NPDES program.
3. EPA
    EPA Regions that issue NPDES permits will continue to incorporate
electronic reporting requirements into new or re-issued NPDES permits
and will be required to do so upon the effective date of this final
rule. EPA will also incorporate the final rule requirements into the
few nationwide permits that it issues in accordance with the rule's
implementation schedule. This will help communicate and confirm the
electronic reporting responsibilities of NPDES regulated entities.
    EPA Headquarters will hold regular teleconferences and webinars
with authorized NPDES programs during the transition period from paper
reporting to electronic reporting to assist with data collection,
management, and sharing activities. EPA will use these teleconferences
and webinars to address general issues associated with electronic
reporting as well as specific state needs and questions.
    EPA will also coordinate with authorized NPDES programs and update
the data sharing process to include all the required set of NPDES
program data (appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) between EPA and the
authorized NPDES programs (see DCN 0191 for an overview of the current
data sharing process). EPA will also update its data systems (e.g.,
ICIS-NPDES, NetDMR, NeT) to incorporate all the required set of NPDES
program data. EPA will prioritize its actions to first support the
collection, management, and sharing of Phase 1 data. EPA will continue
to closely work with authorized NPDES programs to help them develop
their NPDES data systems in a cost-effective manner. This includes
providing training materials and resources to states that adopt EPA's
data systems [e.g., Central Data Exchange (CDX), CROMERR shared
services, ICIS-NPDES, NetDMR, NeT].
    EPA will maintain the initial recipient list for each state and by
each NPDES data group and will publish this list on its Web site and in
the Federal Register as changes occur. EPA will first publish this
listing within 180 days of the effective date of the final rule. 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.
    One year after the effective date of the final rule, EPA will
receive state performance data, which includes information generated
from compliance monitoring (e.g., inspections), violation
determinations, and enforcement actions, in its national NPDES data
system (i.e., ICIS-NPDES). EPA will do the same for the data that it
generates from its own inspections, violation determinations, and
enforcement actions. Additionally, one year after the effective date of
the final rule, EPA and authorized NPDES programs will begin
electronically receiving DMRs from all DMR filers and start sharing
these data with each other. Additionally, one year after the effective
date of the final rule EPA will electronically collect and manage data
from Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports that are submitted
by NPDES regulated entities in states where EPA is the authorized NPDES
biosolids program (currently 42 of 50 states and all other tribal lands
and territories).
    Under the implementation schedule for this final rule, the Agency
will assess the electronic reporting participation rate of NPDES
regulated entities in each state and by each data group to determine
when it would be appropriate to use its individual notices to compel
electronic reporting. For example, EPA would likely use individual
notices when the authorized state, tribe, or territory has less than
90-percent participation rate for one or more data groups (e.g., MS4
program reports). EPA will separately calculate the participation rate
for each state and for each data group no later than six months after
the deadline for conversion from paper to electronic submissions (e.g.,
18 months after the effective date of the final rule for DMRs). As
appropriate, EPA will then send notice to the NPDES regulated entities
that are not utilizing electronic reporting (e.g., 21 months after the
effective date of the final rule for DMRs). This notice will direct
NPDES regulated entities to use their authorized NPDES program's
electronic reporting system. Failure to comply with this notice will
result in noncompliance with the CWA and may result in penalties. EPA
will repeat its review of the participation rate for each state and for
each data group on an annual basis, as needed, and send out notices as
appropriate.
    Similar to Phase 1 implementation, no later than five years after
the effective date of the final rule EPA and authorized NPDES programs
will begin electronically receiving Phase 2 data from all NPDES
regulated entities and start sharing these data with each other. EPA
will review the Phase 2 data IPs from authorized NPDES programs. This
IP will also include a description of the program's waiver approval
processes. EPA will finish its review of these IPs and waiver process
descriptions no later than six months after receipt. EPA will inform
the state if its implementation plan or waiver process description is
inadequate. EPA will post these IPs and waiver process description
notices on its Web site to provide the public with greater transparency
on the milestones and tasks each state will be taking to move towards
electronic reporting.
    Finally, EPA will work with authorized NPDES programs to develop
the NNCR. Upon successful implementation of Phase 1 and 2, EPA will
work with authorized NPDES programs to coordinate the switch over from
the existing set of state reporting requirements (i.e., QNCR, ANCR, the
Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report, and the biosolids information
required to be submitted to EPA annually by states) to the new EPA
generated NNCR. EPA will publish the NNCR on its Web site on a
quarterly basis.

C. Other Aspects of Regulatory Implementation

1. Copy of Record
    EPA is clarifying that the final rule does not change EPA's
authentication and encryption standards for electronic reporting. Below
is a discussion of the copy of record as it pertains to the
implementation of electronic reporting.
    An important element of EPA's authentication and encryption
standards for electronic reporting is the ``copy of record.'' See 40
CFR 3.3. A copy of record must:
     Be a true and correct copy of the electronic document that
was received, and it must be legally demonstrable that it is in fact a
true and correct copy;
     include all the electronic signatures that have been
executed to sign the document or components of the document;
     include the date and time of receipt to help establish its
relation to submission deadlines; and,
     be viewable in a human-readable format that clearly
indicates what the submitter and, where applicable, the

signatory intended that each of the data elements or other information
items in the document means.
    For such CROMERR-compliant submissions, the copy of record is
intended to serve as the electronic surrogate for what is commonly
referred to as the paper submission with a ``wet-ink'' signature. The
copy of record is meant to provide an authoritative answer to the
question of what was actually submitted and, as applicable, what was
signed and certified in the particular case.
    It is important to note that the use of an electronic reporting
system may dictate where the electronic copy of record is retained. EPA
retains the copy of record for electronic submission made through its
electronic reporting tools (e.g., NetDMR and NeT). Likewise, state
electronic reporting systems will contain the electronic copy of record
for submissions made with these state systems.
    Under the ``Dual Reporting'' scenario, as described in Table 3, the
authorized NPDES program may elect to designate EPA as the initial
recipient and EPA would electronically collect NPDES program data
directly from NPDES-regulated entities. Under this scenario these
entities would also make a paper submission of the same report with a
``wet-ink'' signature to the state (as required by their NPDES permit).
In these cases, the paper submission to the state with a ``wet-ink''
signature is the copy of record.
2. Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR)
    EPA's final rule requires that all electronic reporting systems
that are used for implementing NPDES electronic reporting, whether
already existing or to be developed by EPA and authorized NPDES
programs, be compliant with subpart D of EPA's CROMERR (see 40 CFR part
3). CROMERR sets performance-based, technology-neutral standards for
systems that states, tribes, and local governments use to receive
electronic reports from facilities they regulate under EPA-authorized
programs. CROMERR also addresses electronic reporting directly to EPA.
    EPA notes that state or EPA systems that use the Hybrid Approach,
which is discussed in Section V, uses the paper document with a ``wet-
ink'' signature as the copy of record. The related electronic data
transfer from the Hybrid Approach is not a submission within the
meaning of CROMERR. Additionally, the Hybrid Approach option still
requires compliance with the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 122.22
and 40 CFR part 127 and any additional permit requirements.
    Under this rule, NPDES-regulated entities (e.g., POTWs) are not
required to submit a CROMERR application to electronically report NPDES
program data. However, it is the responsibility of the authorized NPDES
programs receiving these electronically reported NPDES program data to
obtain approval from EPA for their electronic reporting systems and
processes in accordance with EPA's CROMERR requirements. Under the
final rule, NPDES-regulated entities that electronically report their
NPDES program data will use CROMERR-approved electronic reporting
systems and processes. Authorized NPDES programs are responsible for
submitting CROMERR applications for their electronic reporting system
and NPDES-regulated entities are only required to complete the
necessary signature requirements for that system.
    EPA also notes that CROMERR requires state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving electronic
reports under their EPA-authorized programs (e.g., CWA pretreatment
program) to apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those
programs and obtain EPA approval. However, an important consideration
is that the final rule does not require approved pretreatment programs
to electronically collect NPDES program data from significant and
categorical industrial users. Approved pretreatment programs may
continue to collect NPDES program data from significant and categorical
industrial users on paper.
3. Electronic Reporting for the Pesticides General Permit and Vessels
General Permit
    Several commenters had questions regarding the application of the
proposed rule to regulated entities subject to EPA's Pesticides General
Permit and Vessels General Permit. EPA provides NPDES permit coverage
for pesticide applicators in states where EPA is the permitting
authority and vessel operators nationwide. EPA is not exempting these
two permits from the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. Specifically,
EPA's General Permit regulations (40 CFR 122.28) apply to all general
permits and EPA's proposed revisions to this regulatory language that
implement electronic reporting do not exclude pesticide applicators or
vessel operators (or any other sector or general permit). However,
vessel incidental discharges and discharges from the application of
pesticides are atypical from more traditional permitted discharges and
as such, some of the data elements in Appendix A may not be appropriate
as written. For example, there may not be a fixed address of where
pesticide applications occur (i.e., the activity permitted) and the
actual location of such pesticide application activities may not be
known until the time when those pesticides are actually applied (i.e.,
at some point in time after that operator obtains NPDES permit
coverage). Similarly, vessel operators often do not know into which
waters they will discharge at the time of obtaining permit coverage and
many of these vessels are operated by foreign companies based out of
foreign ports (with non-US mailing addresses and phone numbers). In
these instances, EPA will gather electronic information consistent with
the nature of these discharges.
4. Due Dates for State Data Entry
    To include all NPDES subprograms (e.g., pretreatment, biosolids,
sewer overflows, MS4 program reports, construction stormwater,
industrial stormwater, cooling water intake structures), the required
data set as defined by this final rule is more comprehensive than what
authorized NPDES programs were previously reporting under previously
existing EPA policy (see list of data elements in DCN 0007 as compared
to appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). EPA will work closely with states,
tribes, and territories to ensure that all authorized NPDES programs
electronically transmit to EPA basic facility and permit information
(see list of data elements in DCN 0007) for all permits as well as
other data necessary for implementation of Phase 1 data collection
within nine months after the effective date of the final rule.
Collection of these data will enable NPDES regulated entities to begin
electronic reporting as facility and permit data must first be entered
into ICIS-NPDES for the system to accept compliance monitoring data
(e.g., DMRs, Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports).
Additionally, collection of these data will allow authorized NPDES
programs to provide their compliance inspection and enforcement data to
ICIS-NPDES. EPA will also work closely with authorized NPDES programs
to ensure that all of the remaining facility and permit data required
by the final rule for Phase 2 (see NPDES Data Group 1 in Tables 1 and 2
of appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) are entered into ICIS-NPDES within
five years after the effective date of the final rule.
    Additionally, under the final rule, authorized NPDES programs must
start

submitting any new compliance monitoring and enforcement action data
(see Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) one year after the effective date
of the final rule. These new data elements add to the existing data
that states report (see DCN 0007) from their compliance monitoring
activities and reflect the increased focus on the NPDES subprograms.
The final rule only requires authorized NPDES programs to start
entering these new compliance monitoring and enforcement action data
elements into ICIS-NPDES one year after the effective date of the final
rule.
5. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Sector
    EPA received many comments from the animal agricultural sector in
response to the proposed rule. Although this rule only changes the mode
of transmission of NPDES information from paper-based reports to
electronic reporting and does not address EPA's practices for managing
and sharing that information, EPA received comments regarding privacy,
security, management of confidential business information, and EPA's
current practice of posting inspection information on unpermitted CAFOs
and Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) on its public Web site
[Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)--http://echo.epa.gov]. EPA used the supplemental notice to the proposed rule to
clarify the effects of the proposed rule on CAFOs in response to these
comments (see 1 December 2014; 79 FR 71073).
    This final rule would only require CAFOs with NPDES permits to
submit information that the Clean Water Act and existing regulations
already requires them to provide to permitting authorities. See 33
U.S.C. 1342. The final rule simply modernizes the format through which
permitted CAFOs would submit certain types of information by requiring
electronic submission as opposed to paper-based reporting. This
modernized format will increase efficiencies for permitted CAFOs as
well as regulators. Additionally, under this final rule a permitted
CAFO can also request a temporary waiver from electronic reporting
consistent with authorized NPDES program's implementation plan.
    EPA also solicited comments in the supplemental notice to the
proposed rule on whether it should change its current practice and
begin masking facility information for unpermitted CAFOs and AFOs that
EPA or state inspectors found were not discharging and do not require
an NPDES permit. EPA published the following example (See Table 9) in
the supplemental notice to the proposed rule showing how EPA could mask
these data and solicited comments on this approach.

 Table 9--Proposed Hypothetical Example of Masking Unpermitted CAFOs and
AFOs that State Inspectors Found Were Not Discharging and Do Not Require
                             an NPDES Permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Facility #1                          Facility #2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show-Me State Animal Farm; Location:     Unpermitted CAFO/AFO-0000001;
 11300 Ozark Lane, Perryville, Missouri   Location: Missouri; County:
 63775; County: Perry; Lat.: 37.836084,   Redacted from Website; Lat./
 Long: -89.738644; Inspection(s): 3/14/   Lon.: Redacted from Website;
 2010 (no violation identified); 6/22/    Inspection(s): 2/17/2009 (no
 2014 (discharging without an NPDES       violation identified); 5/25/
 permit).                                 2013 (no violation identified)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this hypothetical example, the unpermitted CAFO shown in the
column labeled ``Facility #1'' would not have its facility and contact
information displayed on EPA's public Web site until the weekly refresh
of ECHO data from ICIS-NPDES after 22 June 2014, which is the date the
state or EPA Region identified that the facility had a Clean Water Act
violation (i.e., discharging without an NPDES permit) and entered these
data into ICIS-NPDES. If an unpermitted CAFO does not have a Clean
Water Act violation as determined by the authorized NPDES program or
EPA, then the facility and contact information would not be displayed
on EPA's ECHO Web site (see the column labeled ``Facility #2'' in the
above table).
    EPA also solicited input on potential changes to its national NPDES
data system (ICIS-NPDES), which are necessary to provide authorized
NPDES programs and Regions with the capability to identify these non-
permitted CAFO/AFOs that do not require an NPDES permit (1 December
2014; 79 FR 71080).
    Comments from the animal agricultural sector were in favor of this
proposed approach while other commenters (e.g., environmental advocacy
groups) were not. Some authorized NPDES programs also support this as a
reasonable approach in balancing the competing interests of privacy and
public access to these data. Separate from this rulemaking, in light of
concerns raised regarding the privacy interests of an unpermitted CAFO
or AFO that an authorized NPDES program or EPA has assessed and found
to have not violated the Clean Water Act, EPA will change its current
practice and mask on the ECHO public Web site the related facility-
specific facility information (see Table 9).
    EPA will implement this data masking in an iterative, two-step
process. EPA is using a two-step process because unpermitted facilities
in EPA's national NPDES data system (ICIS-NPDES) cannot currently be
identified by CAFO permit component data. As a first step, EPA will use
other currently available data in ICIS-NPDES to identify unpermitted
CAFOs or AFOs that an authorized NPDES program or EPA have assessed and
not found any Clean Water Act violations (see DCN 0207). EPA plans to
implement this interim approach by the effective date of this final
rule.
    EPA plans to supersede the first approach with a second data
masking approach outlined in the supplemental notice to the proposed
rule (1 December 2014; 79 FR 71080). The second data masking approach
will only use CAFO permit component data to identify unpermitted CAFOs
and AFOs (see DCN 0207). This second approach will take more time to
implement as upgrades to ICIS-NPDES and coordination with authorized
NPDES programs are necessary to identify the exact set of unpermitted
CAFOs and AFOs that an authorized NPDES program or EPA has assessed and
found to have not violated the Clean Water Act. EPA anticipates it will
need a year after the final rule to adopt this second data masking
approach.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' that was
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any
changes made in response to OMB's recommendations are documented in the
docket. 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 Rule
(Final),'' can be found in the EPA docket (see DCN 0197), and is
summarized in Section VI.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection activities contained in this rule under the PRA
and has assigned OMB control number 2020-0035. The ICR may be found in
the docket for this rule (see DCN 0237), and it is briefly summarized
here.
    EPA is promulgating this final regulation to allow better
allocation and use of limited program resources and enhance
transparency by providing a timelier, complete, more accurate, and
nationally-consistent set of data about the NPDES program.
    The projected burden and cost of the final regulation are
summarized in Table 10. 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 (as ICRs are
limited to three years; however, they can be renewed).

  Table 10--Projected Burden and Cost Over the First Three Years of the
                               Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Affected entity
                                   -------------------------------------
         Unit of Analysis               Regulated
                                         entities            States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual Number of                      213,349                 47
 Respondents a....................
Average Annual Number of Responses             78,477          1,135,376
Average Annual Incremental Burden             118,577           -315,814
 (hours)..........................
Average Annual Incremental Cost...         $6,867,716        -$1,072,586
Average Annual Incremental Burden                0.56             -6,719
 per Respondent (hours)...........
Average Annual Incremental Burden                1.51              -0.28
 per Response (hours).............
Average Annual Incremental Cost                $32.19           -$22,821
 per Respondent...................
Average Annual Incremental Cost                $87.51             -$0.94
 per Response.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The number of respondents includes regulated entities that both submit
  information (a response) and experience a cost or cost savings while
  the number of responses is limited to a count of information
  submissions. Thus, there are more affected respondents than responses.

    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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In addition,
the EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the regulatory
citations for the information collection activities contained in this
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses (e.g., industrial sectors, electricity generating
facilities, and agricultural sectors) and small governmental
jurisdictions (e.g., POTWs operated by municipalities).
    The Agency has determined that 108,035 of 108,036 (99.99%) small
entities considered in this analysis will experience an impact of less
than 1% percent of revenues. Details of this analysis are presented in
Chapter 5 of the following document in the rulemaking docket,
``Economic Analysis of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Final),''
(see DCN 0197).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This final rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100
million as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA conducted an
economic analysis examining various options including the potential
burden to state, tribal, and territorial governments. EPA estimates
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.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action may have federalism implications, because it imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on state or local governments, and
the federal government will not provide the funds necessary to pay
those costs. Specifically, EPA estimates costs to state governments of
greater than $25 million during the first year of rule implementation.
    The EPA provides the following federalism summary impact statement.
The EPA consulted with state and local officials early in the process
of developing the rule to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. In developing the regulatory options
described in this final action, EPA held a series of 49 outreach
activities with state and local governments, on various aspects of the
rule, including a Federalism consultation process that began in 2010,
well before this action was proposed. The Environmental Council of the
States, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
the National Conference of State Legislators, the Council of State
Governments, the National Governors Association, and the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies were among the intergovernmental
groups participating in this process, along with numerous state and
local government principals from across the nation.
    After publication of the proposed rule, EPA also held
teleconferences with authorized NPDES programs to obtain their
individual views on various aspects of the proposed rule. EPA met with
over twenty five states, ECOS, ACWA, and New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission to take into account their individual
comments and concerns about the rule (see DCN 0128 to 0142, 0181, 0219
to 0229). Additionally, EPA separately contacted each authorized NPDES
program to individually assess its readiness for these new electronic
reporting requirements. This extensive outreach helped inform the
implementation process of the final rule and the additional
flexibilities that authorized states, tribes, and territories need for
a measured and orderly conversion from paper to electronic reporting.
    EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed action from
State and local officials. EPA received comments from over one hundred
(100) entities representing State and local governments. Of these
comments, many

were supportive of the rule and its goals. Commentators expressed
support for the rule for a number of reasons, including its ability to
modernize and streamline the reporting process, its efficiency and
cost-effectiveness, and its ability to offer quicker access to
standardized data. Several commentators expressed hope that electronic
reporting could reduce errors in ICIS-NPDES, make errors more quick and
easy to correct, and expedite permit applications.
    While most commenters were supportive of the proposed rule, there
were several concerns that were raised by the responding state and
local governments. One of the most frequently commented subjects was
the implementation schedule. Many commenters noted that the proposed
two phase (one year per phase) implementation schedule was ``too
aggressive.'' EPA addressed this comment by modifying the compliance
schedule in the final rule to allow five years for the second phase of
implementation.
    The other main comment from state and local governments was for EPA
to provide authorized NPDES programs with additional flexibility in the
implementation of the final rule. As noted in this preamble and in
EPA's response to comments document for this rulemaking, EPA has
provided authorized NPDES programs with additional flexibility for
implementing this final rule. In particular, EPA has given authorized
NPDES programs more flexibility in how they administer waivers from
electronic reporting. In the proposed rule, EPA solicited comment on
limiting waivers from electronic reporting to one year and only to
areas with limited access to broadband internet. After consultation
with authorized NPDES programs, EPA has eliminated the condition of
limited access to broadband internet as an eligibility factor for an
electronic reporting waiver. Instead, EPA has provided authorized NPDES
programs with the ability to grant waivers to facilities for up to five
years and for any factors that they deem appropriate.
    Additionally, authorized NPDES programs asked for more flexibility
in how they implement electronic reporting for the construction
stormwater sector. In particular, states requested an option to allow
construction operators to electronically submit data without CROMERR
authentication. After consultation with authorized NPDES programs, EPA
has included an option, which first suggested by an authorized NPDES
program, to allow construction operators to simultaneously submit NPDES
program data electronically without CROMERR authentication as long as
they also submit these data on paper with a handwritten signature. This
``Hybrid Approach'' is discussed in the preamble to this final rule.
This additional flexibility will allow states to electronically collect
and manage data on construction sites and will also allow construction
operators to submit their NOIs without having to first obtain CROMERR
authentication.
    Finally, as a means to ``fill in the gaps'' where NPDES-regulated
entities are not yet reporting electronically, EPA will use its
authority, as appropriate, to issue targeted individual notices
requiring NPDES-regulated entities to electronically report their NPDES
program data (appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). EPA initially proposed to
have these data come directly to EPA. Authorized NPDES programs
suggested that instead EPA should require NPDES regulated entities to
use state, tribe, or territorial electronic reporting systems that are
in compliance with the final rule, as this would be more efficient. In
this final rule, EPA is adopting the approach recommended by authorized
NPDES programs.
    A complete list of the comments from State and local governments
has been provided to the Office of Management and Budget and has been
placed in the docket for this rulemaking. In addition, the detailed
response to comments from these entities is contained in EPA's response
to comments document for this rulemaking (see DCN 0218).

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Although no tribes have yet
received approval from EPA to implement an authorized NPDES program,
this final 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 (DCN 0232). 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.
    As required by section 7(a), the EPA's Tribal Consultation Official
has certified that the requirements of the executive order have been
met in a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of the certification is
included in the docket for this action.

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 that the EPA has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety
risk.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking involves environmental monitoring or measurement.
Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement System
(``PBMS''), EPA has decided 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.
    EPA has decided to use the following data standards, which were
developed by the Exchange Network Leadership Council (ENLC). This
entity 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.
     Enforcement and Compliance Data Standard, Standard No.:
EX000026.2, July 30, 2008. This data standard

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.
     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 facility
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.
     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

    EPA has determined that this final 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 final rule offers substantial environmental justice
benefits. As described in the context of non-monetary benefits,
discussed in Section VI and described below, the final 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.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 122

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Incorporation
by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution
control.

40 CFR Part 123

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

40 CFR Part 124

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 127

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Automatic data processing, Electronic data processing, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sewage disposal, Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution control.

40 CFR Part 403

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 501

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sewage disposal.

40 CFR Part 503

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sewage disposal.

    Dated: September 24, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons cited in the preamble, title 40, chapter I is
amended as follows:

PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

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

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001,
2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 31 U.S.C. 9701;
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

0
2. In Sec.  9.1, the table is amended by adding the following section
in numerical order under a new heading titled ``NPDES Electronic
Reporting'' to read as follows:

Sec.  9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           40 CFR citation                      OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       NPDES Electronic Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
127.26                                2020-0035.

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

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

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

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

0
4. 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 (including, in all cases, subpart D to part 3) (Cross-
Media Electronic Reporting) and 40 CFR part 127 (NPDES Electronic
Reporting Requirements) are met for that submission.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  122.26 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(15)(i)(A) and (g)(1)(iii).
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(15)(i)(C).
    The revisions and addition read 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. The Director of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies may be obtained at EPA's Water Docket, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. For information on the
availability of this material at National Archives and Records
Administration, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. An
operator must 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) As of December 21, 2020 all certifications submitted in
compliance with paragraphs (b)(15)(i)(A) and (B) of this section must
be submitted electronically by the owner or operator to the Director or
initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in compliance with
this section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, subpart D to
part 3), Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. Part 127 is not intended to
undo existing requirements for electronic reporting. Prior to this
date, and independent of part 127, owners or operators may be required
to report electronically if specified by a particular permit or if
required to do so by state law.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Submit the signed certification to the NPDES permitting
authority once every five years. As of December 21, 2020 all
certifications submitted in compliance with this section must be
submitted electronically by the owner or operator to the Director or
initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in compliance with
this section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, subpart D to
part 3), Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. Part 127 is not intended to
undo existing requirements for electronic reporting. Prior to this
date, and independent of part 127, owners or operators may be required
to report electronically if specified by a particular permit or if
required to do so by state law.
* * * * *

0
6. 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 (vi) of this
section, dischargers (or treatment works treating domestic sewage)
seeking coverage under a general permit shall submit to the Director a
notice of intent to be covered by the general permit. A discharger (or
treatment works treating domestic sewage) who fails to submit a notice
of intent in accordance with the terms of the permit is not authorized
to discharge, (or in the case of sludge disposal permit, to engage in a
sludge use or disposal practice), under the terms of the general permit
unless the general permit, in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(v),
contains a provision that a notice of intent is not required or the
Director notifies a discharger (or treatment works treating domestic
sewage) that it is covered by a general permit in accordance with
paragraph (b)(2)(vi). A complete and timely, notice of intent (NOI), to
be covered in accordance with general permit requirements, fulfills the
requirements for permit applications for purposes of Sec. Sec.  122.6,
122.21, and 122.26. As of December 21, 2020 all notices of intent
submitted in compliance with this section must be submitted
electronically by the discharger (or treatment works treating domestic
sewage) to the Director or initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR
127.2(b), in compliance with this section and 40 CFR part 3 (including,
in all cases, subpart D to part 3), Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR part 127.
Part 127 is not intended to undo existing requirements for electronic
reporting. Prior to this date, and independent of part 127, discharger
(or treatment works treating domestic sewage) may be required to report
electronically if

specified by a particular permit or if required to do so by state law.
    (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, the receiving stream(s),
and other required data elements as identified in appendix A to part
127. 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), including a topographic map.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  122.34 by revising paragraph (g)(3) introductory text to
read as follows:

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. As of December 21, 2020 all reports submitted in compliance
with this section must be submitted electronically by the owner,
operator, or the duly authorized representative of the small MS4 to the
Director or initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in
compliance with this section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in all
cases, subpart D to part 3), Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. Part
127 is not intended to undo existing requirements for electronic
reporting. Prior to this date, and independent of part 127, the owner,
operator, or the duly authorized representative of the small MS4 may be
required to report electronically if specified by a particular permit
or if required to do so by state law. Your report must include:
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  122.41 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (l)(4)(i), (l)(6)(i), (l)(7), and (m)(3).
0
b. Adding paragraph (l)(9).
    The revisions and addition 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. As
of December 21, 2016 all reports and forms submitted in compliance with
this section must be submitted electronically by the permittee to the
Director or initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in
compliance with this section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in all
cases, subpart D to part 3), Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. Part
127 is not intended to undo existing requirements for electronic
reporting. Prior to this date, and independent of part 127, permittees
may be required to report electronically if specified by a particular
permit or if required to do so by state law.
* * * * *
    (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 report shall also be provided within 5 days of the
time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The report shall
contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause; the period of
noncompliance, including exact dates and times), 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 reports must include 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),
type of sewer overflow structure (e.g., manhole, combine sewer overflow
outfall), discharge volumes untreated by the treatment works treating
domestic sewage, types of human health and environmental impacts of the
sewer overflow event, and whether the noncompliance was related to wet
weather. As of December 21, 2020 all reports related to combined sewer
overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or bypass events submitted in
compliance with this section must be submitted electronically by the
permittee to the Director or initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR
127.2(b), in compliance with this section and 40 CFR part 3 (including,
in all cases, subpart D to part 3), Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR part 127.
Part 127 is not intended to undo existing requirements for electronic
reporting. Prior to this date, and independent of part 127, permittees
may be required to electronically submit reports related to combined
sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or bypass events under this
section by a particular permit or if required to do so by state law.
The Director may also require permittees to electronically submit
reports not related to combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer
overflows, or bypass events under this section.
* * * * *
    (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). For
noncompliance events related to combined sewer overflows, sanitary
sewer overflows, or bypass events, these reports shall contain the
information described in paragraph (l)(6) and the applicable required
data in appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. As of December 21, 2020 all
reports related to combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows,
or bypass events submitted in compliance with this section must be
submitted electronically by the permittee to the Director or initial
recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in compliance with this
section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, subpart D to part
3), Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. Part 127 is not intended to undo
existing requirements for electronic reporting. Prior to this date, and
independent of part 127, permittees may be required to electronically
submit reports related to combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer
overflows, or bypass events under this section by a particular permit
or if required to do so by state law. The Director may also require
permittees to electronically submit reports not related to combined
sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or bypass events under this
section.
* * * * *

    (9) Identification of the initial recipient for NPDES electronic
reporting data. The owner, operator, or the duly authorized
representative of an NPDES-regulated entity 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) of this chapter.
EPA will identify and publish the list of initial recipients on its Web
site and in the Federal Register, by state and by NPDES data group [see
Sec.  127.2(c) of this chapter]. EPA will update and maintain this
listing.
* * * * *
    (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. As of
December 21, 2020 all notices submitted in compliance with this section
must be submitted electronically by the permittee to the Director or
initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in compliance with
this section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, subpart D to
part 3), Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. Part 127 is not intended to
undo existing requirements for electronic reporting. Prior to this
date, and independent of part 127, permittees may be required to report
electronically if specified by a particular permit or if required to do
so by state law.
    (ii) Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass as required in paragraph (l)(6) of this section
(24-hour notice). As of December 21, 2020 all notices submitted in
compliance with this section must be submitted electronically by the
permittee to the Director or initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR
127.2(b), in compliance with this section and 40 CFR part 3 (including,
in all cases, subpart D to part 3), Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR part 127.
Part 127 is not intended to undo existing requirements for electronic
reporting. Prior to this date, and independent of part 127, permittees
may be required to report electronically if specified by a particular
permit or if required to do so by state law.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  122.42 by revising the introductory text in paragraphs
(c) and (e)(4) and paragraph (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 Sec.
122.26(a)(1)(v) must submit an annual report by the anniversary of the
date of the issuance of the permit for such system. As of December 21,
2020 all reports submitted in compliance with this section must be
submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or the duly authorized
representative of the MS4 to the Director or initial recipient, as
defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in compliance with this section and 40 CFR
part 3 (including, in all cases, subpart D to part 3), Sec.  122.22,
and 40 CFR part 127. Part 127 is not intended to undo existing
requirements for electronic reporting. Prior to this date, and
independent of part 127, the owner, operator, or the duly authorized
representative of the MS4 may be required to report electronically if
specified by a particular permit or if required to do so by state law.
The report shall include:
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) Annual reporting requirements for CAFOs. The permittee must
submit an annual report to the Director. As of December 21, 2020 all
annual reports submitted in compliance with this section must be
submitted electronically by the permittee to the Director or initial
recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in compliance with this
section and 40 CFR part 3 (including, in all cases, subpart D to part
3), Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. Part 127 is not intended to undo
existing requirements for electronic reporting. Prior to this date, and
independent of part 127, the permittee may be required to report
electronically if specified by a particular permit or if required to do
so by state law. 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
10. 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
reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic
Reporting Regulation) and 40 CFR part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting),
and, for EPA permits only, Sec. Sec.  122.47(b) (alternatives schedule
of compliance) and 122.49 (considerations under Federal law).
* * * * *

0
11. 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 (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
results must be electronically reported in compliance with 40 CFR part
3 (including, in all cases, subpart D to part 3), Sec.  122.22, and 40
CFR part 127.
* * * * *

0
12. 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
(NPDES Electronic Reporting). Reporting shall be no less frequent than
specified in Sec.  122.44. EPA will maintain the start dates for the
electronic

reporting of monitoring results for each state on its Web site.

0
13. Amend Sec.  122.63 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  122.63  Minor modifications of permits.

* * * * *
    (f) Require 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
(NPDES Electronic Reporting).
* * * * *

0
14. 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 must submit a
Notice of Termination (NOT) to their permitting authority. If
requesting expedited permit termination procedures, a permittee must
certify in the NOT that it is not subject to any pending State or
Federal enforcement actions including citizen suits brought under State
or Federal law. As of December 21, 2020 all NOTs submitted in
compliance with this section must be submitted electronically by the
permittee to the Director or initial recipient, as defined in 40 CFR
127.2(b), in compliance with this section and 40 CFR part 3 (including,
in all cases, subpart D), Sec.  122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. Part 127
is not intended to undo existing requirements for electronic reporting.
Prior to this date, and independent of part 127, the permittee may be
required to report electronically if specified by a particular permit
or if required to do so by state law.

PART 123--STATE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

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

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

0
16. 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 March 21, 2016 must describe whether the state,
tribe, or territory will 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 program description,
the state, tribe, or territory must 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 (including, in all
cases, subpart D to part 3), Sec.  123.26, and 40 CFR part 127.

0
17. 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 must also implement the
requirements of 40 CFR 123.41(a) and 123.43 and 40 CFR part 127