Economic Analysis of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic Reporting Final Rule

Economic Analysis of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic Reporting Final Rule

                    Enforcement Targeting and Data Division
                             Office of Compliance
                Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                                   DCN 0197
                       Docket No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274
                             (www.regulations.gov)

                               14 September 2015

                    Enforcement Targeting and Data Division
                             Office of Compliance
                Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                                   DCN 0197
                       Docket No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274
                             (www.regulations.gov)

                               14 September 2015

 Table of Contents
Table of Contents	ii
Table of Tables	vi
Table of Figures	viii
List of Acronyms	ix
Executive Summary	xi
ES.1	Purpose of the Rule	xi
ES.2	Savings, Costs, and Benefits	xii
ES.3	Major Factors Taken into Consideration in Estimating Savings and Costs	xv
ES.4	Key Acts and Regulations that Must be Addressed by the EA	xvi
ES.5	Key Steps for Implementation	xvi
Section 1.	 -  Background and Overview of the Economic Analysis of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule	1-1
1.1	Introduction	1-1
1.2	Statutory and Regulatory History of the NPDES Program	1-2
1.2.1	Clean Water Act	1-2
1.2.2	1985 PCS Policy	1-3
1.2.3	1987 Water Quality Act and 2000 Wet Weather Water Quality Act	1-4
1.3	Summary of the NPDES Program Reporting Requirements	1-4
1.3.1	Current Status	1-4
1.3.2	Regulated Entity Types	1-5
1.3.3	EPA Data Sharing Policy	1-7
1.3.4	Regulated Entity Supplied Data	1-7
1.3.5	Authorized NPDES Program Supplied Data	1-8
1.3.6	Electronic Reporting	1-9
1.4	Description of the Final Rule	1-9
1.4.1	Statement of Need	1-9
1.4.2	Changes to the NPDES Program under the Final Rule	1-10
1.5	Organization of the Report	1-15
Section 2.	 -  Estimating the Permit Universe and Required Data Reporting/Submittal	2-1
2.1	Introduction	2-1
2.1.1	Types of NPDES Permits	2-1
2.1.2	NPDES Subprograms	2-2
2.1.3	Required Data	2-6
2.1.4	Organization of this Section	2-6
2.2	Standard Industrial Dischargers and CWA §316(b) Filers	2-6
2.2.1	Permit Universe	2-6
2.2.2	Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family	2-8
2.2.3	Summary	2-9
2.3	Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)	2-10
2.3.1	Permit Universe	2-10
2.3.2	Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family	2-10
2.3.3	Summary	2-10
2.4	Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)	2-11
2.4.1	Permit Universe	2-11
2.4.2	Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family	2-11
2.4.3	Summary	2-13
2.5	Industrial Stormwater	2-13
2.5.1	Permit Universe	2-13
2.5.2	Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family	2-14
2.5.3	Summary	2-16
2.6	Construction Stormwater	2-16
2.6.1	Permit Universe	2-16
2.6.2	Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family	2-17
2.6.3	Summary	2-19
2.7	Municipal Stormwater	2-20
2.7.1	Permit Universe	2-20
2.7.2	Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family	2-20
2.7.3	Summary	2-22
2.8	Combined Sewer System (CSS) POTWs	2-22
2.8.1	Permit Universe	2-23
2.8.2	Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family	2-23
2.8.3	Summary	2-24
2.9	Sanitary Sewer System (SSS) POTWs and TWTDSs	2-25
2.9.1	Permit Universe	2-25
2.9.2	Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family	2-26
2.9.3	Summary	2-27
2.10	Biosolids	2-27
2.10.1	Permit Universe	2-28
2.10.2	Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family	2-28
2.10.3	Summary	2-29
2.11	Pretreatment	2-30
2.11.1	Permit Universe	2-30
2.11.2	Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family	2-30
2.11.3	Summary	2-32
2.12	Summary	2-33
Section 3.	 -  Activities Affected by the Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule	3-1
3.1	Introduction	3-1
3.2	Updating the Reporting Process	3-2
3.2.1	State Authorized NPDES program and EPA Implementation of a Data Exchange	3-3
3.2.2	Compliance with the Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule	3-4
3.2.3	Supplying Facility, Limit and Limit Set data	3-4
3.2.4	Additional Implementation Activities	3-4
3.3	Electronic Reporting during Transition	3-5
3.4	Using the Updated System	3-5
3.4.1	Regulated Entity Registration and Training	3-5
3.4.2	Regulated Entity Discharge Monitoring and Program Report Submission	3-7
3.4.3	Additional Required Data from the Authorized NPDES Program	3-8
3.4.4	Replacing the Annual Non-Compliance Report, Quarterly Non-Compliance Report, and Semi-Annual Statistical Summaries with the New National Non-Compliance Report	3-8
3.5	Summary	3-8
Section 4.	 -  Estimating the Economic Impacts of the Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule	4-1
4.1	Introduction	4-1
4.2	Labor Costs	4-2
4.3	Cost of Updated Information Sharing among Authorized NPDES Programs and EPA	4-3
4.3.1	Electronic Reporting Tool Implementation Costs	4-4
4.3.2	Electronic Tool Operations and Maintenance Cost	4-6
4.3.3	Other Implementation Costs	4-6
4.3.4	Total Costs	4-9
4.4	Regulated Entity and Authorized NPDES Program Savings and Costs Associated with Using the Updated Systems	4-9
4.4.1	Regulated Entity Registration and Training Costs	4-10
4.4.2	Data Entry Costs	4-11
4.4.3	Other Ongoing Administrative Activities	4-16
4.4.4	National Non-Compliance Report	4-16
4.4.5	Total Annual Processing, Submission and Data Entry Costs of Using the Updated System	4-16
4.4.6	Total Costs of the Final Rule	4-17
4.4.7	Submission and Processing Savings from Electronic Reporting	4-17
4.5	Summary: Implementation and Return on Investment	4-20
4.6	Changes from Proposed Rule Estimates and Sensitivity to Number of DMR Forms	4-26
Section 5.	 -  Small Entity Analysis	5-1
5.1	Introduction	5-1
5.2	Impact on Small Entities	5-1
5.3	Definitions of Small Entities	5-1
5.4	Methodology Overview	5-2
5.5	Census Sectors	5-5
5.5.1	Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities	5-7
5.5.2	Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships	5-8
5.5.3	Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities	5-9
5.5.4	Estimate Number of Small Parent Entities	5-10
5.5.5	Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs	5-10
5.5.6	Estimate Cost Impact Ratios	5-11
5.6	Municipalities Operating Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)	5-11
5.6.1	Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities	5-12
5.6.2	Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships	5-13
5.6.3	Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities	5-13
5.6.4	Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities	5-14
5.6.5	Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs	5-14
5.6.6	Estimate Cost Impact Ratios	5-14
5.7	Utilities	5-15
5.7.1	Characterize the Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities	5-15
5.7.2	Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships	5-16
5.7.3	Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities	5-16
5.7.4	Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities	5-16
5.7.5	Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs	5-17
5.7.6	Estimate Cost Impact Ratios	5-17
5.8	Agriculture	5-17
5.8.1	Identify Universe of Affected NPDES Facilities	5-18
5.8.2	Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships	5-19
5.8.3	Construct Annual Revenue of Parent Entities	5-19
5.8.4	Identify Small Parent Entities	5-19
5.8.5	Calculate Parent Entity Compliance Costs	5-20
5.8.6	Estimate Cost Impact Ratios	5-20
5.9	Summary	5-22
Section 6.	 -  Benefits	6-1
6.1	Introduction	6-1
6.2	Savings due to Electronic Reporting	6-1
6.2.1	Processing Savings	6-1
6.2.2	Data Entry (NOIs, DMRs, and Program Reports) Savings	6-1
6.2.3	Eliminating ANCR, QNCR, and SASS	6-2
6.2.4	Total Savings	6-2
6.3	Improved NPDES Information	6-2
6.4	Improved Efficiency of EPA Programs	6-3
6.5	Monetized Benefits Associated with Improved Data Quality	6-4
6.6	Potential Benefits from Electronic Individual Permit Applications	6-4
6.7	Conclusion	6-5
Section 7.	- Additional Analyses	7-1
7.1	Executive Order 12866	7-1
7.2	Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)	7-1
7.3	Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)	7-2
7.4	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)	7-3
7.5	Executive Order 13132  -  Federalism	7-3
7.6	Executive Order 13175  -  Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments	7-4
7.7	Executive Order 13045  -  Children's Health	7-5
7.8	Executive Order 13211  -  Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use	7-5
7.9	National Technology Transfer Advancement Act	7-5
7.10	Executive Order 12898  -  Environmental Justice	7-6
Appendix A  -  List of Data Elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127	A-1
Appendix B  -  List of States by Data Entry Type	B-1
Appendix C  -  NPDES Program Management Information (PMI) Survey	C-1
Appendix D  -  Detailed Schedules of Savings and Costs	D-1
Appendix E  -  Summary of Changes to NPDES Regulations	E-1
Appendix F  -  Implementation Schedule	F-1

 Table of Tables
Table 1-1: Electronic Reporting Requirements by NPDES Subprogram	1-15
Table 2-1: NPDES Regulated Entities and NPDES Permit Types by Subprogram	2-2
Table 2-2: Electronic Reporting Requirements by NPDES Subprogram	2-3
Table 2-3: Required Data Families and Entity Initiating Reporting/Submittal Activity	2-6
Table 2-4: Standard Industrial Discharger and CWA §316(b) Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency	2-10
Table 2-5: Significant Industrial User (SIU) Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency	2-11
Table 2-6: CAFOs Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency	2-13
Table 2-7: Industrial Stormwater Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency	2-16
Table 2-8: Construction Stormwater Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency	2-20
Table 2-9: Municipal Stormwater Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency	2-22
Table 2-10: CSS POTW Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency	2-25
Table 2-11: SSS POTW and TWTDS Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency	2-27
Table 2-12: Biosolids Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency	2-29
Table 2-13: Pretreatment Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency	2-32
Table 2-14: Universe Summary by NPDES Subprogram	2-33
Table 2-15: Annual Reporting Frequency Summary by Data Family and Permit Type	2-34
Table 2-16: Number of Filers by NPDES Subprogram and Report Type	2-35
Table 3-1: Distribution of Savings and Costs of the Rule	3-1
Table 3-2: Registration and Training Requirements by NPDES Subprogram	3-7
Table 4-1: Distribution of Savings and Costs of the Rule	4-2
Table 4-2: Deriving Loaded Hourly Costs	4-3
Table 4-3: EPA Implementation Costs for Electronic Reporting Tools	4-4
Table 4-4: State Authorized NPDES Program Implementation Costs for Electronic Reporting Tools	4-6
Table 4-5: Administrative Costs to Implement Electronic Reporting	4-7
Table 4-6: Total Cost of Updating the Submission Process	4-9
Table 4-7: Authorized NPDES Program Incremental Electronic Reporting by Data Family and Permit Type	4-13
Table 4-8: Surveyed States by User Type	4-14
Table 4-9: Average Data Entry Time (in minutes) and Cost Per Data Element (2014 Dollars)	4-14
Table 4-10: Annual Cost of Data Entry and Operations for the Updated System after Implementation	4-17
Table 4-11: Total Initial Implementation Costs of the Rule	4-17
Table 4-12: Mailing Costs	4-18
Table 4-13: Unit Savings from Eliminating Pre-populated DMRs	4-19
Table 4-14: Total Annual Savings under Final Rule	4-20
Table 4-15: Rule Implementation Timing	4-21
Table 4-16: Schedule of Savings and Costs (3% Discount Rate)	4-23
Table 4-17: Schedule of Savings and Costs (7% Discount Rate)	4-23
Table 4-18: Changes in Costs and Cost Savings from Proposed Rule	4-26
Table 5-1: Compliance Costs Incurred under the Rule	5-3
Table 5-2: Annualized Compliance Costs Incurred Under the Rule	5-3
Table 5-3: Categorizing Sectors Affected by the Rule	5-4
Table 5-4: Sectors with Information in SUSB	5-6
Table 5-5: NPDES Facility Distribution by Employment Size Class	5-8
Table 5-6: NPDES Facility Distribution by Revenue Size Class	5-8
Table 5-7: NPDES Parent Entity Distribution by Employment Size Class	5-9
Table 5-8: NPDES Parent Entity Distribution by Revenue Size Class	5-9
Table 5-9: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities in Sectors with Census Information, 3% Discount Rate	5-11
Table 5-10: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities in Sectors with Census Information, 7% Discount Rate	5-11
Table 5-11: POTWs Matched to Census Municipalities, Townships, and Counties	5-13
Table 5-12: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Local Governments Operating POTWs, 3% Discount Rate	5-14
Table 5-13: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Local Governments Operating POTWs, 7% Discount Rate	5-14
Table 5-14: NPDES Utility Facility Universe	5-16
Table 5-15: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Utility Parent Entities, 3% Discount Rate	5-17
Table 5-16: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Utility Parent Entities, 7% Discount Rate	5-17
Table 5-17: NPDES Facility Distribution by NAICS Code	5-19
Table 5-18: NPDES Facility Distribution by NAICS Code	5-20
Table 5-19: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Agricultural Facilities, 3% Discount Rate	5-21
Table 5-20: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Agricultural Facilities, 7% Discount Rate	5-21
Table 5-21: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities, 3% Discount Rate	5-22
Table 5-22: Estimated Impacts of the Rule on Small Parent Entities of NPDES Facilities, 7% Discount Rate	5-22
Table 6-1: Total Annual Savings under Final Rule	6-2
Table 7-1: Projected Burden and Cost over the First Three Years of the Rule	7-2

 Table of Figures
Figure ES-1: Electronic Reporting Costs/Savings Analysis  -  3% Discount Rate	xii
Figure ES-2: Electronic Reporting Costs/Savings Analysis  -  7% Discount Rate	xiii
Figure 1-1: Current Flow of NPDES Data	1-2
Figure 1-2: Post Implementation Flow of NPDES Data	1-10
Figure 2-1: Inputs to Burden and Cost Estimates	2-1
Figure 3-1: The Exchange Network	3-3
Figure 4-1: Estimating Data Entry Costs	4-11
Figure 4-2: Electronic Reporting Savings/Costs Analysis  -  3% Discount Rate	4-23
Figure 4-3: Electronic Reporting Savings/Costs Analysis  -  7% Discount Rate	4-24

 List of Acronyms
The table below lists the acronyms used throughout this document.
List of Acronyms
                                    Acronym
                                Acronym Meaning
ACWA
Association of Clean Water Administrators
AFS
Air Facility System
ANCR
Annual Non-Compliance Report
BLS
Bureau of Labor Statistics
CAFO
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
CAMDBS
Clean Air Markets Division Business System
CDX
Central Data Exchange
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CGP
Construction General Permit
CIU
Categorical Industrial User
CROMERR
Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule
CSO
Combined Sewer Overflow
CSS
Combined Sewer System
CWA
Clean Water Act
DMR
Discharge Monitoring Report
EA
Economic Analysis
eDMR
Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report
ECHO
Enforcement & Compliance History Online
ECOS
Environmental Council of States
EDSC
Environmental Data Standards Council
eGRID
Emission & Generation Resource Integrated Database
EIA
Energy Information Administration
ENLC
Exchange Network Leadership Council
eNOI
Electronic Notice of Intent
EO
Executive Order
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
eProgram Report
Electronic Program Report
EQ
Exceptional Quality
ESA
Electronic Signature Agreement
FERC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FR
Federal Register
FRS
Facility Registry System
FTE
Full Time Equivalent
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GPRA
Government Performance and Results Act
HQ
Headquarters
ICIS
Integrated Compliance Information System
ICIS-NPDES
Integrated Compliance Information System-National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
ICR
Information Collection Request
IDEA
Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis
IPI
Industrial Production Index
IPT
Integrated Project Team
IT
Information Technology
IU
Industrial Users
LEW
Low Erosivity Waiver and Other Waivers from Stormwater Controls
MGD
Million Gallons per Day
MGP
Multi-Sector General Permit
MOA
Memorandum of Agreement
MS4
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MSGP
Multi-Sector General Permit
MSW
Municipal Solid Waste
NAICS
North American Industry Classification System
NASS
National Agricultural Statistical Service
NEC
No Exposure Certification
NeT
NPDES e-Reporting Tool
NetDMR
Net-based Discharge Monitoring Report
NMP
Nutrient Management Plan
NODI
No Data Indicators
NOI
Notice of Intent
NOT
Notice of Termination
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NTTAA
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
OECA
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OEI
EPA's Office of Environmental Information
O&M
Operations and Maintenance
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OTIS
Online Tracking and Information System
OW
EPA's Office of Water
PART
Program Assessment Rating Tool
PBMS
Performance Based Measurement System
PCS
Permit Compliance System
PMI
Program Management Information
POTW
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PPI
Producer Price Index
PRA
Paperwork Reduction Act
QNCR
Quarterly Non-Compliance Report
RFA
Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIDE
Requisite ICIS-NPDES Data Elements
RNC
Reportable Noncompliance (according to EPA Policy and Guidance)
SASS
Semi-Annual Statistical Summary
SBA
Small Business Administration
SBREFA
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SEV
Single Event Violation
SIC
Standard Industrial Classification
SIU
Significant Industrial User
SNC
Significant Noncompliance (according to EPA Policy and Guidance)
SSCS
Sanitary Sewer Collection System
SSO
Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SSS
Sanitary Sewer System
SUSB
Statistics of U.S. Businesses
SWM
Storm Water Management
TWTDS
Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage
UMRA
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
USC
United States Code
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
WENDB
Water Enforcement National Data Base
WGS
World Geodetic System
XML
eXtensible Markup Language

 Executive Summary
E4.1 Purpose of the Rule
The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule will substitute electronic reporting for existing paper-based reports, saving time and resources for regulated entities and states, while improving compliance and better protecting the nation's waters. The rule will require regulated entities and state and federal regulators to electronically report data currently required by the NPDES permit program in lieu of filing written paper reports.
The rule will require NPDES regulated entities to begin submitting certain data electronically one year after effective date of the rule, and will require authorized NPDES programs (states or EPA regions) to share with EPA the information either that is reported to the authorized program or that they generate with respect to those regulated entities.
             Examples of NPDES Program Reports Submitted on Paper
The rule will reduce the reporting burden currently borne by the states, improve overall facility compliance, allow better allocation and use of limited compliance and enforcement resources, and enhance transparency and public accountability by providing the public with timely information on potential sources of water pollution. When the final rule is fully implemented it will result in significant cost savings for regulated entities, states, territories, tribes, and EPA and more complete data could contribute to improved water quality. This Economic Analysis (EA) quantifies the costs and savings of this final rule, while acknowledging many of the qualitative benefits that will result from its implementation. This rule justifies itself on the basis of the savings/costs alone.
Historically, EPA and authorized states have focused on the largest or "major" facilities as a way of prioritizing resources for permitting, enforcement, and data reporting to EPA. For example, EPA's data sharing policy has specified that authorized NPDES programs enter certain data for major facilities electronically, but only encouraged this practice for nonmajors. Over time, there has been a growing recognition of the significance of the impacts that other sources can have on water quality. Stormwater discharges, concentrated animal feeding operations, mines, and raw sanitary sewage overflows are all significant contributors to water quality impairment but are not currently considered "major" facilities under the NPDES program. The rule improves data quality and availability for these significant sources, thereby providing the states and EPA with more complete and comparable data on a substantial majority of NPDES regulated entities, and allowing targeted actions to address the biggest water quality problems.
E4.2 Savings, Costs, and Benefits
EPA estimates that the rule will save money for states, tribes, and territories authorized to administer the NPDES program as well as EPA and most NPDES permittees, while resulting in a more complete, accurate, and nationally-consistent set of data about the NPDES program. With full implementation (expected to be five years after the effective date of the rule), the anticipated annual net savings for authorized NPDES programs is $22.6 million, $0.5 million for regulated entities, and $1.2 million for EPA.
The State of Ohio's electronic reporting program for Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) demonstrates the potential benefits of electronic reporting. Ohio's program resulted in a 99.9% adoption rate by regulated entities, with the following benefits:
Improved data quality: errors dropped from 50,000 per month prior to electronic reporting to 5,000 per month afterwards.
Significant savings in time and resources: prior to electronic reporting, Ohio needed five full time staff to support the DMR program. With electronic reporting, Ohio reduced DMR staffing to less than one full time staff member.
Improved data quality also allows Ohio to more accurately target areas of pollution, facilitating the State's enforcement and compliance efforts. Under the rule, states with existing successful electronic reporting programs like Ohio's would expand these programs to include additional data, if needed, potentially increasing these benefits.
Savings and Costs - Significant savings are anticipated once the final rule is fully implemented. There will, however, be initial investment costs associated with necessary changes to information technology and infrastructure. During the first 10 years after the rule is finalized, it is expected to generate a net savings of roughly $156 million at a 3% discount rate, or $114 million at a 7% discount rate. Break-even should be achieved  -  i.e., cumulative savings will equal cumulative costs  -  in the fourth year of electronic reporting (See Figure ES-1 and Figure ES -2).
Figure ES-1: Electronic Reporting Costs/Savings Analysis  -  3% Discount Rate

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

The rule will vastly reduce the need for authorized NPDES programs to enter data submitted by regulated entities into information systems, which accounts for most of the savings. Those savings are partially offset by data entry associated with the modified universe of facilities for which authorized NPDES programs will be required to provide facility and permitting data to EPA. The rule will also reduce the need for paper and postage by authorized NPDES programs and regulated entities. All of these costs and cost savings are incorporated into the estimates discussed above.
In addition, based on Ohio's experience with its electronic reporting system for these data, the rule should reduce the need for error checking of the data by authorized NPDES programs, and the need for regulated entities to revise and reenter data. If the reduction in errors in DMR data reported by Ohio can be extrapolated to all permitting authorities, EPA estimates there would be an additional total time and cost saving of approximately 130 full-time equivalents (FTEs) and $9.3 million in wages. Because they are an extrapolation only, however, these additional potential savings from reduced error checking are not included in the estimates discussed above or the total savings presented elsewhere in the analysis.
Burden Reduction  -  Burden for states and regulated entities will be reduced by an estimated net of 0.6 million hours in total over the first three years after the effective date of the rule. At full implementation (five years after the effective date of the rule) net burden reduction is estimated to total 0.9 million hours per year. The final rule will transform the NPDES program from a paper reporting program to a modern electronic program. The reductions translate into an annual savings to states and regulated entities at full implementation of $23.1 million.  State paper reporting would be eliminated for: quarterly noncompliance report (QNCR) for major facilities; semi-annual statistical summary report for major facilities; annual non-compliance report (ANCR) for nonmajor facilities; and annual biosolids report from states to EPA.
Qualitative Benefits  -  Other anticipated benefits of the rule include improved quality and accuracy of the data available to regulatory agencies and the public; more timely and expanded use of the data to identify, target, and address problems; quicker availability of the data for use; and increased accessibility and transparency of the data to the public. These benefits should allow states to shift precious resources from data management activities to activities more useful in solving water quality and noncompliance issues. This shift will, in turn, contribute to increased compliance, and a level playing field for the regulated community.
EPA will make much of this enhanced and improved data available to the public, as it does now with the existing data, to provide communities and citizens with the best available information on facility and government performance. Such data provides a powerful incentive to improve performance by giving government, regulated entities and the public ready access to more complete compliance information. This incentive can serve to elevate the importance of compliance information and environmental performance within regulated entities, providing an opportunity for them to quickly address any noncompliance. More complete, accurate and timely data can provide the private sector and consumers with facility and company performance information. It provides regulators the ability to monitor and assess performance systematically and to quickly address significant issues that may be hidden in unmanageable paper reports, minimizing environmental and public health impacts. It creates an opportunity for two-way communication with regulated entities to immediately address data quality issues and to provide compliance assistance or take other action when potential problems are identified. Complete and accurate data also allows EPA to compare performance across authorized programs, leading to more effective national program management.
The rule will also lighten the reporting burden currently placed on the states. Upon successful implementation, the rule will provide states with regulatory relief from reporting associated with the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR), the Annual Non-Compliance Report (ANCR), the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report (SASS), and the biosolids information required to be submitted to EPA annually by states.  Under the rule, the non-compliance and statistical summary reports from each authorized program will be replaced by a single National Non-compliance Report prepared by EPA headquarters.
Under the rule, the resulting information flows will allow EPA and authorized NPDES programs to manage the NPDES program more efficiently. With electronic reporting, EPA and states will be able to use self-reported regulated entity data in near real time. Permitted facilities will have more control over how and when their data are added to the information systems, and will be able to use the data to identify and address issues before they become violations. Electronic reporting also improves data quality and allows for data sharing across federal and authorized NPDES program regulators using the Exchange Network  -  a network EPA built to foster data sharing between EPA and the states. Bringing the additional information about both major and nonmajor regulated entities into ICIS-NPDES will allow authorized NPDES programs and EPA to better monitor and report on the status of the NPDES programs they administer.
Having data that are more current, comprehensive, and accurate will improve targeting of federal and state resources to the most serious water quality and compliance problems. Improved NPDES data can significantly improve EPA's knowledge of the regulated community; and that knowledge is essential for problem identification and for developing sound regulations, guidance, and policy. Regulated entities will benefit by knowing that the compliance information in EPA's data systems is timely and accurate, and by taking advantage of the on-line data quality tools to ensure that the data they submit is accurate.
E4.3 Major Factors Taken into Consideration in Estimating Savings and Costs
The following factors have the greatest impact on the savings and costs of the final rule:
Cost of necessary changes to existing EPA and state data systems;
States that have already begun developing electronic reporting (e.g., EPA estimates that 35 states are already using electronic DMR systems);
Estimated universe of regulated entities;
Number of regulated entities needing electronic signatures for electronic data entry;
Changes in who enters the data;
Frequency of various data reports;
Data to be collected;
Time required to enter data into information systems; and
The schedule for rule implementation.
In fact, a number of these factors changed between this analysis and the economic analysis for the proposed rule. As a result, the estimates of both ongoing annual costs and cost savings have increased from those estimated for the proposed rule. The estimated total initial implementation costs have remained nearly the same. The result is an increase in net savings at full implementation to authorized NPDES programs and EPA Regions, along with a decrease in net savings to regulated entities. Estimated cumulative net benefits over ten years have also increased.
The changes in estimated costs and cost savings result from changes in the rule provisions from proposed to final, as well as changes in the underlying data and assumptions used in the economic analysis. The most significant of these changes are the following:
Revisions to the estimated cost of electronic reporting tool implementation;
Additional activities supporting rule implementation;
Reduction in the potential for dual electronic/paper reporting during transition;
Changes to the phase-in schedule;
Reduction in the number of required data elements;
Inclusion of password reset costs;
Inclusion of the full cost of electronic tool implementation by states;
Inclusion of ongoing costs for states to manage data transfer to EPA and provide ongoing training and support for electronic reporting; and
Incorporation of multiple DMR forms per submission.
The last change, number of DMR forms per submission, had the single largest impact on the estimates because of its impact on ongoing data entry and processing cost savings. See Section 4.6 for complete discussion of changes from the proposed rule estimates and the significance of assumptions about the number of DMR forms.
E4.4 Key Acts and Regulations that Must be Addressed by the EA
Small Entity Analysis  -  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the final rule's likely impact on small entities was evaluated. Following EPA guidance, a significant impact may occur when compliance costs are equal to or greater than 1% of the revenue of small parent entities. While impacts of greater than 1% are estimated to be incurred due to the rule, impacts of greater than 1% are incurred by far fewer than 100 small entities and considerably less than 20% of all small entities for all sectors and for each sector individually due to relatively low per entity compliance costs. Therefore, the rule is not expected to significantly impact a substantial number of small entities.
Regulatory Planning and Review (EO 12866)  -  This EO requires additional analyses for rulemakings with an economic impact of $100 million or more in any year. The Economic Analysis for this final rule indicates that the annual economic impact will be less than the $100 million annual threshold, so the additional requirements are not applicable.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)  -  This Act requires undertaking additional analyses for rulemakings that impose burdens of $100 million or more in any year. The Economic Analysis for this final rule indicates the annual implementation costs will be less than the $100 million threshold, so the additional requirements of the UMRA are not applicable.
E4.5 Key Steps for Implementation
Updating the NPDES information flow will allow states and EPA to each have a central repository of NPDES information and to readily share that information through the internet. The major activities necessary to update the way states share information with EPA are:
Authorized NPDES program and EPA implementation of an electronic reporting system for submitting regulated entity data;
Authorized NPDES program and EPA implementation of an electronic reporting system for submitting authorized NPDES program data to EPA;
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 EPA's Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR);
Authorized NPDES programs preparing implementation plans and EPA review and approval 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;
Authorized NPDES program entering newly shared data for all regulated entities;
EPA assessing participation rates and, where appropriate, conducting oversight using its Clean Water Act (CWA) authority and Information Collection Request (ICR) to compel NPDES-regulated entities to utilize their NPDES program's electronic reporting system; and,
Authorized NPDES program and EPA modifying permits to require electronic submissions.

Regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs will need to make changes in order to use the updated databases and reporting tools. The activities required to use the updated systems are:
   * Regulated entity registration for and maintenance of user accounts in CDX or the state authorized NPDES program electronic system and submission of electronic signature agreements;
   * Regulated entity training;
   * Regulated entity submission of electronic NOIs, DMRs, and program reports; and,
   * Authorized NPDES program electronic submission of programmatic Appendix A data to EPA.

During the initial implementation period (within five years after the effective date of the rule), some regulated entities might submit data both electronically and on paper. The conditions under which this "dual reporting" could occur are the following:
The regulated entity's authorized NPDES program has an electronic reporting system in place;
The regulated entity's permit (or other control mechanism) explicitly requires paper reporting;
The conditions that require paper reporting are not changed outside of the normal permit cycle (e.g., through the minor modification process); and
The authorized NPDES program does not use its enforcement discretion to refrain from enforcing the conditions that explicitly require paper reporting.

These conditions are likely to occur only for a small number of regulated entities and would last only until the permit is re-issued with electronic reporting requirements on the normal permit cycle.
 -  Background and Overview of the Economic Analysis of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
 Introduction
Through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic Reporting rule, EPA will convert current paper reporting requirements to electronic. In doing so, EPA will establish a nationally consistent set of required information for the full scope of the NPDES program, for NPDES data that must be submitted to, or entered into, EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)-NPDES. EPA needs regulated entity-specific information in order to provide national program direction and oversight; to ensure that implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program, both nationally and locally, will effectively protect human health and the environment; and to facilitate public access to NPDES information. This rule will also require that NPDES data be submitted to EPA electronically, either by regulated entities or authorized NPDES program, as appropriate, which will reduce the burden of data entry on states, tribes, and territories (hereinafter referred to as states) and EPA Regions. The rule does not require collection or reporting of any new data.
This report analyzes the economic impact of the electronic reporting rule and presents the methodology, information sources, and detailed results of the Economic Analysis (EA). To understand the effects of the rule, however, this section documents how the NPDES program currently operates and the existing information resources used to support the NPDES program. Figure 1-1 illustrates the current flow of NPDES data from responsible party (regulated entity, authorized NPDES program, EPA) into the data system. It also identifies the activities undertaken by each responsible party, as well as the type of data entered. Section 1.2 provides a description of the statutory and regulatory history of the NPDES program followed by a summary of existing NPDES reporting requirements and how the data have been and are being used (Section 1.3). The section concludes with a description of the final rule (Section 1.4) and lays out the organization of the remaining sections of the report (Section 1.5).
Figure 1-1: Current Flow of NPDES Data

Statutory and Regulatory History of the NPDES Program
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the NPDES program to regulate the discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States (33 U.S.C. §1342). EPA has issued comprehensive regulations implementing the NPDES program at 40 CFR part 122.
Under CWA §402(b) and 40 CFR part 123, states may be authorized to administer the NPDES program. The NPDES Program consists of various components, including: 1) the NPDES core program for municipal and industrial facilities; 2) Federal Facilities; 3) General Permitting; 4) Pretreatment Program; and 5) Biosolids. States can adopt the NPDES core program and one or more of the other components as part of their authorization. In accordance with 40 CFR subpart B, states that want authorization to administer the NPDES program submit to EPA a letter from the Governor requesting review and approval, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), a program description, a statement of legal authority (also known as an "Attorney Generals Statement" or "AG Statement"), and supporting state laws and regulations. The process of authorization includes a public review and comment period, and a public hearing (40 CFR §123.61(b)). If EPA disapproves the program, EPA remains the authorized NPDES program for that state (40 CFR §123.61(d)). If EPA approves the program, the state is authorized to administer the NPDES program. A state may request and receive authorization to administer one or more of the NPDES Program components. After EPA approves the state's proposed program(s), all new permit applications for the program(s) are submitted to the authorized states for NPDES permit issuance. EPA, through its regional offices, retains authorized NPDES program for all programs not specifically authorized to the states.
EPA regulations require authorized NPDES programs to keep records and submit to EPA such information as the Agency may reasonably require to ascertain whether the program as implemented complies with the requirements of the CWA and EPA's regulations (40 CFR §123.43(d)). In addition, authorized NPDES programs are required to make available to EPA upon request any information authorized NPDES programs obtain or use in administering their NPDES programs (40 CFR §123.41(a)).  Forty-six states and one territory have requested and received authority to administer one or more NPDES programs. As a result, EPA shares NPDES program implementation in varying degrees with 46 states and one territory and is the sole authorized NPDES program for four states, all of the tribes, and 15 territories.
EPA accounts for the burden associated with the reporting requirements of the CWA and EPA's regulations under several ICRs, including the following:
   * Consolidated NPDES ICR (2040-0004);
   * Consolidated Animal Sectors ICR (2040-0250);
   * Pesticides General Permit ICR (2040-0284);
   * Airport Deicing ICR (2040-0285);
   * Cooling Water Intake Structures - New Facility (Renewal) (2040-0241);
   * National Pretreatment Program: Streamlining Final Rule (2040-0009);
   * Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase III Facilities (Final Rule) (2040-0268); and
   * Cooling Water Intake Structures Existing Facility (Phase II) (Renewal) (2040-0257).
The ICR accompanying this final rule accounts for the change in burden associated with the shift to electronic reporting under the rule (see Section 7.2). Going forward, EPA plans to incorporate these changes in burden into the Consolidated NPDES ICR (2040-0004) as that ICR is re-issued.
1985 PCS Policy
To implement 40 CFR 123.43(d) and other regulations, EPA has issued guidance on the information to be submitted electronically to a national database. In particular, the 1985 PCS Policy Statement (as amended in 2007) and the PCS Quality Assurance Manual identify the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and consistency expectations for state data entry into ICIS-NPDES. Both guidance documents were originally developed by EPA for use with PCS but were subsequently adapted and are still in effect for ICIS-NPDES.
The PCS Policy Statement supports sound management of the NPDES program nationally and ensures that the program achieved the CWA's environmental goals. The 1985 PCS Policy Statement specified that: 1) PCS would be the national data base of record for the NPDES program; 2) EPA Regions must use PCS directly; and 3) all NPDES authorized states, tribes and territories must either use PCS directly or develop and maintain and technology and protocols that transfer NPDES data to PCS. EPA also uses two mechanisms, a Memorandum of Agreement and CWA Section 106 Work Plan, for requiring data sharing between state NPDES programs and EPA.
1987 Water Quality Act and 2000 Wet Weather Water Quality Act
In response to growing concerns about stormwater issues, Congress passed the 1987 Water Quality Act which extended NPDES requirements to stormwater discharges. This action expanded the NPDES program to include stormwater discharges.  In December 2000, Congress also amended the CWA with the "Wet Weather Water Quality Act." These amendments added Section 402(q)(1) to require consistency with EPA's Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy in permitting and enforcement activities.
Summary of the NPDES Program Reporting Requirements
Current Status
Three major groups are required to fulfill different reporting requirements under the NPDES program:
   * NPDES regulated entities: These facilities are regulated by one or more components of the NPDES program. Facilities that discharge pollutants to the waters of the United States and therefore are required: 1) to apply for permits under NPDES; and, 2) to regularly report self-monitoring information (e.g., testing of pollutant concentrations in wastewater discharges, program reports). Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and other treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDSs) that generate biosolids are regulated by the Biosolids Program (40 CFR 503) and industrial facilities that discharge to POTWs are regulated by the Pretreatment Program (40 CFR 403).
   * NPDES Regulatory Authorities: The EPA Regions or authorized state, tribe, or territory responsible for administering the NPDES program within a given geopolitical unit (e.g., state).
   * U.S. EPA: The agency maintains oversight across all components of the NPDES program.
This section describes the current roles and responsibilities of each group within the NPDES program.
Regulated Entities
Regulated entities must comply with record-keeping and reporting requirements, and a variety of standard conditions included in EPA regulations, NPDES permits, and other control mechanisms (40 CFR 122.41). Record-keeping and reporting requirements often include preparation and submission to the authorized NPDES program of monthly discharge monitoring reports, which were traditionally paper documents. Additional reporting may include program reports as required by specific NPDES subprograms [e.g., CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, sewer overflows, and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)] (40 CFR 122.42).
Authorized NPDES Programs
The authorized NPDES program is the EPA Region or authorized state, tribe, or territory responsible for administering the NPDES program within a given geopolitical area. In some cases, a state may have been approved to administer certain NPDES programs, while the EPA regional office still manages the remaining subprograms or activities. The responsibilities of the authorized NPDES program include: writing NPDES permits or control mechanisms; receiving reports from permitted facilities and entering their information into the data system; and performing the compliance and oversight activities prescribed in the NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy.
EPA
EPA has primary responsibility for effectively and consistently implementing the NPDES program across the country, thus ensuring that the public health and environmental protection goals of the CWA are met. EPA's responsibilities include:
Enforcing the requirements of the CWA and the NPDES program;
Identifying the universe of facilities covered by the NPDES program;
Developing sound regulations, guidance and policy;
Conducting oversight of authorized states;
Identifying the compliance status of facilities subject to NPDES regulations in a nationally consistent manner;
Monitoring and reporting the status of implementing the CWA;
Identifying potential non-compliance problems and their associated environmental impacts to effectively target resources;
Demonstrating results achieved to meet NPDES program goals, including the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures reported to Congress, under Goal 2 (Clean and Safe Water) and Goal 5 (Compliance and Environmental Stewardship);
Responding to inquiries from Congressional members;
Administering the NPDES programs (policy setting, permitting, compliance monitoring, inspections and enforcement) in those states and subprograms where states have not assumed responsibility; and,
Informing the public about the permitting and compliance status of facilities in their communities.

To accomplish these goals, EPA uses and maintains the Integrated Compliance Information System  -  National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES), a modernized system developed in 2005 to replace the legacy Permit Compliance System (PCS).
Regulated Entity Types
NPDES Permitted Facilities
NPDES permitted facilities are grouped in terms of major and nonmajor sources and whether they have coverage under an individual or general permit. NPDES permitted facilities designated as major include POTWs with designed discharge flows of greater than one million gallons per day (1 MGD) and active major industrial facilities scoring more than 80 for the six factors (toxicity, volume, conventional pollutants, public health impact, water quality, and proximity to coastal waters) on the "NPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet." NPDES permittees that are not designated as majors are classified as nonmajors. General permits authorize discharges and establish operating and reporting requirements under the CWA for specific categories of dischargers (e.g., stormwater discharges from construction activities). Nearly all of the approximately 6,800 NPDES facilities designated as majors have individual permits. There are many more NPDES facilities designated as nonmajors than majors and most nonmajors have coverage under general permits (e.g., construction stormwater permits).  At present, most of these facilities (major and nonmajor) submit the information required under the NPDES program on paper, with the exception of some facilities that are already using EPA or state electronic reporting systems (see Section 1.3.6).
Under the final rule, NPDES permittees would electronically submit their compliance monitoring data (e.g., DMRs, program reports) to their authorized NPDES program Some NPDES regulated entities have multiple NPDES compliance monitoring reporting requirements. For example, POTWs may submit the following compliance monitoring data to their authorized NPDES program:
DMRs [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)];
Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report [40 CFR 503];
Pretreatment Program Annual Report [40 CFR 403.12(i)]; and
Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4), (l)(6) and (7), (m)(3)].

 The recipient of these compliance monitoring data depends on the NPDES authorization status of the state, tribe, or territory. For example, a POTW may send its DMRs to the state if it is authorized to implement the NPDES core program for municipal and industrial facilities and its Pretreatment Program Annual Report to an EPA Region if the state is not authorized to administer the pretreatment program.

Biosolids Facilities

 Section 405 of the CWA sets the statutory framework for regulating sewage sludge (biosolids). EPA has established a protective regulatory framework to manage the use and disposal of biosolids at 40 CFR Part 503. Part 503 is a "self implementing" rule, which means that entities producing biosolids are regulated whether or not these requirements are included in a permit. Most facilities regulated by Part 503 also have an NPDES permit. Under the final rule NPDES regulated entities would electronically submit their Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report [40 CFR 503]. At present, these reports are submitted on paper.

Significant Industrial Users

 POTWs receive wastewater from households (domestic waste), as well as from a wide variety of commercial and industrial facilities, referred to as industrial users (IUs). The types of IUs range widely, from small restaurants to hospitals to large and complex organic chemical manufacturers. EPA has further identified some IUs as categorical industrial users (CIUs), i.e., IUs subject to EPA's pretreatment standards developed for particular industrial categories, and significant industrial users (SIUs), i.e., IUs that are either CIUs or discharge process wastewater above the thresholds set in 40 CFR 403.5. EPA has developed a comprehensive pretreatment program implemented through EPA Regions, state, tribes, territories, and POTWs to control IU discharges of pollutants that might pass through or interfere with POTW treatment processes or contaminate sewage sludge, thereby posing a threat to human health or the environment. Under the final rule the SIUs and CIUs in municipalities without an approved pretreatment program would electronically submit the following data: (1) Periodic reports on continued compliance for CIUs [40 CFR 403.12(e)]; and (2) Periodic reports on continued compliance for Non-CIUs [40 CFR 403.12(h)]. At present, these reports are submitted on paper.

EPA Data Sharing Policy
The 1985 PCS Policy defines the required data necessary to enable PCS to function as a useful operational and management tool for the NPDES program. The list of required data elements is called the Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB). Values for many of the data elements are updated on the permit cycle (every five years). Values for other data elements are entered as an activity or event occurs (e.g., effluent monitoring, inspections, violations, enforcement actions). Each state's data is now stored in ICIS-NPDES (all PCS data has been transferred to ICIS-NPDES, and PCS is no longer in operation). The list of WENDB data elements uses the major/nonmajor distinction to identify the data states are required to input into ICIS-NPDES. For example, states are required by the PCS Policy to input DMR data into ICIS-NPDES for majors but only encouraged to do so for nonmajors.
Regulated Entity Supplied Data
EPA requires regulated entities to submit information as part of their permit applications, notices of intent (NOIs), Notice of Termination (NOT); No Exposure Certifications (NECs); Low Erosivity Waivers and Other Waivers from Stormwater Controls (LEWs), discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), and program reports (e.g., CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, sewer overflow/bypass event reports, MS4 program reports). Some authorized NPDES programs give regulated entities the option to file one or more of these documents electronically; however, the majority of these data are currently submitted to the authorized NPDES program in paper form. For a complete listing of these data see NPDES Data Group Number 2 through 9 in Table 1 to Appendix A to 40 CFR 127.
Required Information for Facilities with Individual NPDES Permits and Significant Industrial Users
Most facilities with individual NPDES permits (major and nonmajor) submit DMRs [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)] to their authorized NPDES program (often on a monthly frequency). Additionally, some individually permitted facilities are also required to submit programs reports which include:
CWA §316(b) Annual Report [40 CFR 125 Subpart J]
Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report [40 CFR 503]
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Annual Program Reports [40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)]
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Report [40 CFR 122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c)]
Pretreatment Program Annual Report [40 CFR 403.12(i)]
Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4), (l)(6) and (7), (m)(3)]

Significant industrial user in municipalities without approved pretreatment programs must also submit bi-annual compliance reports [40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)].
Required Information for Facilities with General NPDES Permits
EPA and authorized states, tribes, and territories issue general permits to cover multiple similar facilities under a single permit. Where a large number of similar facilities require permits, a general permit allows the authorized NPDES program to allocate resources in a more efficient manner and provide timelier permit coverage than would occur if individual permits had to be issued to each similar facility. States, tribes, and territories must seek EPA approval to administer general permits.  EPA's regulations governing the General Permit Program are located at 40 CFR 122.28. EPA and authorized programs have issued over 700 general permits nationwide. Nearly all general permit covered facilities are classified as nonmajors.
After the final general permit has been issued, there are several general permit reports that facilities must submit to their authorized NPDES program, including:
Notice of Intent (NOI) to discharge: This is the initial submission seeking coverage under a general permit [40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i) and (ii)];
Notice of Termination (NOT): A request by the permittee to terminate their coverage under an existing permit (40 CFR 124.5);
No Exposure Certification (NEC): A certification from a facility indicating that coverage under an existing stormwater general permit is not necessary due to certain facility-specific conditions [40 CFR 122.26(g)(1) and (4)]; and
Low Erosivity Waiver and Other Waivers from Stormwater Controls (LEW): A certification from a facility indicating that coverage under an existing construction stormwater general permit is not necessary due to certain facility-specific or climate conditions [40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)].

It is important to note that EPA general permit regulations (40 CFR 122.28) do not require all general permit covered facilities to submit NOIs for all general permits issued by EPA and authorized state NPDES programs. Some general permits provide for automatic coverage.
This means that neither EPA nor the authorized state, tribe, or territory programs will have information regarding exactly which facilities are regulated under these general permits.
General permits cover a wide range of facility types that range from the very large (e.g., offshore oil and gas facilities, seafood processors) to very small discharges. Discharges from facilities covered under general permits include a variety of pollutants, such as total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, oil and grease, bacteria, nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, and toxics.
Basic facility information for some facilities covered by general permits is currently required to be entered into ICIS-NPDES in accordance with the PCS Policy. Requirements to submit DMRs or program reports (e.g., Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report, CAFO Annual Program Reports, MS4 Program Report, Pretreatment Program Annual Report) vary based on the type of general permit under which a facility is covered.
Authorized NPDES Program Supplied Data
NPDES permits are reviewed and potentially revised and reissued every five years. Basic facility data, basic permit data, and monitoring data are submitted by regulated entities to states on the NPDES application or renewal form. These are typically paper submissions. Authorized programs take these data and issue a new or revised permit (with permit limit sets) and enter a portion of these facility and permit data into ICIS-NPDES. There are differing data entry requirements for majors and nonmajor facilities.
The authorized NPDES program is also responsible for tracking and logging compliance monitoring, violation, and enforcement action information into ICIS-NPDES. The authorized NPDES program is responsible for receiving and processing reporting information submitted by regulated entities (e.g., DMRs). When received in paper form, the authorized NPDES program must enter the required information into the NPDES system of record (ICIS-NPDES or a data system operated by the authorized NPDES program). There are differing ICIS-NPDES data entry requirements for major and nonmajor facilities.
Inspection, violation, and enforcement action information must be entered by the authorized NPDES program for major facilities as they occur. EPA's current goal under the NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy is for 100% of major regulated entities to receive at least one Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Compliance Sampling Inspection, Performance Audit Inspection, Diagnostic Inspection, Compliance Bio-Monitoring Inspection, and/or Toxics Sampling Inspection every two fiscal years.  EPA has set the goal that individual nonmajor permits be inspected at least once during the permit cycle. For a complete listing of these data see NPDES Data Group Number 1 in Table 1 to Appendix A to 40 CFR 127.
Electronic Reporting
While electronic reporting is not currently required, there are tools regulated entities can use to file some reports electronically. For example, EPA's electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) allows regulated entities in states where EPA is the authorized NPDES program to apply electronically for coverage under the Multi-Sector General Permit, the Construction General Permit, Vessels General Permit, and the Pesticides General Permit. Similarly, EPA's NetDMR tool allows regulated entities to submit their discharge monitoring reports electronically. EPA estimates that 38 state authorized NPDES programs have adopted some form of electronic reporting for one or more of the NPDES program areas (e.g., NetDMR, eDMR, or eNOI systems). Based on available information, most of these state programs are voluntary. Participation in these programs varies greatly from state to state, ranging from 10% to nearly 100% of permittees. EPA is also developing a new tool suite for NOIs and other general permit forms and program reports, the NPDES e-Reporting Tool (NeT). EPA's 2015 Multi-Sector General Permit that controls industrial stormwater also uses NeT. EPA plans to make this tool available to the states as part of the implementation for this rule.
Description of the Final Rule
Statement of Need
Through this rule, EPA seeks to improve the accessibility, timeliness, consistency, and accuracy of data from all facilities regulated by the NPDES program. This effort will provide the public, EPA, states, and regulated entities with better access to more timely, complete, and accurate NPDES data. The needs of these user groups for NPDES data are described in more detail below.
The Public
At present, the public has limited information regarding a substantial portion of the NPDES regulated universe. One of EPA's goals is to increase the transparency of its environmental programs and their results. This rule supports that goal by improving the quality and availability of information regarding the compliance status of the nation's water dischargers and the enforcement responses taken by authorized NPDES programs and EPA. Electronic reporting by NPDES regulated entities will increase the timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of NPDES information made available to the public. It is expected that with these changes in place, the public can more effectively monitor and address local and national concerns regarding the state of the waters of the United States.
EPA
EPA has primary responsibility for ensuring the CWA's NPDES program is effectively and consistently implemented nationwide, thus ensuring that public health and environmental protection goals of the CWA are met. This rule uses existing regulations to identity the information EPA needs to receive from NPDES regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs in order to effectively manage the national NPDES program, including permitting and enforcement.
Authorized NPDES Programs
Authorized NPDES programs are currently inundated with paper reports from regulated entities. Valuable resources are used reviewing those submissions for errors, working with regulated entities to correct errors, and then entering the data into information systems. The time required for these activities delays the availability of the data, and makes it difficult for authorized NPDES programs to identify real violations and compliance issues in a timely manner.
Regulated Entities
NPDES regulated entities have an interest in ensuring that the information used by their authorized NPDES program and EPA is as accurate and current as possible, because the permitting authorities use this information in evaluating compliance status. Facilities have an interest in ensuring that they are not mistakenly identified as being in noncompliance due to a state data entry error. Data errors occur most often when data are manually entered into an electronic data system from paper forms. In particular, these transcription errors can be the result of an omitted decimal place, errant unit for a pollutant parameter, or incorrect transcription from a handwritten value on a paper form. NPDES regulated entities have an interest in showing that their most current compliance status is also correctly identified by their permitting authority. Through electronic reporting, regulated entities can be more confident that their reports are received on time by the authorities and that their compliance status is characterized correctly.
Changes to the NPDES Program under the Final Rule
This final rule will require regulated entities to submit certain information electronically to their respective authorized NPDES program. Appendix A to the final rule (40 CFR part 127) is the minimum set of NPDES program data that must be electronically collected, managed, and shared between NPDES-regulated facilities, authorized NPDES programs, and EPA. Appendix A of this document identifies the data elements included in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127. EPA worked extensively with NPDES program experts from across the Agency and with authorized NPDES programs to develop and refine Appendix A. 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.
Figure 1-2 illustrates the flow of NPDES data from a responsible party (regulated entity, authorized NPDES program, or EPA) into the system of record following implementation of the final rule. It also identifies the activities undertaken by each responsible party as well as the type of data expected to be submitted to ICIS-NPDES when the requirement for electronic reporting is in place.
Figure 1-2: Post Implementation Flow of NPDES Data

Programmatic Data from the Authorized NPDES Program
Between 2002 and 2007, EPA and the states worked to identify the data needed by authorized NPDES programs to successfully implement and manage the NPDES program. Critical data elements and their end-uses were discussed by:
The state and EPA members of the PCS Steering Committee;
The PCS Modernization Executive Council; and,
The expanded PCS Steering Committee, including the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) and the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA).

These discussions led to the April 2007 issuance of a draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement that included the list of NPDES data authorized NPDES programs would report to EPA. EPA finalized a crosswalk from WENDB to ICIS-NPDES in December 2007.
Following receipt of numerous comments on the draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement from the states, EPA initiated a rulemaking to support a federal regulation requiring specific NPDES information from authorized NPDES programs.
Between 2008 and 2011, the focus of this rulemaking was expanded to consider how much of the NPDES information could reasonably be obtained electronically from authorized NPDES programs and NPDES regulated entities. EPA initiated an effort to carefully review data needs of various stakeholders, consider the types of information that would allow EPA to meet those needs, and then identify which reports should be submitted electronically. EPA also evaluated whether the information should be sought directly from the NPDES regulated entities or from the authorized NPDES program, acknowledging that for certain activities and responsibilities (such as permit issuance, inspections, compliance determinations, and issuance of enforcement actions), the authorized NPDES program would be the logical source of the required NPDES information.
In a series of technical analyses, EPA examined the feasibility of electronic reporting, existing regulatory data and reporting requirements, and EPA priorities, and prepared preliminary estimates of savings and costs. These analyses informed the development of the rule as well as the list of NPDES data elements required by the rule (identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127). During 2014 and 2015, EPA met with state technical experts to discuss all the data elements in Appendix A. In general, EPA simplified Appendix A to help make implementation of the final rule easier for authorized NPDES programs and NPDES regulated entities.
The final rule requires that the Appendix A data elements, all of which are already required to be reported by regulated entities or authorized NPDES programs, be entered into ICIS-NPDES. The required data elements fall into the following data families:
      Facility and Permit Information: The Facility Data Family includes data such as name and street address of the regulated entity and a contact name. Several pieces of facility information will be required under the final rule to improve EPA's management of regulated entities. Tribal Land data will allow EPA to identify effluents being discharged into waters in Tribal lands. Affiliation information (e.g. the name of the site engineer) is required to ensure reported data comes from the appropriate employee or representative.

      The Permit Data Family includes basic permit information, tracking of a permit's issuance, narrative permit conditions such as permit schedules, and permitted features (outfalls).

      Data elements like DMR non-receipt tracking flags, RNC tracking flags, and applicable effluent guidelines have been added under the final rule to help EPA characterize and monitor a regulated entity's compliance with their permit requirements. Data elements have also been added to address changes in standardized industrial classification taxonomies. The WENDB used the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes to designate a regulated entity's industrial sector. Because the federal government has adopted the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS), Appendix A now provides the option to enter either SIC or NAICS codes. These changes will allow EPA to more effectively manage basic permit information for compliance and enforcement purposes.

      Other permit data elements reflect changes to the NPDES program that have occurred since the original data set was established. Permit data elements associated with program areas established in the 1980s are needed in order to manage and measure the environmental impact of operations and facilities now covered under the NPDES program. Both the size of the permitted site and the sources of the discharge will be reported. Wet weather components are included to manage stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces. CSO data elements are included to monitor for possible discharges of untreated human and industrial waste. Other elements, such as Control Authority Identifier tie treatment facility permits to the approved local pretreatment programs, if applicable.

      The Facility and Permit Data Families are treated similarly throughout this analysis and are referred to as Permit Data Elements throughout this report.

      Discharge Monitoring Reports: The DMR Data Family includes effluent monitoring data provided by NPDES facilities. DMR information includes data elements regarding pollutant concentrations, wastewater flow, and other data about the effluent discharge.

      Limits and Limit Sets: These data characterize limits and limit sets. Limit stay end date, reason for stay, enforcement action ID, and months a limit applies can be used to characterize and evaluate the appropriateness of effluent limits or stays of such limits.

      Program Reports: The Program Reports Data Family includes program reports submitted for NPDES subprograms including: CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, sewer overflows, and MS4). Sewer overflows include sanitary sewer overflows, combined sewer overflows, and bypass events.

      Compliance Monitoring: The Compliance Monitoring Activity Data Family documents compliance monitoring activities at permitted facilities. This family of data generally includes information associated with inspections such as inspection type, and dates associated with the inspection.

      Compliance monitoring activity data allow EPA to track compliance monitoring of the regulated entity. Example data elements include: actual and planned end dates, the type of compliance monitoring, and identification of the programs monitored. These compliance monitoring activity data elements improve the Agency's understanding of where environmental impacts take place.

      Violations: The Violation Data Family includes data associated with violations such as single event, effluent, and compliance schedule violations.

      Enforcement Actions: The Enforcement Action Data Family includes data regarding the enforcement action itself (e.g., documenting reason for deleting an action) as well as associated compliance schedules and penalties.

Existing CWA regulations define what data must be reported by regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs. The final rule does not change those requirements. Similarly, existing regulations define the universe of NPDES regulated entities, and the final rule does not change those definitions.
The major changes resulting from the rule are that authorized NPDES programs will provide electronically to EPA more of the data they already collect for nonmajor (individual and general) permits, and data submitted by regulated entities will be received electronically by EPA and authorized NPDES programs.
Previously, most authorized NPDES programs provided EPA with comprehensive data on major regulated entities, but only basic facility information and compliance information was required for nonmajors. In addition, data from regulated entities was usually received in paper form and authorized NPDES programs were required to process those submissions and enter all of the data into their information systems.
Electronic Reporting and Data Flow
The final rule does not change the reports any regulated entity is required to submit, but it does require certain reports to be submitted electronically. The rule will require regulated entities to electronically submit the following reports:
1. General Permit Reports
Notice of Intent to discharge (NOI)
Notice of Termination (NOT)
No Exposure Certifications (NECs)
Low Erosivity Waivers and Other Waivers from Stormwater Controls (LEWs)

2. Discharge Monitoring Reports

3. Program Reports

CWA §316(b) Annual Report
Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Annual Program Reports
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Report
Pretreatment Program Annual Report
Significant Industrial User Compliance Reports in Municipalities Without Approved Pretreatment Programs
Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports

These reporting requirements vary by permit type and subprogram, as presented in Table 1-1 below. EPA information systems will need to be modified to receive and send these electronic reports. In addition, authorized NPDES programs will need to modify their existing data processing technology and software, or adopt those provided by EPA, to receive these reports. Authorized NPDES programs operating their own NPDES data systems will also need to establish data flows to send all of the required data, regulated entity generated as well as authorized NPDES program generated, to ICIS-NPDES.

Table 1-1: Electronic Reporting Requirements by NPDES Subprogram
NPDES Subprogram
General
Permit Reports
DMR
Program Reports
Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)
       Standard Industrial Dischargers (may also file CWA §316(b) data)
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                      No
                              CWA §316(b) Filers
                                      No
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                    Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)[b]

                               SIUs in Municipalities with Pretreatment Program
                                      No
                                      No
                                      No
                            SIUs in Municipalities without Pretreatment Program
                                      No
                                      No
                                      Yes
                Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                    Industrial and Construction Stormwater

                                                                     Industrial
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                                                   Construction
                                    Yes[a]
                                    Yes[c]
                                      No
                            Municipal Stormwater[d]

                          Phase I municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                                                  Phase II MS4s
                                    Yes[a]
                                      No
                                      Yes
POTWs and TWTDSs (may have a CSS or a SSS, may also file more than one report)
                                    POTWs with Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs)[e]
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                    Yes[f]
                                    POTWs with Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs)[e]
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                    Yes[f]
                                                                         TWTDSs
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                    Yes[f]
                           POTW NPDES Report Filers

                                          Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Report Filers
                                      No
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                             Pretreatment Program Report Filers
                                      No
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                   Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report Filers[g]
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
[a] Only general permit covered facilities
[b] These industrial facilities discharge to POTWs and are regulated by the NPDES program through EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403) and Categorical Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 405  -  471). They do not have NPDES permits, but those in municipalities without pretreatment programs would report electronically under the rule.
[c] The analysis assumes that a small percentage of construction stormwater regulated entities have DMR requirements due to an enforcement action.
[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] All POTWs and TWTDSs file one or more program reports, as shown under the section for POTW NPDES program report filers.
[g] These POTWs and TWTDSs also have the potential for bypass events and the related noncompliance reporting, which will be done electronically under this rule.
Organization of the Report
This report examines the burden, costs, and savings to regulated entities, authorized NPDES programs, and EPA associated with the final rule. The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Section 2: Characterizes the permitted facility universe and the frequency of reporting.
Section 3: Presents the regulated entity, authorized NPDES program and EPA activities that will be affected by the final rule.
Section 4: Estimates the total burden and savings associated with the final rule.
Section 5: Analyzes the impacts of the final rule on small entities.
Section 6: Presents the benefits of the final rule.
Section 7: Presents additional analyses conducted for the final rule.

  -  Estimating the Permit Universe and Required Data Reporting/Submittal
 Introduction
Estimating the burden and cost associated with the final rule requires knowledge of: 1) the universe of permit types affected by the rule; as well as, 2) the required changes in the data flows between regulated entities and their authorized NPDES program and between authorized NPDES programs and EPA. These inputs are used to generate burden and cost estimates in Section 4, as shown in Figure 2-1. Rule requirements vary depending on the NPDES subprogram and type of permit. To estimate burden and cost, it is necessary to know:

The entity responsible for generating the required data or data transfer. Some required data will be reported directly to EPA by permitted facilities. Other required data will be submitted to EPA by the authorized NPDES program (Reporting/submittal responsibilities are discussed in more detail in Section 3).
How frequently the data are reported by the regulated entity or submitted by the authorized NPDES program. Facility reporting and the submittals of the authorized NPDES program are both referred to in terms of an annual reporting frequency. For instance, a report that is submitted every 5 years has an annual reporting frequency of 0.2, whereas a report that is submitted monthly has an annual reporting frequency of 12.

It is important to note that the universe addressed in this economic analysis is somewhat different than the universe discussed in the preamble to the final rule. In this analysis the term "universe" essentially refers to permits, as distinct from facilities or regulated entities. The distinction is significant because it is possible for individual facilities to have multiple permits. In such cases, however, the facility will likely not be required to submit the same information twice (two permits requiring the same report). It is possible for a single regulated entity to make submissions for multiple permits. This is particularly true, for example, in the construction sector, where individual firms typically manage multiple sites with construction stormwater permits.
Figure 2-1: Inputs to Burden and Cost Estimates

Types of NPDES Permits
NPDES permits are issued to major and nonmajor facilities in the form of individual permits or general permits. Permit types are described in detail in Section 1. Permit types are summarized by subprogram in Table 2-1 (see Section 2.1.2 for a description of subprograms). Permit requirements may vary between individual and general permits, and between major and nonmajor facilities. For example, most individual major municipal stormwater regulated entities are required to submit discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) on a monthly basis whereas individual nonmajor municipal stormwater regulated entities generally do not. The cost analysis accounts for the differences between major and nonmajor permits and between individual and general permits as described in the Sections 2.2 through 2.12.
Table 2-1: NPDES Regulated Entities and NPDES Permit Types by Subprogram
NPDES Subprogram
NPDES
Individual Majors
NPDES
Individual Nonmajors
NPDES
General Nonmajors
Other Mechanism
Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)
       Standard Industrial Dischargers (may also file CWA §316(b) data)

                            CWA §316(b) Filers[a]

                    Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)[b]

                               SIUs in Municipalities with Pretreatment Program

                            SIUs in Municipalities without Pretreatment Program

               Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)[c]

                    Industrial and Construction Stormwater

                                                                     Industrial

                                                                   Construction

                            Municipal Stormwater[d]

                          Phase I municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)

                                                                  Phase II MS4s

POTWs and TWTDSs (may have a CSS or a SSS, may also file more than one report)
                                    POTWs with Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs)[e]

                                    POTWs with Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs)[e]

                                                                         TWTDSs

                           POTW NPDES Report Filers

                                       Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Report Filers[f]

                                          Pretreatment Program Report Filers[f]

                                   Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report Filers[g]

[a] CWA §316(b) filers are a subset of standard industrial dischargers; most are classified as majors.
[b] These industrial facilities discharge to POTWs and are regulated by the NPDES program through EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403) and Categorical Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 405  -  471). They do not have NPDES permits, but those in municipalities without pretreatment programs would report electronically under the rule.
[c] Most CAFOs are classified as nonmajors.
[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] Biosolids/sewage sludge and pretreatment program report filers are a subset of POTWs and TWTDSs; most have individual NPDES permits.
g These POTWs and TWTDSs also have the potential for bypass events and the related noncompliance reporting, which will be done electronically under this rule.

NPDES Subprograms
Permit requirements vary according to which subprogram(s) are applicable to a facility's operations. These reporting requirements vary by permit type and subprogram, as presented in Table 2-2 below.

Table 2-2: Electronic Reporting Requirements by NPDES Subprogram
NPDES Subprogram
General
Permit Reports
DMR
Program Reports
Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)
       Standard Industrial Dischargers (may also file CWA §316(b) data)
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                      No
                              CWA §316(b) Filers
                                      No
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                    Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)[b]

                               SIUs in Municipalities with Pretreatment Program
                                      No
                                      No
                                      No
                            SIUs in Municipalities without Pretreatment Program
                                      No
                                      No
                                      Yes
                Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                    Industrial and Construction Stormwater

                                                                     Industrial
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                                                   Construction
                                    Yes[a]
                                    Yes[c]
                                      No
                            Municipal Stormwater[d]

                          Phase I municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                                                  Phase II MS4s
                                    Yes[a]
                                      No
                                      Yes
POTWs and TWTDSs (may have a CSS or a SSS, may also file more than one report)
                                    POTWs with Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs)[e]
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                    Yes[f]
                                    POTWs with Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs)[e]
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                    Yes[f]
                                                                         TWTDSs
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                    Yes[f]
                           POTW NPDES Report Filers

                                          Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Report Filers
                                      No
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                             Pretreatment Program Report Filers
                                      No
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                   Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report Filers[g]
                                    Yes[a]
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
[a] Only general permit covered facilities
[b] These industrial facilities discharge to POTWs and are regulated by the NPDES program through EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403) and Categorical Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 405  -  471). They do not have NPDES permits, but those in municipalities without pretreatment programs would report electronically under the rule.
[c] The analysis assumes that a small percentage of construction stormwater regulated entities have DMR requirements due to an enforcement action.
[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] All POTWs and TWTDSs file one or more program reports, as shown under the section for POTW NPDES program report filers.
g These POTWs and TWTDSs also have the potential for bypass events and the related noncompliance reporting, which will be done electronically under this rule.
Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater Facilities
Standard Industrial Dischargers: This group includes industrial facilities that discharge directly to a surface water and have an NPDES permit. These facilities can be classified as majors or nonmajors and may have coverage under individual or general NPDES permits. Facilities with coverage under a general permit will submit one or more general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs). Most of these facilities also submit DMRs on a regular frequency.
CWA §316(b) Filers: This group is a subset of standard industrial dischargers. Most are classified as majors. These facilities have additional permit data elements related to cooling water intakes and/or thermal variances. Some of these facilities also submit CWA §316(b) Annual Reports.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs): This group is the set of CAFOs that have an NPDES permit. Most of these facilities are classified as nonmajors and most are covered under general NPDES permits. Facilities with coverage under a general permit will submit one or more general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs). A few but not many of these facilities also submit DMRs irregularly (e.g., unanticipated discharges due to large storm events). These facilities will also submit CAFO Annual Program Reports.
Industrial and Construction Stormwater: This group includes industrial facilities that discharge industrial or construction stormwater directly to a surface water and have a NPDES permit. Facilities with coverage under a general permit will submit one or more general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs, NECs, and LEWs). Some industrial stormwater facilities (e.g., those regulated by EPA's Multi-Sector General Permit) submit DMRs on a regular frequency. Most construction stormwater facilities are not required to submit DMRs. The analysis assumes, however, that a small percentage of construction stormwater regulated entities have DMR requirements due to an enforcement action.
Municipal Stormwater: This group includes municipalities that discharge urban stormwater under the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program. Facilities with coverage under a general permit will submit one or more general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs, NECs, and LEWs). Most of the facilities classified as majors submit DMRs on a regular frequency. Municipalities that discharge urban stormwater under the MS4 program also submit an MS4 Program Report. Facilities classified as large and medium MS4s submit these reports on an annual basis and facilities classified as small MS4s submit these reports twice per five year permit term.
Significant Industrial Users (SIUs): These industrial facilities discharge to POTWs and are regulated by the NPDES program through EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403) and Categorical Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 405  -  471). They do not have NPDES permits, but those in municipalities without approved pretreatment programs (i.e., where EPA or the authorized state is the control authority) would report electronically under the rule. This means that these facilities do not have NPDES permits but do have a control mechanism that is issued by the control authority (State or EPA).  These facilities will submit periodic reports on continued compliance on a bi-annual frequency to their control authority {i.e., periodic reports on continued compliance for CIUs [40 CFR 403.12(e)] and periodic reports on continued compliance for non-CIUs [40 CFR 403.12(h)]}.
POTWs and TWTDSs

POTWs and TWTDSs have multiple reporting requirements and are broken out separately in this analysis. Additionally, this analysis separates POTWs by their collection system type: Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs) and Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs). This break out helps to properly identify the burden associated with reporting sewer overflows (which include bypass events). POTWs and TWTDSs that discharge directly to a surface water have NPDES permits. These facilities can be classified as majors or nonmajors and may have coverage under individual or general NPDES permits. Facilities with coverage under a general permit will submit one or more general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs). Most of these facilities also submit DMRs on a regular frequency. POTWs and TWTDSs may submit the following compliance monitoring data to their authorized NPDES program.
Biosolids/Sewage Sludge: EPA's sewage sludge regulations (40 CFR 503) require certain POTWs to submit an annual biosolids/sewage sludge report to the authorized state or EPA region. POTWs that must submit an annual report include POTWs with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one million gallons per day, POTWs that serve 10,000 people or more, and Class I sewage sludge management facilities. In general, Class I sewage sludge management facilities must report annually to the authorized NPDES program biosolids monitoring data, quantity of biosolids managed, ultimate end use or disposal of the biosolids, end use or disposal location(s), and vector and pathogen reduction measures.
Pretreatment: EPA has developed a comprehensive pretreatment program implemented through EPA Regions, state, tribes, territories, and POTWs to control industrial discharges of pollutants that might pass through or interfere with POTW treatment processes or contaminate sewage sludge, thereby posing a threat to human health or the environment. POTWs with approved pretreatment programs are required to submit to their approval authority (State or EPA) an annual report summarizing basic program information and implementation activities.
Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports - Combined Sewer Systems: POTWs that have combined sewer systems (CSS) are designed to have combined sewer overflows (CSOs). CSO discharges from CSO permitted outfalls (dry or wet-weather) that constitute noncompliance are required to be reported under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7). CSO discharges from CSO permitted outfalls (wet-weather) that do not result in noncompliance can be reported on DMRs [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i)] at the frequency identified by the permit, and are subject to public notification requirements, one of the nine minimum measures under the CSO Control Policy. However, one of the nine minimum measures is to prohibit CSO discharges during dry weather. Therefore, EPA regulations require that these and other noncompliance events must be reported under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7). For this analysis, this sector also includes bypass events occurring at CSSs.
Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports - Sanitary Sewer Systems: POTWs and TWTDSs with separate sanitary sewer systems, unlike combined sewer systems, are designed to carry only domestic sewage. Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) are generally unplanned and can occur anywhere in a collection system, although generally they are due to excessive infiltration and inflow during and following wet weather events. SSOs, including those that do not reach waters of the United States, may be indicative of improper operation and maintenance of the sewer system and thus may violate NPDES permit conditions requiring proper operation and maintenance [40 CFR 122.41(e)]. These noncompliance events are required to be reported to the NPDES authorized NPDES program in compliance with EPA's standard permit conditions [40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)]. POTWs must provide an oral report within 24 hours for any overflow event that "may endanger health or the environment" and follow-up the oral report with a "written submission" within 5 days of the permittee's discovery of the overflow event [see 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)]. All other overflows are required to be reported by the permittee with the next regularly scheduled monitoring report [40 CFR 122.41(l)(7)].
 The recipient of these compliance monitoring data depends on the NPDES authorization status of the state, tribe, or territory. For example, a POTW may send its DMRs to the state if it is authorized to implement the NPDES core program for municipal and industrial facilities and its Pretreatment Program Annual Report to an EPA Region if the state is not authorized to administer the pretreatment program.

Required Data
As noted in Section 1, data that regulated entities and authorized NPDES programs are required to submit is defined in existing CWA regulations. To facilitate understanding of the final rule, all of those existing data requirements are consolidated in Appendix A. These data are categorized into the data families listed in Table 2-3, which are defined in Section 1. Table 2-3 also indicates whether it is the regulated entity or authorized NPDES program that initiates the data flow that is ultimately entered into ICIS-NPDES. For example, a regulated entity currently "initiates" a data flow by reporting their DMR information to the authorized NPDES program, which then submits the required data to ICIS-NPDES.
Table 2-3: Required Data Families and Entity Initiating Reporting/Submittal Activity

Regulated Entity Initiates Activity
Authorized NPDES Program Initiates Activity
Permits

Limits

Limit Sets

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)

Program Reports

Compliance Monitoring

Violations

Enforcement Actions

Note that only data elements associated with a related permit type and subprogram will be entered in any particular submission. For example, program report data elements will not be entered for industrial and construction stormwater permits because these facilities are not required to file program reports. Additionally, some data elements are specific to only one subprogram, such as data elements required to be entered for CAFO program reports.
Organization of this Section
Sections 2.2 through 2.11 present details regarding the universe of regulated entities, permit types (e.g., major individual), and annual reporting frequencies for each data family in each subprogram's data flow. For each subprogram, the number of permits by permit type is based on information available in EPA data systems or other relevant sources. The annual reporting frequency estimation methods and information sources for each data family are presented as well. Section 2.12 provides a summary of the permit universe and annual frequencies across all subprograms and permit types.
Standard Industrial Dischargers and CWA §316(b) Filers
Standard industrial direct dischargers include industrial facilities that discharge to surface water. These facilities have been regulated since the inception of the NPDES Program. Some of these facilities also have reporting requirements under CWA §316(b).
Permit Universe
Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits
The number of major and nonmajor facilities operating under individual permits was estimated by querying ICIS-NPDES (the Office of Water's system of record) for active major and nonmajor standard industrial dischargers as of May 2015.
Nonmajor General Permits
EPA and state authorized NPDES programs may issue general permits for standard industrial direct dischargers. The number of facilities covered under general permits is based on the Office of Water's system of record as of May 2015. The number of permits shown in this category also includes entities covered under EPA's Vessels General Permit and Pesticides General Permit. These entities are already reporting electronically and, therefore, have no additional reporting requirements. However, they would bear some implementation costs for registration in electronic reporting systems, as discussed in Section 4.4.1. The number of entities covered under the Vessels General Permit and Pesticides General Permit is based on data provided by the Office of Water in March 2015 (Chan, 2015; Faulk, 2015).
General permits with no reporting requirements (such as residential septic systems) were excluded from the analysis because they are not affected by the rule; this category also excludes general permits covered under other subprogram analyses (e.g., CAFOs) to avoid double counting costs and cost savings.
CWA §316(b) Filers
Under the final rule, EPA will require that certain permit data elements relating to cooling water intakes and thermal variances be reported electronically to ICIS-NPDES for major regulated entities. It also will require electronic reporting of CWA §316(b) Annual Reports. Affected facilities are typically industrial facilities or power plants that use large volumes of cooling water from lakes, rivers, estuaries, or oceans. Because information specific to these facilities will need to be reported, it was necessary to separately characterize the universe of NPDES regulated entities with cooling water intakes or thermal variances, and the subset of those that must file CWA §316(b) Annual Reports. It was assumed that these facilities are a subset of the universe of standard industrial dischargers and that all of them are major dischargers.
The NPDES Amendment of Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities Federal Register Notice (67 FR 78947, December 26, 2002) provides a list of SIC and NAICS codes of entities likely to use cooling water intake structures to withdraw water from waters of the U.S. and that have or require a NPDES permit. To construct the universe of major permits for which cooling water intake data elements will need to be reported, ICIS-NPDES and PCS were queried for active major permits within these SIC and NAICS codes. The number of active major permits obtained from ICIS-NPDES and PCS was used as the count of regulated entities, as of 2011, for which cooling water intake data elements must be reported.
The number of regulated entities for which thermal variance data elements must be reported was estimated by assuming that approximately 47% of cooling water intake facilities have thermal variances, based on information provided by EPA's Office of Water, using national estimates from EPA's 316(b) proposed rule. The distribution of thermal variances was estimated at the state level using the distribution of cooling water intake facilities.
The Fish and Wildlife  and National Marine Fisheries Services' joint Biological Opinion on EPA's 316(b) final rule estimated that 153 facilities overlap with designated critical habitat. While not all of these facilities will have to submit CWA §316(b) Annual Reports, there will be other facilities in the range of threatened and endangered species habitats that will have to submit CWA §316(b) Annual Reports. To account for the additional facilities, the analysis rounds up the number of facilities submitting CWA §316(b) Annual Reports to 200. The distribution of facilities submitting CWA §316(b) Annual Reports was estimated at the state level using the distribution of cooling water intake facilities.
Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family
Except where stated otherwise, the annual reporting frequencies described in this section apply to individual major, individual nonmajor and general nonmajor standard industrial dischargers.
Permits
Permit data must be entered into ICIS-NPDES for standard industrial dischargers. Permit data are entered with the permit cycle, once every five years, which translates to an annual reporting frequency of 0.2. The same annual reporting frequency is used for cooling water intake and thermal variance permit data elements.
In addition, the analysis accounts for additional data entry associated with minor changes at the permitted facility (e.g., change in owner or operator name). It assumes that a small number of permit data elements (e.g., contact name and/or phone number or contact information) will need to be updated with an annual reporting frequency of 0.1, reflecting that such changes might occur for 10% of permitted facilities each year.
Limits and Limit Sets for Major and Nonmajor Individual Permits
All individual standard industrial dischargers must have limits and limit sets data entered into ICIS-NPDES. Limits and limit sets change according to the permit cycle, and therefore have an annual reporting frequency of 0.2.
Limits and Limit Sets for Nonmajor General Permits
Limits and limit sets for nonmajor general standard industrial dischargers are set in the master permit, such that these data elements need not be entered for each regulated entity. Therefore, limits and limit sets have an annual reporting frequency of 0 for nonmajor general facilities.
DMRs
Most permits with DMR requirements must submit DMRs on a monthly basis. Therefore, DMRs have an annual reporting frequency of 12. The analysis assumes that all individual permits (both major and nonmajor) and 90% of general permits for standard industrial dischargers must submit DMRs.
Program Reports
The subset of facilities that submit CWA §316(b) Annual Reports do so annually.  Therefore, the annual reporting frequency for program reports data is 1.
Compliance Monitoring
The annual frequency of compliance monitoring reports was estimated using data from EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) State Water Dashboard. According to the ECHO data, on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 through 2014) approximately 56% of major individual permit facilities, 26% of nonmajor individual permit facilities, and 7% of nonmajor general permit facilities underwent inspections each year. Data were not available on inspection frequency by subprogram. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the annual reporting frequency for compliance monitoring for standard industrial dischargers (0.56 for major individual permits, 0.26 for nonmajor individual permits, and 0.07 for nonmajor general permits).
Violations
According to EPA's ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 through 2014) approximately 67% of major individual permit facilities and 53% of nonmajor individual permit facilities had at least one instance of non-compliance each year. Data were not available on violation frequency by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the annual reporting frequency for violations for standard industrial dischargers and assumes that nonmajor general permit facilities have the same violation frequency as nonmajor individual permit facilities (0.67 for major individual permits and 0.53 for nonmajor individual and general permits).
In general, EPA has expected authorized NPDES programs to share Single Event Violation (SEV) data on facilities defined as majors. Because the final rule also provides for entry of SEV data on nonmajor facilities, the analysis includes reporting of SEV data elements for nonmajor facilities with an annual frequency of 0.09. This annual frequency is based on data from EPA's ECHO State Water Dashboard, which show that on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 through 2014) approximately 9% of major individual permit facilities had SEVs.
Enforcement Actions
According to EPA's ECHO State Water Dashboard, on average over the last three fiscal years (2012 through 2014) approximately 30% of major individual permit facilities and 19% of nonmajor individual permit facilities had concluded enforcement actions each year. Data were not available on concluded enforcement actions by subprogram or for nonmajor general permit facilities. Therefore, the analysis uses these averages across subprograms as estimates of the annual reporting frequency for concluded enforcement actions for standard industrial dischargers and assumes that nonmajor general permit facilities have the same concluded enforcement action frequency as nonmajor individual permit facilities (0.30 for major individual permits and 0.19 for nonmajor individual and general permits).
Summary
Table 2-4 summarizes the number of standard industrial dischargers, the subset of CWA §316(b) filers, and the annual frequencies for each required data family.

Table 2-4: Standard Industrial Discharger and CWA §316(b) Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency

                               Individual Majors
                             Individual Nonmajors
                               General Nonmajors
                        Standard Industrial Dischargers
                                                                          1,683
                                                                         18,993
                                                                     118,073[a]
                              CWA §316(b) Filers

                                         Permits with Cooling Water Intake Data
                                                                          1,171
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                             Permits with Thermal Variance Data
                                                                            554
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                              Facilities Submitting CWA §316(b) Annual Reports
                                                                            200
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                  Data Family
                          Annual Reporting Frequency
                          Annual Reporting Frequency
                          Annual Reporting Frequency
Permits[b]
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.2
Limits
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.0
Limit Sets
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.0
DMRs
                                                                           12.0
                                                                           12.0
                                                                           12.0
Program Reports
                                                                           1[c]
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
Compliance Monitoring
                                                                           0.56
                                                                           0.26
                                                                           0.07
Violations[d]
                                                                           0.67
                                                                           0.53
                                                                           0.53
Enforcement Actions
                                                                           0.30
                                                                           0.19
                                                                           0.19
[a] Includes 9,125 pesticide applicators and 63,000 vessels that are already filing electronically.
[b] In addition to the permit frequencies shown the analysis includes data entry associated with minor changes at the permitted facility with an annual reporting frequency of 0.1.
[c] Applies only to the subset of facilities submitting CWA §316(b) Annual Reports.
[d] In addition to the violation frequencies shown, the analysis includes expanded reporting of SEV data elements for nonmajor facilities with an annual frequency of 0.09.
Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)
As discussed in Section 2.11, most POTWs receive wastewater from industrial users. These industrial facilities are regulated by the NPDES program through EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403) and Categorical Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 405  -  471). They do not have NPDES permits, but those in municipalities without pretreatment programs would report electronically under the rule.
Permit Universe
Both the total number of SIUs in municipalities with approved pretreatment programs and the number of SIUs in each state in municipalities without approved pretreatment programs was estimated by EPA based on available data from permitting authorities. Only the latter group (i.e., SIUs where EPA or the authorized State is the control authority) would report electronically under the rule. This includes all SIUs in Connecticut, Vermont, Alabama, Mississippi, and Nebraska, because these states exclusively oversee SIU compliance and oversight activities instead of requiring their POTWs to develop their own legal authority and procedures, as described in 40 CFR 403.10(e).
Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family
Under the rule, the only reporting requirement applicable to SIUs is the submission of compliance reports to the applicable authorized NPDES programs. This report is bi-annual; therefore the annual reporting frequency for program reports is 2.
Summary
Table 2-5 summarizes the number of SIU regulated entities and the annual frequencies for each required data family.

Table 2-5: Significant Industrial User (SIU) Permit Universe and Annual Reporting Frequency

                               Individual Majors
                            Individual Nonmajors[a]
                               General Nonmajors
                               SIUs in Municipalities with Pretreatment Program
                                                                              0
                                                                         29,060
                                                                              0
                            SIUs in Municipalities without Pretreatment Program
                                                                              0
                                                                          2,487
                                                                              0
                                  Data Family
                          Annual Reporting Frequency
                          Annual Reporting Frequency
                          Annual Reporting Frequency
Permits
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
Limits
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
Limit Sets
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
DMRs
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
Program Reports
                                                                            n/a
                                                                           2[b]
                                                                            n/a
Compliance Monitoring
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
Violations
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
Enforcement Actions
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
                                                                            n/a
a These industrial facilities discharge to POTWs and are regulated by the NPDES program through EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403) and Categorical Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 405  -  471). They do not have NPDES permits, but those in municipalities without pretreatment programs would report electronically under the rule.
b The rule requires electronic submission of the bi-annual compliance report only for SIUs in municipalities without pretreatment programs.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is an agricultural operation where a large number of animals are kept and raised in confined situations, and is defined based on the number of animals at the facility. Animal waste and wastewater from CAFOs can enter water bodies from spills or breaks of waste storage structures. CAFOs are classified as point sources and are regulated under NPDES.
Permit Universe
Major Individual Permits
By definition, there are no major CAFO permits.
Nonmajor Individual and General Permits
Estimates of the number of CAFOs were provided by the Office of Water (OW) based on EPA's NPDES CAFO status report. According to these data, there are approximately 6,600 CAFOs with NPDES permits. Estimates of the number of CAFOs per state were provided by OW; however the distribution between nonmajor individuals and nonmajor generals was unknown. A query of ICIS revealed 386 individual permit covered CAFO facilities and 1,613 general permit covered CAFO facilities (Hudock, 2010). This ratio (386/1,613) was used to apportion OW's state-level estimates between individual and general permits.
Annual Reporting Frequency by Data Family
Except where stated otherwise, the annual reporting frequencies described in this section apply to both individual and general permit covered CAFO facilities.
Permits