Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit for Point Source Discharges From the Application of Pesticides, 31775-31785 [2010-13468]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Reporting: At the end of your
project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial
information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multi-year
award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the
most current performance and financial
expenditure information as directed by
the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. In
general, grantees must comply with
applicable reporting requirements in 34
CFR parts 75 and 80. In addition,
grantees will be required to provide
periodic performance and financial
reports, as specified in individual grant
award conditions and 34 CFR 222.195.
The Secretary may also require more
frequent performance reports under 34
CFR 75.720(c). For specific
requirements on reporting, please go to
https://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/
appforms/appforms.html.
4. Performance Measures: The
Department has established the
following performance measure for this
program: an increasing percentage of
LEAs receiving Impact Aid Construction
funds will report that the overall
condition of their school buildings is
adequate. Data for this measure will be
reported to the Department on Table 10
of the application for Impact Aid
Section 8003 Basic Support Payments.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
VII. Agency Contact
For Further Information Contact:
Kristen Walls-Rivas, Impact Aid
Program, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room
3C155, Washington, DC 20202–6244.
Telephone: (202) 260–3858 or by e-mail:
Impact.Aid@ed.gov.
If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll
free, at 1–800–877–8339.
VIII. Other Information
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document
and a copy of the application package in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or computer diskette)
on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of
this notice.
Electronic Access to This Document:
You can view this document, as well as
all other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF) on the Internet at the
following site: https://www.ed.gov/news/
fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–
888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
DC, area at (202) 512–1530.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: June 1, 2010.
´
Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2010–13491 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–9159–2]
Draft National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide
General Permit for Point Source
Discharges From the Application of
Pesticides
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of draft permit and
notice of public meetings.
SUMMARY: All ten EPA Regions today are
proposing a draft NPDES general permit
for point source discharges from the
application of certain pesticides to
waters of the United States. Once
finalized, this permit will be available to
operators in those areas where EPA is
the NPDES permitting authority. This
action is in response to the Sixth Circuit
Court’s ruling that vacated an EPA
regulation that excluded discharges
from the application of pesticides to or
over, including near waters of the
United States from the need to obtain an
NPDES permit if the application was
done in accordance with other laws.
EPA requested and was granted a twoyear stay of the Court’s mandate to
provide time to draft and implement the
permit noticed today. The stay of the
mandate expires on April 9, 2011;
where after, NPDES permits will be
required for all point source discharges
to waters of the United States of
biological pesticides, and chemical
pesticides that leave a residue.
This Federal Register notice briefly
summarizes the requirements in this
draft general permit for pesticides
applications to waters of the U.S. EPA
is soliciting public comment on all
aspects of the draft NPDES permit. This
Federal Register notices also includes a
list of specific issues about which the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31775
Agency is particularly asking for
comment. Supporting documentation to
the permit is contained in an
accompanying fact sheet. The public is
encouraged to read this fact sheet to
better understand the permit
requirements. The fact sheet and permit
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/
npdes/pesticides.
DATES: Comments on the draft general
permit must be received on or before
July 19, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OW–2010–0257, by one of the following
methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov.
3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–
2010–0257.
4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
EPA West Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20004, Attention: Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0257. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010–
0257. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
31776
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov
or in hard copy at a docket facility. The
Office of Water (OW) Docket Center is
open from 8:30 until 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The OW Docket Center
telephone number is (202) 566–2426,
and the Docket address is OW Docket,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744.
Public meetings and public hearing:
EPA will hold three (3) public meetings
in: Albuquerque, New Mexico on June
14, 2010; Boise, Idaho on June 16, 2010;
Boston, Massachusetts on June 21, 2010;
and a public hearing in Washington, DC
on June 23, 2010. The focus of each
meeting/hearing is to present the draft
general permit and the basis for the draft
permit requirements, and to answer
questions concerning the draft permit.
At these meetings, any person may
provide written or oral statements and
data pertaining to the draft permit. The
date, time and location of the public
meetings and public hearing are as
follows:
• Albuquerque, New Mexico:
Monday, June 14, 2010, at the CNM
Workforce Training Center, Room 101,
5600 Eagle Rock Avenue, NE,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, from 12
p.m.–3 p.m.
• Boise, Idaho: Wednesday, June 16,
2010, at the Bureau of Reclamation,
Rooms 206 & 219, 1150 North Curtis
Road, Boise, Idaho from 9 a.m. to 12
p.m.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
• Boston, Massachusetts: Monday,
June 21, 2010, at EPA Region 1, 5 Post
Office Square—Suite 100, Conference
Room 1529, Boston, MA 02109–3912,
from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
• Washington, DC: Wednesday, June
23, 2010, at the EPA East Building,
Room 1153, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20004, from 10
a.m. to 1 p.m.
If you would like to present a statement
at the public hearing in Washington,
DC, please contact Virginia Garelick at
202–564–2316 to register your intent to
provide a public statement. Speakers
will be given up to three minutes (or as
time allows) to provide their comments
on a first come first served basis. Any
additional comments will need to be
provided in writing. EPA will consider
all comments received and will include
copies of such in the Administrative
Record.
EPA encourages interested and
potentially affected stakeholders to
attend one of the scheduled public
meetings and provide oral or written
comments. Please note that the public
meetings may close early if all business
is finished. Oral or written comments
received at the public meetings will be
entered into the Docket for this permit.
If you are unable to attend, you may
submit comments to the EPA Water
Docket at the address identified in the
ADDRESSES section listed above.
More information on these meetings
will be available on the Internet at
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides,
including any additional dates and
locations if scheduled. Due to limited
seating, those wishing to attend EPA’s
public meetings are asked to please send
an e-mail message containing their
name, telephone number and
organization to Virginia Garelick at
garelick.virginia@epa.gov. An e-mail
message is not required, however.
Anyone wishing to may attend provided
space is available. If you need a sign
language interpreter at any of these
meetings, you should notify Ms.
Garelick of such at least ten business
days prior to the meetings so that
appropriate arrangements can be made.
For further information, including
registration information, please refer to
the following Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides.
Webcast: EPA has scheduled a
Webcast to provide information on this
draft permit and to answer questions for
interested parties that are unable to
attend the public meetings or hearing.
The webcast will be broadcast on June
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time (EST). For information
on how to register and attend the
webcast, see EPA’s Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/npdes/training.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information on this draft NPDES
general permit, contact the appropriate
EPA Regional Office listed in Section
I.F, or contact Jack Faulk, EPA
Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of
Wastewater Management at tel.: 202–
564–0768 or e-mail: faulk.jack@epa.gov.
This
supplementary information section is
organized as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. How can I get copies of this document
and other related information?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
D. Finalizing This Permit
E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for
this draft permit?
II. Statutory and Regulatory History
A. Clean Water Act
B. NPDES Permits
C. History of Pesticide Application
Regulations
D. Court Decisions Leading to the CWA
Regulation Concerning Pesticide
Applications
E. 2006 Agency Rulemaking Excluding
Discharges From Pesticide Applications
From NPDES Permitting
F. Legal Challenges to the 2006 NPDES
Pesticides Rule and Resulting Court
Decision
III. Scope and Applicability of This NPDES
Pesticides General Permit
A. Geographic Coverage
B. Categories of Facilities Covered
C. Summary of Permit Terms and
Requirements
D. Key Permit Provisions for Which EPA is
Soliciting Comment
E. Permit Appeal Procedures
IV. Economic Impacts of the Pesticides
General Permit
V. Executive Order 12866
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be affected by this action if
your application of pesticides, under the
use patterns in Section III.B., results in
a discharge to waters of the United
States in one of the geographic areas
identified in Section III.A. Potentially
affected entities, as categorized in the
North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS), may include, but are
not limited to:
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
31777
TABLE 1—ENTITIES POTENTIALLY REGULATED BY THIS PERMIT
Category
NAICS
Examples of potentially affected entities
Agriculture parties—General agricultural interests, farmers/producers, forestry, and irrigation.
111 Crop Production ........................................
Producers of crops mainly for food and fiber
including farms, orchards, groves, greenhouses, and nurseries that have irrigation
ditches requiring pest control.
The operation of timber tracts for the purpose
of selling standing timber.
Growing trees for reforestation and/or gathering forest products, such as gums, barks,
balsam needles, rhizomes, fibers, Spanish
moss, ginseng, and truffles.
Operating irrigation systems.
Government establishments primarily engaged in the planning, administration, and
coordination of public health programs and
services, including environmental health activities.
Government establishments primarily engaged in the administration, regulation, and
enforcement of air and water resource programs; the administration and regulation of
water and air pollution control and prevention programs; the administration and regulation of flood control programs; the administration and regulation of drainage development and water resource consumption programs; and coordination of these activities
at intergovernmental levels.
Government establishments primarily engaged in the planning, administration, and
coordination of public health programs and
services, including environmental health activities.
Government establishments primarily engaged in the administration, regulation, supervision and control of land use, including
recreational areas; conservation and preservation of natural resources; erosion control; geological survey program administration; weather forecasting program administration; and the administration and protection of publicly and privately owned forest
lands. Government establishments responsible for planning, management, regulation
and conservation of game, fish, and wildlife
populations, including wildlife management
areas and field stations; and other administrative matters relating to the protection of
fish, game, and wildlife are included in this
industry.
Provide electric power, natural gas, steam
supply, water supply, and sewage removal
through a permanent infrastructure of lines,
mains, and pipes.
113110 Timber Tract Operations .....................
113210 Forest Nurseries Gathering of Forest
Products.
Public health parties (includes mosquito or
other vector control districts and commercial
applicators that service these).
221310 Water Supply for Irrigation ..................
923120 Administration of Public Health Programs.
Resource management parties (includes State
departments of fish and wildlife, State departments of pesticide regulation, State environmental agencies, and universities).
924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs.
Public health parties (includes mosquito or
other vector control districts and commercial
applicators that service these).
923120 Administration of Public Health Programs.
924120 Administration of Conservation Programs.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Utility parties (includes utilities) ..........................
221 Utilities ......................................................
B. How can I get copies of this document i.e., CBI or other information whose
and other related information?
disclosure is restricted by statute. EPA
policy is that copyrighted material will
1. Docket. EPA has established an
not be placed in EPA’s electronic public
official public docket for this action
docket but will be available only in
under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–
2010–0257. The official public docket is printed, paper form in the official public
docket. Publicly available docket
the collection of materials that is
available for public viewing at the Water materials are available in hard copy at
Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/ the EPA Docket Center Public Reading
Room, open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
DC. Although all documents in the
holidays. The telephone number for the
docket are listed in an index, some
Public Reading Room is 202–566–1744,
information is not publicly available,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is 202–566–2426.
2. Electronic Access. You may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the United States
government on-line source for Federal
regulations at https://
www.regulations.gov.
Electronic versions of this draft
permit and fact sheet are available on
EPA’s NPDES Web site at www.epa.gov/
npdes/pesticides.
An electronic version of the public
docket is available through EPA’s
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
31778
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
electronic public docket and comment
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA
Dockets at https://www.regulations.gov to
view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are
available electronically. For additional
information about EPA’s public docket,
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage
at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/
dockets.htm. Although not all docket
materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any
of the publicly available docket
materials through the Docket Facility
identified in Section I.A.1.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
C. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit this information to EPA
through regulations.gov or e-mail.
Clearly mark all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information on computer discs mailed
to EPA, mark the surface of the disc as
CBI. Also identify electronically the
specific information contained in the
disc that you claim is CBI. In addition
to one complete version of the specific
information claimed as CBI, you must
submit a copy that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI for
inclusion in the public document.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
For public commenters, it is
important to note that EPA’s policy is
that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public
viewing in EPA’s electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and
without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or
other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. When EPA
identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide
a reference to that material in the
version of the comment that is placed in
EPA’s electronic public docket. The
entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available
in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on
computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be
transferred to EPA’s electronic public
docket. Public comments in paper form
that are mailed or delivered to the
Docket will be scanned and placed in
EPA’s electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be
photographed, and the photograph will
be placed in EPA’s electronic public
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
docket along with a brief description
written by the docket staff.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments,
remember to:
• Identify this permit by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date, and page number).
• Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
section or part of this permit.
• Explain why you agree or disagree,
suggest alternatives, and suggest
substitute language for your requested
changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
D. Finalizing This Permit
After the close of the public comment
period on this draft, EPA will issue a
final permit. That final permit will be
issued after all public comments
received during the public comment
period have been considered and
appropriate changes made to this
permit. EPA’s response to comments
received will be included in the docket
as part of the final permit decision.
E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for
this draft permit?
For EPA Region 1, contact George
Papadopoulos at USEPA Region 1, 5
Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston,
MA 02109–3912; or at tel.: (617) 918–
1579; or e-mail at
papadopoulos.george@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 2, contact Maureen
Krudner at USEPA Region 2, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007–1866;
or tel.: (212) 637–3874; or e-mail at
krudner.maureen@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 3, contact Peter
Weber at USEPA Region 3, 1650 Arch
Street, Mail Code: 3WP41, Philadelphia,
PA 19103–2029; or at tel.: (215) 814–
5749; or e-mail at weber.peter@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 4, contact Sam
Sampath at USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, CA 30303–8960; or
at tel.: (404) 562–9229; or e-mail at
sampath.sam@epa.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For EPA Region 5, contact Morris
Beaton at USEPA Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code: WN16J,
Chicago, IL 60604–3507; or at tel.: (312)
353–0850; or e-mail at
beaton.morris@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 6, contact Phillip
Jennings at USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Mail Code: 6WO,
Dallas, TX 75202–2733; or at tel.: (214)
665–7538 or e-mail at
jennings.phillip@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 7, contact Kimberly
Hill at USEPA Region 7, 901 North Fifth
Street, Mail Code: XX, Kansas City, KS
66101; or at tel.: (913) 551–7841 or email at: hill.kimberly@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 8, contact David Rise
at USEPA Region 8, Montana
Operations Office, Federal Building, 10
West 15th Street, Suite 3200, Mail Code:
8MO, Helena, MT 59626; or at tel.: 406–
457–5012 or e-mail at:
rise.david@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 9, contact Pascal
Mues, USEPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, Mail Code: WTR–5, San
Francisco, CA 94105; or at tel.: (415)
972–3768 or e-mail at:
mues.pascal@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 10, contact Dirk
Helder, USEPA Region 10 Idaho
Operations Office, 1435 North Orchard
Street, Boise, ID 83706 or at tel.: 208–
378–5749 or e-mail at:
helder.dirk@epa.gov.
II. Statutory and Regulatory History
A. Clean Water Act
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) provides that ‘‘the discharge of
any pollutant by any person shall be
unlawful’’ unless the discharge is in
compliance with certain other sections
of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). The CWA
defines ‘‘discharge of a pollutant’’ as ‘‘(A)
any addition of any pollutant to
navigable waters from any point source,
(B) any addition of any pollutant to the
waters of the contiguous zone or the
ocean from any point source other than
a vessel or other floating craft.’’ 33
U.S.C. 1362(12). A ‘‘point source’’ is any
‘‘discernible, confined and discrete
conveyance’’ but does not include
‘‘agricultural stormwater discharges and
return flows from irrigated agriculture.’’
33 U.S.C. 1362(14).
The term ‘‘pollutant’’ includes, among
other things, ‘‘garbage * * * chemical
wastes, biological materials * * * and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural
waste discharged into water.’’ 33 U.S.C.
1362(6).
A person may discharge a pollutant
without violating the section 301
prohibition by obtaining authorization
to discharge (referred to herein as
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
‘‘coverage’’) under a section 402 National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). Under
section 402(a), EPA may ‘‘issue a permit
for the discharge of any pollutant, or
combination of pollutants,
notwithstanding section 1311(a)’’ upon
certain conditions required by the Act.
B. NPDES Permits
An NPDES permit authorizes the
discharge of a specified amount of a
pollutant or pollutants into a receiving
water under certain conditions. The
NPDES program relies on two types of
permits: individual and general. An
individual permit is a permit
specifically tailored for an individual
discharger. Upon receiving the
appropriate permit application(s), the
permitting authority, i.e., EPA or a state
or territory, develops a draft permit for
public comment for that particular
discharger based on the information
contained in the permit application
(e.g., type of activity, nature of
discharge, receiving water quality).
Following consideration of public
comments, a final permit is then issued
to the discharger for a specific time
period (not to exceed 5 years) with a
provision for reapplying for further
permit coverage prior to the expiration
date.
A general permit covers multiple
facilities/sites/activities within a
specific category for a specific period of
time (not to exceed 5 years). For general
permits, EPA or a state or territory
develops and issues the permit with
dischargers then obtaining coverage
under the permit, typically through
submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI).
A general permit is also subject to
public comment, as is being done under
this Federal Register notice, and is
developed and issued by a permitting
authority (in this case, EPA).
Under 40 CFR 122.28, general permits
may be written to cover categories of
point sources having common elements,
such as facilities that involve the same
or substantially similar types of
operations, that discharge the same
types of wastes, or that are more
appropriately regulated by a general
permit. Given the vast number of
pesticide applicators requiring NPDES
permit coverage and the discharges
common to these applicators, EPA
believes that it makes administrative
sense to issue this general permit, rather
than issuing individual permits to each
applicator. Entities still have the ability
to seek individual permit coverage.
Courts have approved of the use of
general permits. See e.g., Natural Res.
Def. Council v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369
(DC Cir. 1977); EDC v. U.S. EPA, 344
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
F.3d 832, 853 (Ninth Cir. 2003). The
general permit approach allows EPA to
allocate resources in a more efficient
manner and to provide more timely
coverage. As with any permit, the CWA
requires the general permit to contain
technology-based effluent limitations, as
well as any more stringent limits when
necessary to meet applicable state water
quality standards.
C. History of Pesticide Application
Regulation Under FIFRA
EPA regulates the sale, distribution
and use of pesticides in the United
States under the statutory framework of
FIFRA to ensure that, when used in
conformance with FIFRA labeling
directions, pesticides will not pose
unreasonable risks to human health and
the environment. All new pesticides
must undergo a rigorous registration
procedure under FIFRA during which
EPA assesses a variety of potential
human health and environmental effects
associated with use of the product.
Under FIFRA, EPA is required to
consider the effects of pesticides on the
environment by determining, among
other things, whether a pesticide ‘‘will
perform its intended function without
unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment,’’ and whether ‘‘when used
in accordance with widespread and
commonly recognized practice [the
pesticide] will not generally cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment.’’ 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5). In
performing this analysis, EPA examines,
among other things, the ingredients of a
pesticide, the intended type of
application site and directions for use,
and supporting scientific studies for
human health and environmental effects
and exposures. The applicant for
registration of the pesticide must submit
data as required by EPA regulations.
When EPA approves a pesticide for a
particular use, the Agency imposes
labeling restrictions governing such use.
Compliance with the labeling
requirements ensures that the pesticide
serves an intended purpose and avoids
unreasonable adverse effects. It is illegal
under Section 12(a)(2)(G) of FIFRA to
use a registered pesticide in a manner
inconsistent with its labeling. States
have primary authority under FIFRA to
enforce ‘‘use’’ violations, but both the
States and EPA have ample authority to
prosecute pesticide misuse when it
occurs.
D. Court Decisions Leading to the CWA
Regulation Concerning Pesticide
Applications
Over the past ten years, several courts
addressed the question of whether the
CWA requires NPDES permits for
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31779
pesticide applications. These cases
resulted in some confusion among the
regulated community and other affected
citizens about the applicability of the
CWA to pesticides applied to waters of
the United States. In 2001, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
held in Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent
Irrigation District (Talent) that an
applicator of herbicides was required to
obtain an NPDES permit under the
circumstances before the court. 243
F.3rd 526 (Ninth Cir. 2001).
In 2002, the Ninth Circuit in League
of Wilderness Defenders et al. v.
Forsgren (Forsgren) held that the
application of pesticides to control
Douglas Fir Tussock Moths in National
Forest lands required an NPDES permit.
309 F.3d 1181 (Ninth Cir. 2002). The
court in Forsgren did not analyze the
question of whether the pesticides
applied were pollutants, because it
incorrectly assumed that the parties
agreed that they were (in fact, the
United States expressly reserved its
arguments on that issue in its brief to
the District Court. Id. at 1184, n.2). The
court instead analyzed the question of
whether the aerial application of the
pesticide constituted a point source
discharge, and concluded that it did. Id.
at 1185.
Since Talent and Forsgren, California,
Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, all of
which are within the Ninth Circuit,
have issued permits for the application
of certain types of pesticides (e.g.,
products to control aquatic weeds and
algae and products to control mosquito
larvae). Other States have continued
their longstanding practice of not
issuing permits to people who apply
pesticides to waters of the United States.
These varying practices reflected the
substantial uncertainty among
regulators, the regulated community,
and the public regarding how the CWA
applies to pesticides that have been
properly applied and used for their
intended purpose.
Additionally, the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals addressed the
applicability of the CWA’s NPDES
permit requirements to pesticide
applications. In Altman v. Town of
Amherst (Altman), the court vacated
and remanded for further development
of the record a District Court decision
holding that the Town of Amherst was
not required to obtain an NPDES permit
to spray mosquitocides over waters of
the United States. 47 Fed. Appx. 62, 67
(Second Cir. 2002). The United States
filed an amicus brief setting forth the
Agency’s views in the context of that
particular case. In its opinion, the
Second Circuit stated that ‘‘[u]ntil the
EPA articulates a clear interpretation of
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
31780
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
current law—among other things,
whether properly used pesticides
released into or over waters of the
United States can trigger the
requirement for NPDES permits * * *
—the question of whether properly used
pesticides can become pollutants that
violate the CWA will remain open.’’ Id.
at 67.
In 2005, the Ninth Circuit again
addressed the CWA’s applicability to
pesticide applications. In Fairhurst v.
Hagener, the court held that pesticides
applied directly to a lake to eliminate
non-native fish species, where there are
no residues or unintended effects, are
not ‘‘pollutants’’ under the CWA because
they are not chemical wastes. 422 F.3d
1146 (Ninth Cir. 2005).
Recently, the Second Circuit
reaffirmed the recent Sixth Circuit
decision in ruling that trucks and
helicopters that sprayed pesticides
should be considered point sources
under the CWA. Peconic Baykeeper Inc.
v. Suffolk County, 2nd Cir., No. 09–97–
cv, 3/30/10.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
E. 2006 Agency Rulemaking Excluding
Discharges From Pesticides From
NPDES Permitting
On November 27, 2006 (71 FR 68483),
EPA issued a final rule (hereinafter
called the ‘‘2006 NPDES Pesticides
Rule’’) clarifying two specific
circumstances in which an NPDES
permit is not required to apply
pesticides to or over, including near
water provided that the application is
consistent with relevant Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) requirements. They are: (1)
The application of pesticides directly to
water to control pests; and (2) the
application of pesticides to control pests
that are present over, including near,
water where a portion of the pesticides
will unavoidably be deposited to the
water to target the pests.
F. Legal Challenges to the 2006 NPDES
Pesticides Rule and Resulting Court
Decision
On January 19, 2007, EPA received
petitions for review of the 2006 NPDES
Pesticides Rule from both
environmental and industry groups.
Petitions were filed in eleven circuit
courts with the case, National Cotton
Council, et al, v. EPA, assigned to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Sixth
Circuit). On January 9, 2009, the Sixth
Circuit vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES
Pesticides Rule under a plain language
reading of the CWA. National Cotton
Council of America v. EPA, 553 F.3d
927 (Sixth Cir. 2009). The Court held
that the CWA unambiguously includes
‘‘biological pesticides,’’ and ‘‘chemical
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
pesticides’’ that leave a residue within
its definition of ‘‘pollutant.’’
Specifically, the application of chemical
pesticides that leaves no residue is not
a pollutant. The Court also found that
the application of pesticides is from a
point source.
Based on the Court’s decision,
chemical pesticides that leave no
residue do not require an NPDES
permit. However, EPA assumes for
purpose of this permit that all chemical
pesticides have a residue, and, therefore
would need a permit unless it can be
shown that there is no residual. Unlike
chemical pesticides (where the residual
is the pollutant), the Court further found
that biological pesticides are pollutants
regardless of whether the application
results in residuals and such discharges
need an NPDES permit.
In response to this decision, on April
9, 2009, EPA requested a two-year stay
of the mandate to provide the Agency
time to develop general permits, to
assist NPDES-authorized states to
develop their NPDES permits, and to
provide outreach and education to the
regulated community and other
stakeholders. On June 8, 2009, the Sixth
Circuit granted EPA the two-year stay of
the mandate until April 9, 2011. On
November 2, 2009, Industry Petitioners
of the Sixth Circuit Case petitioned the
Supreme Court to review the Sixth
Circuit’s decision. On February 22,
2010, the Supreme Court issued its
decision denying petitions to review the
Sixth Circuit decision.
As a result of the Court’s decision on
the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule, at the
end of the two-year stay, NPDES permits
will be required for point source
discharges to waters of the U.S. of
biological pesticides, and of chemical
pesticides that leave a residue. Until
April 9, 2011, the rule remains in effect
and NPDES permits are not required.
In response to the Court’s decision,
EPA is proposing this draft general
permit for four specific pesticide use
patterns. The specified use patterns may
not represent every pesticide
application activity for which a
discharge requires NPDES permit
coverage. The four use patterns
included in this draft permit are
generally consistent with what was
addressed in the 2006 NPDES Pesticides
Rule.
Neither the Court’s ruling nor EPA’s
issuance of this general permit affects
the existing CWA exemptions for
irrigation return flow and agricultural
stormwater runoff, which are excluded
from the definition of a point source
under Section 502(14) of the CWA and
do not require NPDES permit coverage.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
III. Scope and Applicability of This
NPDES Pesticides General Permit
A. Geographic Coverage
EPA will provide permit coverage for
classes of discharges where EPA is the
NPDES permitting authority. The
geographic coverage of today’s draft
permit is listed below. Where this
permit covers activities on Indian
Country lands, those areas are as listed
below within the borders of that state:
EPA Region 1
• The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, including Indian
Country lands
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Connecticut
• The State of New Hampshire
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Rhode Island
• Federal Facilities in the State of
Vermont
EPA Region 2
• Indian Country lands within the
State of New York
• The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
EPA Region 3
• The District of Columbia
• Federal Facilities in the State of
Delaware
EPA Region 4
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Alabama
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Florida
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Mississippi
• Indian Country lands within the
State of North Carolina
EPA Region 5
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Michigan
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Minnesota
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Wisconsin
EPA Region 6
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Louisiana
• The State of New Mexico, including
Indian Country lands within the State of
New Mexico, except Navajo Reservation
Lands (see Region 9) and Ute Mountain
Reservation Lands (see Region 8)
• The State of Oklahoma, including
Indian Country lands
• Discharges in the State of Texas that
are not under the authority of the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
(formerly TNRCC), including activities
associated with the exploration,
development, or production of oil or gas
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
or geothermal resources, including
transportation of crude oil or natural gas
by pipeline
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Texas
EPA Region 7
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Iowa
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Kansas
• Indian Country lands the State of
Nebraska, except Pine Ridge Reservation
lands (see Region 8)
EPA Region 8
• Federal Facilities in the State of
Colorado, except those located on
Indian Country lands
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Colorado, as well as the portion
of the Ute Mountain Reservation located
in New Mexico
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Montana
• Indian Country lands within the
State of North Dakota
• Indian Country lands within the
State of South Dakota, as well as the
portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation
located in Nebraska (see Region 7)
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Utah, except Goshute and
Navajo Reservation lands (see Region 9)
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Wyoming
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
EPA Region 9
• The Island of American Samoa
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Arizona as well as Navajo
Reservation lands in New Mexico (see
Region 6) and Utah (see Region 8)
• Indian Country lands within the
State of California
• The Island of Guam
• The Johnston Atoll
• The Midway Island and Wake
Island
• The Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Nevada, as well as the Duck
Valley Reservation in Idaho, the Fort
McDermitt Reservation in Oregon (see
Region 10) and the Goshute Reservation
in Utah (see Region 8)
EPA Region 10
• The State of Alaska, including
Indian Country lands
• The State of Idaho, including Indian
Country lands within the State of Idaho,
except Duck Valley Reservation lands
(see Region 9)
• Indian Country lands within the
State of Oregon, except Fort McDermitt
Reservation lands (see Region 9)
• Federal Facilities in the State of
Washington, including those located on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
31781
Indian Country lands within the State of
Washington
Part 1.2.2 of the permit, then an NOI
must be submitted for permit coverage.
B. Categories of Facilities Covered
Threatened and Endangered Species
and Critical Habitat
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) requires that EPA
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and U.S. National Marine
Fisheries Service (collectively called the
‘‘Services’’) to ensure that the permit is
not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any threatened or
endangered species or adversely affect
its critical habitat. Consultation between
EPA and the Services is currently
ongoing with the results of that action
to be included in the final permit. As a
result of these consultations, EPA may
need to consider adding conditions to
the permit to further protect listed
species and critical habitat. These
requirements may include additional
effluent limitations, monitoring,
planning, recordkeeping, and/or
reporting. A more detailed discussion of
the permit conditions that may be
considered is provided in Part III.10.F.
of the permit fact sheet. Based on
consultation to date, EPA included
language in the draft general permit that
would require:
—Any operator that is required to
submit an NOI to indicate in that NOI
whether threatened and endangered
species and/or its critical habitat are
present in the area where permit
coverage is being requested;
—Where a pre-existing ESA Section 7 or
Section 10 action already addresses
discharges from activities also
covered under this permit, that the
conditions and/or requirements of
those actions are incorporated as
enforceable conditions of this general
permit; and
—All operators to notify the Services if
they become aware of any adverse
incident to a Federally-listed
threatened or endangered species or
its critical habitat, that may have
resulted from a discharge from their
pesticide application.
EPA requests comment on appropriate
measures to protect endangered and
threatened species, including the
possible measures discussed in Part
III.10.F of the draft Permit Fact Sheet.
Today’s draft general permit regulates
discharges to waters of the United States
from the application of (1) biological
pesticides, and (2) chemical pesticides
that leave a residue for the following
pesticide use patterns:
• Mosquito and Other Flying Insect
Pest Control—to control public health/
nuisance and other flying insect pests
that develop or are present during a
portion of their life cycle in or above
standing or flowing water. Public
health/nuisance pests in this use
category include but are not limited to
mosquitoes and black flies.
• Aquatic Weed and Algae Control—
to control weeds and algae in water and
at water’s edge.
• Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control—
to control invasive or other nuisance
species in water and at water’s edge.
Aquatic nuisance animals in this use
category include, but are not limited to
fish, lampreys, and mollusks.
• Forest Canopy Pest Control—aerial
application of a pesticide over a forest
canopy to control the population of a
pest species (e.g., insect or pathogen)
where to target the pest effectively a
portion of the pesticide unavoidably
will be applied over and deposited to
water.
The scope of activities encompassed
by these pesticide use patterns is
described in greater detail in Part 2.2 of
this draft general permit.
C. Summary of Permit Terms and
Requirements
Coverage Under This Permit
This permit will be available to
operators of discharges to waters of the
U.S. from the application of (1)
biological pesticides, and (2) chemical
pesticides that leave a residue for the
following pesticide use patterns:
mosquito and other flying insect pest
control; aquatic weed and algae control;
aquatic nuisance animal control; and
forest canopy pest control. Not eligible
for coverage under this permit are
discharges to waters of the U.S.
identified as impaired for the specific
pesticide or its degradates being applied
and any discharges to outstanding
national resource waters (i.e., Tier 3
waters under anti-degradation
regulations). To obtain authorization
under this permit an operator must meet
the eligibility requirements identified
above and if the operator knows or
reasonably should have known that its
activities will exceed any annual
treatment area threshold described in
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
The draft permit, in Part 2, requires
all operators to minimize pesticide
discharges into waters by doing the
following: (1) Use the lowest effective
amount of pesticide product per
application and optimum frequency of
pesticide applications necessary to
control the target pest; (2) perform
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
31782
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
regular maintenance activities to reduce
leaks, spills, or unintended discharges
of pesticides associated with the
application of pesticides covered under
this permit; and (3) maintain
application equipment in proper
operating condition by calibrating and
cleaning/repairing such equipment on a
regular basis to ensure effective
pesticide application and pest control.
Operators that exceed an annual
treatment area threshold must also
implement Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) practices that require these
operators to: (1) Identify and assess the
pest problem; (2) evaluate effective pest
management; and (3) follow appropriate
procedures for pesticide use.
It is important to note that although
the FIFRA labeling is not an effluent
limitation, if the permittee is found to
have applied a pesticide in a manner
inconsistent with the relevant waterquality related FIFRA labeling
requirements, EPA will presume that
the effluent limitation to minimize
pesticides entering the Waters of the
United States has been violated under
the NPDES permit. Therefore, use
inconsistent with certain FIFRA labeling
requirements could result in the
permittee being held liable for CWA
violation as well as a FIFRA violation.
Water Quality-Based Effluent
Limitations
In addition to the technology-based
effluent limitations, the operator is
required to control its discharge as
necessary to meet applicable water
quality standards. In general, EPA
expects that compliance with the
technology-based effluent limitations
and other terms and conditions in this
permit will meet the water-quality
effluent limitation. Part 3 contains
permit conditions to prohibit any
discharges that causes or contributes to
an excursion of any applicable numeric
or narrative EPA-approved State,
territory, or tribal or EPA promulgated
water quality standard.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Site Monitoring
Part 4 requires entities to monitor to
assess compliance with this permit.
Permittees must monitor for observable
adverse incidents in the treatment area
and where pesticides are discharged to
waters of the United States. Specifically
operators are required to visually
monitor for adverse impacts (as defined
in the permit) during application, or
during post application surveillance
that is conducted as a regular part of
doing business.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
Pesticide Discharge Management Plan
An operator who is subject to Part 2.2
of this permit (i.e., one who is required
to submit an NOI) must prepare a
pesticide discharge management plan
(PDMP) for its pest management area.
Operators who know or should have
reasonably known prior to
commencement of discharge, that they
will exceed an annual treatment area
threshold identified in Part 1.2.2 for that
year, must develop a PDMP prior to first
pesticide application covered under this
permit. Operators who do not know or
would reasonably not know until after
commencement of discharge, that they
will exceed an annual treatment area
threshold identified in Part 1.2.2 for that
year, must develop a PDMP prior to
exceeding the annual treatment area
threshold. Operators commencing
discharge in response to a declared pest
emergency situation as defined in
Appendix A, that will cause the
operator to exceed an annual treatment
area threshold, must develop a PDMP
no later than 90 days after responding
to the declared pest emergency. The
PDMP must include information on the
pesticide discharge management team,
pest management area, control measure,
including evaluation and selection of
pest management, and schedules and
procedures for pest surveillance,
equipment maintenance, application
rate and frequency, assessing
environmental conditions, spill
prevention, spill response, adverse
incident response, and pesticide
monitoring. The PDMP, together with
the additional documentation
requirements in Part 7, document the
practices the operator is implementing
to meet the effluent limitations in this
permit.
Corrective Action
Part 6 outlines situations that require
operators to review and revise their
control measures. Changes to control
measures must be made before the next
pesticide application that results in a
discharge or, if not possible, as soon as
practicable. This draft permit also
outlines the procedures for notification,
reporting, and documentation of
corrective actions for adverse incidents,
spills and leaks and other situations
triggering the need for such actions.
Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting
In Part 7, operators required to submit
an NOI are required to keep certain
records of their pesticide discharges to
demonstrate compliance with the
permit conditions. This draft permit
specifies which records must be kept
and the timeframe for record retention.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In addition, any operator who is
required to submit an NOI must submit
an annual report to EPA. The draft
permit specifies the information that
must be included in the annual report
and the timeframe for submission.
D. Key Permit Provisions for Which EPA
Is Soliciting Comment
EPA seeks comment on all aspects of
this draft general permit and the
accompanying fact sheet; however, in
particular, EPA is soliciting comments
on the following aspects of this permit:
Number of Entities Covered Under This
Permit
This general permit provides coverage
for the following four use patterns:
mosquito and other flying insect pest
control; aquatic weed and algae control;
aquatic nuisance animal control; and
forest canopy pest control. To gain a
better understanding of the universe of
permittees that would be covered under
this permit, EPA is soliciting
information on the numbers, types and
sizes of entities that conduct pesticide
application for each use pattern. Entities
include those who decide that
application of pesticides is necessary
(for example, mosquito control districts,
counties, irrigation control districts and
other local governments) as well as
those entities that apply the pesticides
(for example, for-hire commercial
applicators).
Activities Covered
This general permit provides coverage
for the following four use patterns:
mosquito and other flying insect pest
control; aquatic weed and algae control;
aquatic nuisance animal control; and
forest canopy pest control.
EPA believes that these four use
patterns would encompass the majority
of pesticide applications that would
result in point source discharges to
waters of the U.S. This draft permit
would not provide coverage for other
pesticide use patterns; however, EPA is
still exploring whether other use
patterns should be included.
Specifically, EPA has not included most
use patterns that target land-based pests
and flying pests that are not near or over
water. EPA is seeking comment on
whether certain pesticide application
activities targeting such pests may
involve unavoidable point-source
discharges to waters of the United
States. EPA is also requesting comment
on whether this general permit should
provide coverage for any such activities,
and if so, which activities should be
covered. If, after considering comments,
EPA expands coverage of this permit,
the effluent limitations for the
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
additional use patterns would likely be
similar to what is being proposed in this
draft permit. Due to the likely
similarities between such additional
activities and the associated effluent
limitations, EPA expects that there will
not be a need to re-propose the general
permit to cover such additional
activities in the final permit. In this
case, entities in the newly included use
pattern(s) could seek coverage under
this general permit. Any point source
discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States not covered by this or
another general permit will need
coverage under an individual permit.
EPA also requests comments on how the
effluent limitations provided in this
permit could apply to the additional
activities and whether there are
additional or different effluent
limitations that might be appropriate for
such activities. EPA is also soliciting
comments on whether it should exclude
from coverage under the general permit
all discharges to waters that are
impaired generally for ‘‘pesticides’’
rather than only excluding from
coverage those discharges to waters that
are impaired for the specific pesticide
being applied or its degradates.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Limitations on Coverage
This permit does not authorize
coverage for certain discharges to
pesticide-impaired waters and Tier 3
waters. Specifically, this permit does
not authorize discharges of pesticides or
their degradates to waters impaired for
those specific pesticides or degradates.
Additionally, this permit does not
authorize discharges to outstanding
national resource waters (Tier 3 waters).
EPA would like input on whether it is
appropriate to exclude these discharges
from coverage under the general permit
or if there are conditions that could be
added to the general permit that could
adequately address these situations.
Sharing of Responsibilities
This permit establishes requirements
to control discharges from the
application of pesticides that are
specific to the discharge regardless of
who is defined as the ‘‘operator’’ of the
discharge. An ‘‘operator’’ is defined as
that entity required under the NPDES
program to obtain permit coverage for
point source discharges of pollutants to
waters of the United States. As written,
this permit acknowledges that in many
instances, the entity making the
decision to apply pesticides is different
than the entity that actually applies the
pesticides (for example, a mosquito
control district may decide that a
pesticide application is needed and
enter into a contract with a for-hire
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
commercial applicator to perform the
application). EPA, however, defines
both of these entities as ‘‘operators.’’
EPA drafted this permit with the intent
of clarifying which entity is expected to
implement which permit conditions
with the goal of minimizing duplication
of effort while still providing flexibility
for multiple operators to decide how
compliance with permit conditions will
be achieved. Generally, the entity
making the decision to apply pesticides
is responsible for complying with
provisions of the permit leading up to
the actual application of the pesticide
(such as IPM identifying and assessing
the pest problem) and any activities
after application of the pesticide. The
applicator of the pesticide, if different,
is responsible for those permit
requirements that occur during or
directly related to the actual application
of the pesticide (such as maintaining
and calibrating equipment). EPA is
interested in whether the approach in
this draft general permit is clear and if
it provides a logical approach to the
expected sharing of responsibilities.
Notices of Intent
In general, as set forth in 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2), dischargers seeking
coverage under a general permit must
submit a notice of intent (NOI) to be
covered by the permit. However, 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2)(v) provides EPA the
authority to cover entities under a
general permit without requiring the
submission of an NOI. In Part 1.2.2 of
this permit, EPA proposes annual
treatment area thresholds for the
submission of NOIs. EPA is proposing
this NOI framework to: (1) Obtain NOIs
from the largest dischargers, (2)
eliminate duplicative reporting by
multiple operators for an individual
discharge, and (3) clarify the type of
entity responsible for submitting the
NOI. Operators that do not exceed an
annual treatment area threshold are
covered automatically under this permit
without the need to submit an NOI. EPA
is interested in feedback on whether this
NOI framework strikes an appropriate
balance between capturing information
on discharges from the largest pesticide
application activities and avoiding the
imposition of unreasonable burdens on
operators whose pesticide application
activities affect smaller areas. EPA is
also interested in information on
whether the size of the thresholds is
appropriate, and whether they result in
obtaining NOIs from an appropriately
targeted set of large dischargers.
If an NOI is required, it must contain
either a map or narrative description of
the area and the waters of the United
States and the pesticide use patterns for
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31783
which permit coverage is being
requested for the duration of the permit.
Operators can identify specific waters or
request coverage for all waters within
the area for which they are requesting
permit coverage. EPA is interested in
feedback on whether this approach
adequately captures the areas and
associated waters of the United States
for which permit coverage is being
requested.
Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
This draft permit contains narrative
technology-based effluent limitations for
the class and scope of activities and
operators covered under this permit.
After much research and discussion
with experts, EPA determined that the
effluent limitations identified in Part 2
of the permit, including IPM practices
for operators that will exceed an annual
treatment area threshold (i.e., those who
must submit an NOI) should be
included in this general permit. Since
this is the first general permit for these
types of discharges, EPA specifically
requests comments on this section for
the following questions:
1. What types of government
agencies/departments have the
responsibility or are mandated to
perform pest control? Are they already
required to implement IPM? What
specific IPM practices do they already
perform?
2. Are there private commercial
entities that apply pesticides below the
threshold that should be expected to
implement IPM? If so, who are these
and what IPM practices should they be
required to implement? Are any private
commercial entities that apply
pesticides below the threshold currently
implementing IPM practices? Is the use
of annual treatment area thresholds an
appropriate mechanism for establishing
technology-based effluent limitations
and if so, are the thresholds provided in
the draft general permit appropriate?
3. Are there more specific IPM
procedures that we can incorporate into
this permit to better define IPM
expectations of permittees above or
below the threshold? Would an EPAdeveloped IPM template be practical
and help? If so, what should be
included? Are there industry-specific
templates already available?
4. Will requiring IPM of small public
or private entities not already required
to implement IPM under this draft
general permit force them to go out of
business or choose not to spray at the
expense of public health or the
environment?
5. How much do the IPM procedures
required in this permit cost?
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
31784
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
6. Are entities above the thresholds
already doing these practices? If not,
what would be the consequences/costs
of these requirements?
Water Quality Based Effluent
Limitations
EPA is soliciting comment on the
water quality based effluent limitations
in this proposed permit, and whether
other parameters or narrative
requirements would be appropriate.
Monitoring
EPA is requesting comment on the
value, feasibility and safety of visual
monitoring during application and of
post application surveillance
monitoring.
EPA is considering having the largest
of the large applicators provide ambient
sampling data. How large would be
appropriate for such a requirement?
Should these data be used to enhance
the cycle of information EPA will use in
assessing the selected BMPs rather than
compliance? What types of monitoring
requirements are appropriate for each of
the four pesticide use categories covered
under this permit? What would be the
cost of monitoring? What are the best
monitoring methodologies when
sampling for the residues of chemical
pesticides? What sampling approaches
accommodate issues of safety and
accessibility? What timing and
frequencies are best in these situations?
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Annual Reports
Any operator required to submit an
NOI is also required to submit an annual
report that contains, among other things,
a compilation of pesticides applied,
quantities applied, locations where
pesticide applications were made
during the previous calendar year, and
information on any adverse incidents or
corrective actions resulting from
discharges covered under this permit.
The Agency is interested in comment on
the scope of operators required to
submit annual reports and the type,
level of detail, and practical utility of
the information being requested.
E. Permit Appeal Procedures
Within 120 days following notice of
EPA’s final decision for the general
permit under 40 CFR 124.15, any
interested person may appeal the permit
in the Federal Court of Appeals in
accordance with Section 509(b)(1) of the
CWA. Persons affected by a general
permit may not challenge the conditions
of a general permit as a right in further
Agency proceedings. They may instead
either challenge the general permit in
court, or apply for an individual permit
as specified at 40 CFR 122.21 (and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
authorized at 40 CFR 122.28), and then
petition the Environmental Appeals
Board to review any conditions of the
individual permit (40 CFR 124.19 as
modified on May 15, 2000, 65 FR
30886). See also 40 CFR 23.12 for filing
notice of judicial review requirements.
IV. Economic Impacts of the Pesticides
General Permit
As a result of the Sixth Circuit Court
decision on EPA’s 2006 NPDES
Pesticides Rule, operators of discharges
to waters of the U.S. from the
application of pesticides now require
NPDES permits for those discharges.
EPA expects that costs associated with
complying with the effluent limits
under this general permit will be similar
to costs under individual permits for
similar activities; however,
administrative costs for both EPA as the
permitting authority and operators as
permittees are expected to be lower
under this general permit than under
individual permits. In other words, the
general permit itself can be expected to
reduce rather than increase costs for
permittees as compared to the baseline
of individual permitting.
EPA expects the economic impact on
covered entities, including small
businesses, to be minimal. Since EPA is
developing a general permit in the
absence of existing national Effluent
Limitations Guidelines or Best
Professional Judgment (BPJ) effluent
limitations in other NPDES-issued
permits, the Agency performed an
economic impact analysis of the
Pesticides General Permit for the
purpose of examining the economic
achievability of complying with the
technology-based effluent limitations
embodied in the permit. The economic
impact analysis is included in the
administrative record for this permit.
Based on that analysis, EPA expects that
there will be minimal burden on
entities, including small businesses,
covered under the general permit. EPA
is asking for additional information
during the public notice of the draft
permit and will update the analysis as
appropriate for the final permit.
V. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or Tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. It has been determined that this
is a significant regulatory action under
the terms of EO 12866 and it was
therefore submitted to OMB for review.
A summary of substantive changes
made during OMB review, including an
identification of those made at the
suggestion of OIRA, is included in the
docket.
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
Dated: May 26, 2010.
Ira W. Leighton,
Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA, Region
1.
Dated: May 26, 2010.
Kevin Bricke,
Acting Director, Division of Environmental
Planning and Protection, EPA Region 2.
Dated: May 27, 2010.
Carl-Axel P. Soderberg,
Division Director, Caribbean Environmental
Protection Division, EPA Region 2.
Dated: May 26, 2010.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA
Region 3.
Dated: May 26, 2010.
James D. Giattina,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA,
Region 4.
Dated: May 26, 2010.
Tinka G. Hyde,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.
Dated: May 26, 2010.
William K. Honker,
Deputy Director, Water Quality Protection
Division, EPA Region 6.
Dated: May 26, 2010.
Glenn Curtis,
Chief, Wastewater and Infrastructure
Management Branch, EPA Region 7.
Dated: May 27, 2010.
Stephen S. Tuber,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of
Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, EPA
Region 8.
Dated: May 26, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
Alexis Strauss,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.
Dated: May 26, 2010.
Michael A. Bussell,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds,
EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2010–13468 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER–FRL–8990–7]
Environmental Impacts Statements;
Notice of Availability
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal
Activities, General Information (202)
564–1399 or https://www.epa.gov/
compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact
Statements.
Filed 05/24/2010 through 05/28/2010.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
Notice
In accordance with Section 309(a) of
the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to
make its comments on EISs issued by
other Federal agencies public.
Historically, EPA has met this mandate
by publishing weekly notices of
availability of EPA comments, which
includes a brief summary of EPA’s
comment letters, in the Federal
Register. Since February 2008, EPA has
been including its comment letters on
EISs on its Web site at: https://
www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/
eisdata.html. Including the entire EIS
comment letters on the Web site
satisfies the Section 309(a) requirement
to make EPA’s comments on EISs
available to the public. Accordingly, on
March 31, 2010, EPA discontinued the
publication of the notice of availability
of EPA comments in the Federal
Register.
EIS No. 20100201, Draft EIS, FHWA, 00,
Southeast High Speed Rail RichmondRaleigh Project, Addresses the 162
mile Segment between Richmond, VA
to Raleigh, NC, Comment Period
Ends: 08/30/2010, Contact: John
Winkle 202–493–60607.
EIS No. 20100202, Draft EIS, USFS, TX,
Comal County Regional Habitat
Conservation Plan, Application for
Incidental Take Permit, Comal
County, TX, Comment Period Ends:
07/28/2010, Contact: Bill Seawell
512–490–0057.
EIS No. 20100203, Draft Supplement,
USFS, AK, Programmatic EIS—Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan
DOI/DOC, New Circumstances
Bearing on the Council’s Restoration
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
Effort, Implementation, Prince
William Sound, Gulf of Alaska, AK,
Comment Period Ends: 07/19/2010,
Contact: Laurel Jennings 206–526–
4525.
EIS No. 20100204, Final EIS, USN, GU,
Mariana Islands Range Complex
(MIRC), To Address Ongoing and
Proposed Military Training Activities,
Mariana Islands, GU, Wait Period
Ends: 07/06/2010, Contact: Nora
Macariola-See 808–472–1402.
EIS No. 20100205, Draft Supplement,
USFS, CA, Beaverslide Timber Sale
and Fuel Treatment Project,
Additional Analysis and New
Information, Six Rivers National
Forest, Mad River Range District,
Trinity County, CA, Comment Period
Ends: 07/19/2010, Contact: Thomas
Hudson 707–574–6233.
EIS No. 20100206, Draft EIS, FHWA,
OR, Newberg Dundee Bypass Project,
Proposal to Build a Four Lane
Expressway and Reduce Congestion
on OR 99W, from OR 99W/OR 8 to the
top of Rex Hill, USACE 404/Removal
Fill Permits, Funding, Yamhill and
Washington Counties, OR, Comment
Period Ends: 07/19/2010, Contact:
Michelle Eraut 503–587–4716.
EIS No. 20100207, Draft EIS, USFS, SD,
Nautilus Project Area, Multiple
Resource Management Actions,
Implementation, Black Hills National
Forest, Northern Hills Ranger District,
Lawrence, Meade and Pennington,
SD, Comment Period Ends: 07/19/
2010, Contact: Chris Stores 605–642–
4622.
Amended Notices
EIS No. 20100189, Final EIS, NPS, AK,
Legislative—Glacier Bay National
Park Project, Authorize Harvest of
Glaucous-Winged Gull Eggs by the
Huna Tlingit, Implementation, AK,
Wait Period Ends: 06/28/2010,
Contact: Cherry Payne 907–697–2230.
Revision to FR Notice Published 5/28/
2010: Correction to Lead Agency from
BLM to NPS.
EIS No. 20100193, Final EIS, FRA, CA,
Adoption—March 2004 Transbay
Terminal/Caltrain Downtown
Extension/Redevelopment Program
(Transbay Program) Phase 1, San
Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara,
CA, Wait Period Ends: 06/28/2010,
Contact: David Valenstein 202–493–
6368.
Revision to FR Notice Published 05/
28/2010: Correction to Contact Person
Name and Telephone.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31785
Dated: June 1, 2010.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office
of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2010–13458 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0421; FRL–8826-1]
Pesticide Products; Registration
Applications
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: EPA has received applications
to register pesticide products containing
Fluxapyroxad, an active ingredient not
included in any previously registered
pesticide product. Pursuant to the
provisions of section 3(c)(4) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby
providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these
applications.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 6, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0421, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket
Facility’s normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–
0421. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the docket
without change and may be made
available on-line at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31775-31785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13468]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9159-2]
Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Pesticide General Permit for Point Source Discharges From the
Application of Pesticides
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of draft permit and notice of public meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: All ten EPA Regions today are proposing a draft NPDES general
permit for point source discharges from the application of certain
pesticides to waters of the United States. Once finalized, this permit
will be available to operators in those areas where EPA is the NPDES
permitting authority. This action is in response to the Sixth Circuit
Court's ruling that vacated an EPA regulation that excluded discharges
from the application of pesticides to or over, including near waters of
the United States from the need to obtain an NPDES permit if the
application was done in accordance with other laws. EPA requested and
was granted a two-year stay of the Court's mandate to provide time to
draft and implement the permit noticed today. The stay of the mandate
expires on April 9, 2011; where after, NPDES permits will be required
for all point source discharges to waters of the United States of
biological pesticides, and chemical pesticides that leave a residue.
This Federal Register notice briefly summarizes the requirements in
this draft general permit for pesticides applications to waters of the
U.S. EPA is soliciting public comment on all aspects of the draft NPDES
permit. This Federal Register notices also includes a list of specific
issues about which the Agency is particularly asking for comment.
Supporting documentation to the permit is contained in an accompanying
fact sheet. The public is encouraged to read this fact sheet to better
understand the permit requirements. The fact sheet and permit can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides.
DATES: Comments on the draft general permit must be received on or
before July 19, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2010-0257, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov.
3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257.
4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention: Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-
0257. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
[[Page 31776]]
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at a docket facility. The Office
of Water (OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 until 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The OW Docket Center
telephone number is (202) 566-2426, and the Docket address is OW
Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744.
Public meetings and public hearing: EPA will hold three (3) public
meetings in: Albuquerque, New Mexico on June 14, 2010; Boise, Idaho on
June 16, 2010; Boston, Massachusetts on June 21, 2010; and a public
hearing in Washington, DC on June 23, 2010. The focus of each meeting/
hearing is to present the draft general permit and the basis for the
draft permit requirements, and to answer questions concerning the draft
permit. At these meetings, any person may provide written or oral
statements and data pertaining to the draft permit. The date, time and
location of the public meetings and public hearing are as follows:
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Monday, June 14, 2010, at the CNM
Workforce Training Center, Room 101, 5600 Eagle Rock Avenue, NE,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, from 12 p.m.-3 p.m.
Boise, Idaho: Wednesday, June 16, 2010, at the Bureau of
Reclamation, Rooms 206 & 219, 1150 North Curtis Road, Boise, Idaho from
9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
Boston, Massachusetts: Monday, June 21, 2010, at EPA
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Conference Room 1529,
Boston, MA 02109-3912, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Washington, DC: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, at the EPA East
Building, Room 1153, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20004, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
If you would like to present a statement at the public hearing in
Washington, DC, please contact Virginia Garelick at 202-564-2316 to
register your intent to provide a public statement. Speakers will be
given up to three minutes (or as time allows) to provide their comments
on a first come first served basis. Any additional comments will need
to be provided in writing. EPA will consider all comments received and
will include copies of such in the Administrative Record.
EPA encourages interested and potentially affected stakeholders to
attend one of the scheduled public meetings and provide oral or written
comments. Please note that the public meetings may close early if all
business is finished. Oral or written comments received at the public
meetings will be entered into the Docket for this permit. If you are
unable to attend, you may submit comments to the EPA Water Docket at
the address identified in the ADDRESSES section listed above.
More information on these meetings will be available on the
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides, including any
additional dates and locations if scheduled. Due to limited seating,
those wishing to attend EPA's public meetings are asked to please send
an e-mail message containing their name, telephone number and
organization to Virginia Garelick at garelick.virginia@epa.gov. An e-
mail message is not required, however. Anyone wishing to may attend
provided space is available. If you need a sign language interpreter at
any of these meetings, you should notify Ms. Garelick of such at least
ten business days prior to the meetings so that appropriate
arrangements can be made. For further information, including
registration information, please refer to the following Web site:
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides.
Webcast: EPA has scheduled a Webcast to provide information on this
draft permit and to answer questions for interested parties that are
unable to attend the public meetings or hearing. The webcast will be
broadcast on June 17, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST). For information on how to register and attend the webcast, see
EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/training.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this draft
NPDES general permit, contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office
listed in Section I.F, or contact Jack Faulk, EPA Headquarters, Office
of Water, Office of Wastewater Management at tel.: 202-564-0768 or e-
mail: faulk.jack@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
D. Finalizing This Permit
E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for this draft permit?
II. Statutory and Regulatory History
A. Clean Water Act
B. NPDES Permits
C. History of Pesticide Application Regulations
D. Court Decisions Leading to the CWA Regulation Concerning
Pesticide Applications
E. 2006 Agency Rulemaking Excluding Discharges From Pesticide
Applications From NPDES Permitting
F. Legal Challenges to the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule and
Resulting Court Decision
III. Scope and Applicability of This NPDES Pesticides General Permit
A. Geographic Coverage
B. Categories of Facilities Covered
C. Summary of Permit Terms and Requirements
D. Key Permit Provisions for Which EPA is Soliciting Comment
E. Permit Appeal Procedures
IV. Economic Impacts of the Pesticides General Permit
V. Executive Order 12866
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be affected by this action if your application of
pesticides, under the use patterns in Section III.B., results in a
discharge to waters of the United States in one of the geographic areas
identified in Section III.A. Potentially affected entities, as
categorized in the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS), may include, but are not limited to:
[[Page 31777]]
Table 1--Entities Potentially Regulated by This Permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS potentially affected
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture parties--General 111 Crop Production. Producers of crops
agricultural interests, mainly for food and
farmers/producers, fiber including
forestry, and irrigation. farms, orchards,
groves,
greenhouses, and
nurseries that have
irrigation ditches
requiring pest
control.
113110 Timber Tract The operation of
Operations. timber tracts for
the purpose of
selling standing
timber.
113210 Forest Growing trees for
Nurseries Gathering reforestation and/
of Forest Products. or gathering forest
products, such as
gums, barks, balsam
needles, rhizomes,
fibers, Spanish
moss, ginseng, and
truffles.
221310 Water Supply Operating irrigation
for Irrigation. systems.
Public health parties 923120 Government
(includes mosquito or other Administration of establishments
vector control districts Public Health primarily engaged
and commercial applicators Programs. in the planning,
that service these). administration, and
coordination of
public health
programs and
services, including
environmental
health activities.
Resource management parties 924110 Government
(includes State departments Administration of establishments
of fish and wildlife, State Air and Water primarily engaged
departments of pesticide Resource and Solid in the
regulation, State Waste Management administration,
environmental agencies, and Programs. regulation, and
universities). enforcement of air
and water resource
programs; the
administration and
regulation of water
and air pollution
control and
prevention
programs; the
administration and
regulation of flood
control programs;
the administration
and regulation of
drainage
development and
water resource
consumption
programs; and
coordination of
these activities at
intergovernmental
levels.
Public health parties 923120 Government
(includes mosquito or other Administration of establishments
vector control districts Public Health primarily engaged
and commercial applicators Programs. in the planning,
that service these). administration, and
coordination of
public health
programs and
services, including
environmental
health activities.
924120 Government
Administration of establishments
Conservation primarily engaged
Programs. in the
administration,
regulation,
supervision and
control of land
use, including
recreational areas;
conservation and
preservation of
natural resources;
erosion control;
geological survey
program
administration;
weather forecasting
program
administration; and
the administration
and protection of
publicly and
privately owned
forest lands.
Government
establishments
responsible for
planning,
management,
regulation and
conservation of
game, fish, and
wildlife
populations,
including wildlife
management areas
and field stations;
and other
administrative
matters relating to
the protection of
fish, game, and
wildlife are
included in this
industry.
Utility parties (includes 221 Utilities....... Provide electric
utilities). power, natural gas,
steam supply, water
supply, and sewage
removal through a
permanent
infrastructure of
lines, mains, and
pipes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257. The official public
docket is the collection of materials that is available for public
viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Although
all documents in the docket are listed in an index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. EPA policy is that copyrighted material will
not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available
only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Publicly
available docket materials are available in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room, open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Water Docket is 202-566-2426.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the United States government on-line source for
Federal regulations at https://www.regulations.gov.
Electronic versions of this draft permit and fact sheet are
available on EPA's NPDES Web site at www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's
[[Page 31778]]
electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use
EPA Dockets at https://www.regulations.gov to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the Docket Facility identified in Section
I.A.1.
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-
mail. Clearly mark all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information on computer discs mailed to EPA, mark the surface of
the disc as CBI. Also identify electronically the specific information
contained in the disc that you claim is CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the specific information claimed as CBI, you must
submit a copy that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for
inclusion in the public document. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments in paper form that are mailed or delivered to
the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public
docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the
photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with
a brief description written by the docket staff.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify this permit by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a section or
part of this permit.
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and suggest substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
D. Finalizing This Permit
After the close of the public comment period on this draft, EPA
will issue a final permit. That final permit will be issued after all
public comments received during the public comment period have been
considered and appropriate changes made to this permit. EPA's response
to comments received will be included in the docket as part of the
final permit decision.
E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for this draft permit?
For EPA Region 1, contact George Papadopoulos at USEPA Region 1, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; or at tel.: (617)
918-1579; or e-mail at papadopoulos.george@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 2, contact Maureen Krudner at USEPA Region 2, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; or tel.: (212) 637-3874; or e-mail
at krudner.maureen@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 3, contact Peter Weber at USEPA Region 3, 1650 Arch
Street, Mail Code: 3WP41, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029; or at tel.:
(215) 814-5749; or e-mail at weber.peter@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 4, contact Sam Sampath at USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, CA 30303-8960; or at tel.: (404) 562-9229; or e-
mail at sampath.sam@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 5, contact Morris Beaton at USEPA Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code: WN16J, Chicago, IL 60604-3507; or at
tel.: (312) 353-0850; or e-mail at beaton.morris@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 6, contact Phillip Jennings at USEPA Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mail Code: 6WO, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; or at
tel.: (214) 665-7538 or e-mail at jennings.phillip@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 7, contact Kimberly Hill at USEPA Region 7, 901
North Fifth Street, Mail Code: XX, Kansas City, KS 66101; or at tel.:
(913) 551-7841 or e-mail at: hill.kimberly@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 8, contact David Rise at USEPA Region 8, Montana
Operations Office, Federal Building, 10 West 15th Street, Suite 3200,
Mail Code: 8MO, Helena, MT 59626; or at tel.: 406-457-5012 or e-mail
at: rise.david@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 9, contact Pascal Mues, USEPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, Mail Code: WTR-5, San Francisco, CA 94105; or at tel.: (415)
972-3768 or e-mail at: mues.pascal@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 10, contact Dirk Helder, USEPA Region 10 Idaho
Operations Office, 1435 North Orchard Street, Boise, ID 83706 or at
tel.: 208-378-5749 or e-mail at: helder.dirk@epa.gov.
II. Statutory and Regulatory History
A. Clean Water Act
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that ``the
discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful'' unless the
discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33
U.S.C. 1311(a). The CWA defines ``discharge of a pollutant'' as ``(A)
any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point
source, (B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the
contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel
or other floating craft.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A ``point source'' is
any ``discernible, confined and discrete conveyance'' but does not
include ``agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from
irrigated agriculture.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(14).
The term ``pollutant'' includes, among other things, ``garbage * *
* chemical wastes, biological materials * * * and industrial,
municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.'' 33 U.S.C.
1362(6).
A person may discharge a pollutant without violating the section
301 prohibition by obtaining authorization to discharge (referred to
herein as
[[Page 31779]]
``coverage'') under a section 402 National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). Under section
402(a), EPA may ``issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or
combination of pollutants, notwithstanding section 1311(a)'' upon
certain conditions required by the Act.
B. NPDES Permits
An NPDES permit authorizes the discharge of a specified amount of a
pollutant or pollutants into a receiving water under certain
conditions. The NPDES program relies on two types of permits:
individual and general. An individual permit is a permit specifically
tailored for an individual discharger. Upon receiving the appropriate
permit application(s), the permitting authority, i.e., EPA or a state
or territory, develops a draft permit for public comment for that
particular discharger based on the information contained in the permit
application (e.g., type of activity, nature of discharge, receiving
water quality). Following consideration of public comments, a final
permit is then issued to the discharger for a specific time period (not
to exceed 5 years) with a provision for reapplying for further permit
coverage prior to the expiration date.
A general permit covers multiple facilities/sites/activities within
a specific category for a specific period of time (not to exceed 5
years). For general permits, EPA or a state or territory develops and
issues the permit with dischargers then obtaining coverage under the
permit, typically through submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI). A
general permit is also subject to public comment, as is being done
under this Federal Register notice, and is developed and issued by a
permitting authority (in this case, EPA).
Under 40 CFR 122.28, general permits may be written to cover
categories of point sources having common elements, such as facilities
that involve the same or substantially similar types of operations,
that discharge the same types of wastes, or that are more appropriately
regulated by a general permit. Given the vast number of pesticide
applicators requiring NPDES permit coverage and the discharges common
to these applicators, EPA believes that it makes administrative sense
to issue this general permit, rather than issuing individual permits to
each applicator. Entities still have the ability to seek individual
permit coverage. Courts have approved of the use of general permits.
See e.g., Natural Res. Def. Council v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 (DC Cir.
1977); EDC v. U.S. EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 853 (Ninth Cir. 2003). The
general permit approach allows EPA to allocate resources in a more
efficient manner and to provide more timely coverage. As with any
permit, the CWA requires the general permit to contain technology-based
effluent limitations, as well as any more stringent limits when
necessary to meet applicable state water quality standards.
C. History of Pesticide Application Regulation Under FIFRA
EPA regulates the sale, distribution and use of pesticides in the
United States under the statutory framework of FIFRA to ensure that,
when used in conformance with FIFRA labeling directions, pesticides
will not pose unreasonable risks to human health and the environment.
All new pesticides must undergo a rigorous registration procedure under
FIFRA during which EPA assesses a variety of potential human health and
environmental effects associated with use of the product. Under FIFRA,
EPA is required to consider the effects of pesticides on the
environment by determining, among other things, whether a pesticide
``will perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment,'' and whether ``when used in accordance
with widespread and commonly recognized practice [the pesticide] will
not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.''
7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5). In performing this analysis, EPA examines, among
other things, the ingredients of a pesticide, the intended type of
application site and directions for use, and supporting scientific
studies for human health and environmental effects and exposures. The
applicant for registration of the pesticide must submit data as
required by EPA regulations.
When EPA approves a pesticide for a particular use, the Agency
imposes labeling restrictions governing such use. Compliance with the
labeling requirements ensures that the pesticide serves an intended
purpose and avoids unreasonable adverse effects. It is illegal under
Section 12(a)(2)(G) of FIFRA to use a registered pesticide in a manner
inconsistent with its labeling. States have primary authority under
FIFRA to enforce ``use'' violations, but both the States and EPA have
ample authority to prosecute pesticide misuse when it occurs.
D. Court Decisions Leading to the CWA Regulation Concerning Pesticide
Applications
Over the past ten years, several courts addressed the question of
whether the CWA requires NPDES permits for pesticide applications.
These cases resulted in some confusion among the regulated community
and other affected citizens about the applicability of the CWA to
pesticides applied to waters of the United States. In 2001, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Headwaters, Inc. v.
Talent Irrigation District (Talent) that an applicator of herbicides
was required to obtain an NPDES permit under the circumstances before
the court. 243 F.3rd 526 (Ninth Cir. 2001).
In 2002, the Ninth Circuit in League of Wilderness Defenders et al.
v. Forsgren (Forsgren) held that the application of pesticides to
control Douglas Fir Tussock Moths in National Forest lands required an
NPDES permit. 309 F.3d 1181 (Ninth Cir. 2002). The court in Forsgren
did not analyze the question of whether the pesticides applied were
pollutants, because it incorrectly assumed that the parties agreed that
they were (in fact, the United States expressly reserved its arguments
on that issue in its brief to the District Court. Id. at 1184, n.2).
The court instead analyzed the question of whether the aerial
application of the pesticide constituted a point source discharge, and
concluded that it did. Id. at 1185.
Since Talent and Forsgren, California, Nevada, Oregon, and
Washington, all of which are within the Ninth Circuit, have issued
permits for the application of certain types of pesticides (e.g.,
products to control aquatic weeds and algae and products to control
mosquito larvae). Other States have continued their longstanding
practice of not issuing permits to people who apply pesticides to
waters of the United States. These varying practices reflected the
substantial uncertainty among regulators, the regulated community, and
the public regarding how the CWA applies to pesticides that have been
properly applied and used for their intended purpose.
Additionally, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the
applicability of the CWA's NPDES permit requirements to pesticide
applications. In Altman v. Town of Amherst (Altman), the court vacated
and remanded for further development of the record a District Court
decision holding that the Town of Amherst was not required to obtain an
NPDES permit to spray mosquitocides over waters of the United States.
47 Fed. Appx. 62, 67 (Second Cir. 2002). The United States filed an
amicus brief setting forth the Agency's views in the context of that
particular case. In its opinion, the Second Circuit stated that
``[u]ntil the EPA articulates a clear interpretation of
[[Page 31780]]
current law--among other things, whether properly used pesticides
released into or over waters of the United States can trigger the
requirement for NPDES permits * * * --the question of whether properly
used pesticides can become pollutants that violate the CWA will remain
open.'' Id. at 67.
In 2005, the Ninth Circuit again addressed the CWA's applicability
to pesticide applications. In Fairhurst v. Hagener, the court held that
pesticides applied directly to a lake to eliminate non-native fish
species, where there are no residues or unintended effects, are not
``pollutants'' under the CWA because they are not chemical wastes. 422
F.3d 1146 (Ninth Cir. 2005).
Recently, the Second Circuit reaffirmed the recent Sixth Circuit
decision in ruling that trucks and helicopters that sprayed pesticides
should be considered point sources under the CWA. Peconic Baykeeper
Inc. v. Suffolk County, 2nd Cir., No. 09-97-cv, 3/30/10.
E. 2006 Agency Rulemaking Excluding Discharges From Pesticides From
NPDES Permitting
On November 27, 2006 (71 FR 68483), EPA issued a final rule
(hereinafter called the ``2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule'') clarifying two
specific circumstances in which an NPDES permit is not required to
apply pesticides to or over, including near water provided that the
application is consistent with relevant Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requirements. They are: (1) The application
of pesticides directly to water to control pests; and (2) the
application of pesticides to control pests that are present over,
including near, water where a portion of the pesticides will
unavoidably be deposited to the water to target the pests.
F. Legal Challenges to the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule and Resulting
Court Decision
On January 19, 2007, EPA received petitions for review of the 2006
NPDES Pesticides Rule from both environmental and industry groups.
Petitions were filed in eleven circuit courts with the case, National
Cotton Council, et al, v. EPA, assigned to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals (Sixth Circuit). On January 9, 2009, the Sixth Circuit vacated
EPA's 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule under a plain language reading of the
CWA. National Cotton Council of America v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (Sixth
Cir. 2009). The Court held that the CWA unambiguously includes
``biological pesticides,'' and ``chemical pesticides'' that leave a
residue within its definition of ``pollutant.'' Specifically, the
application of chemical pesticides that leaves no residue is not a
pollutant. The Court also found that the application of pesticides is
from a point source.
Based on the Court's decision, chemical pesticides that leave no
residue do not require an NPDES permit. However, EPA assumes for
purpose of this permit that all chemical pesticides have a residue,
and, therefore would need a permit unless it can be shown that there is
no residual. Unlike chemical pesticides (where the residual is the
pollutant), the Court further found that biological pesticides are
pollutants regardless of whether the application results in residuals
and such discharges need an NPDES permit.
In response to this decision, on April 9, 2009, EPA requested a
two-year stay of the mandate to provide the Agency time to develop
general permits, to assist NPDES-authorized states to develop their
NPDES permits, and to provide outreach and education to the regulated
community and other stakeholders. On June 8, 2009, the Sixth Circuit
granted EPA the two-year stay of the mandate until April 9, 2011. On
November 2, 2009, Industry Petitioners of the Sixth Circuit Case
petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit's decision. On
February 22, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its decision denying
petitions to review the Sixth Circuit decision.
As a result of the Court's decision on the 2006 NPDES Pesticides
Rule, at the end of the two-year stay, NPDES permits will be required
for point source discharges to waters of the U.S. of biological
pesticides, and of chemical pesticides that leave a residue. Until
April 9, 2011, the rule remains in effect and NPDES permits are not
required.
In response to the Court's decision, EPA is proposing this draft
general permit for four specific pesticide use patterns. The specified
use patterns may not represent every pesticide application activity for
which a discharge requires NPDES permit coverage. The four use patterns
included in this draft permit are generally consistent with what was
addressed in the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule.
Neither the Court's ruling nor EPA's issuance of this general
permit affects the existing CWA exemptions for irrigation return flow
and agricultural stormwater runoff, which are excluded from the
definition of a point source under Section 502(14) of the CWA and do
not require NPDES permit coverage.
III. Scope and Applicability of This NPDES Pesticides General Permit
A. Geographic Coverage
EPA will provide permit coverage for classes of discharges where
EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. The geographic coverage of
today's draft permit is listed below. Where this permit covers
activities on Indian Country lands, those areas are as listed below
within the borders of that state:
EPA Region 1
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including Indian
Country lands
Indian Country lands within the State of Connecticut
The State of New Hampshire
Indian Country lands within the State of Rhode Island
Federal Facilities in the State of Vermont
EPA Region 2
Indian Country lands within the State of New York
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
EPA Region 3
The District of Columbia
Federal Facilities in the State of Delaware
EPA Region 4
Indian Country lands within the State of Alabama
Indian Country lands within the State of Florida
Indian Country lands within the State of Mississippi
Indian Country lands within the State of North Carolina
EPA Region 5
Indian Country lands within the State of Michigan
Indian Country lands within the State of Minnesota
Indian Country lands within the State of Wisconsin
EPA Region 6
Indian Country lands within the State of Louisiana
The State of New Mexico, including Indian Country lands
within the State of New Mexico, except Navajo Reservation Lands (see
Region 9) and Ute Mountain Reservation Lands (see Region 8)
The State of Oklahoma, including Indian Country lands
Discharges in the State of Texas that are not under the
authority of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (formerly
TNRCC), including activities associated with the exploration,
development, or production of oil or gas
[[Page 31781]]
or geothermal resources, including transportation of crude oil or
natural gas by pipeline
Indian Country lands within the State of Texas
EPA Region 7
Indian Country lands within the State of Iowa
Indian Country lands within the State of Kansas
Indian Country lands the State of Nebraska, except Pine
Ridge Reservation lands (see Region 8)
EPA Region 8
Federal Facilities in the State of Colorado, except those
located on Indian Country lands
Indian Country lands within the State of Colorado, as well
as the portion of the Ute Mountain Reservation located in New Mexico
Indian Country lands within the State of Montana
Indian Country lands within the State of North Dakota
Indian Country lands within the State of South Dakota, as
well as the portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation located in Nebraska
(see Region 7)
Indian Country lands within the State of Utah, except
Goshute and Navajo Reservation lands (see Region 9)
Indian Country lands within the State of Wyoming
EPA Region 9
The Island of American Samoa
Indian Country lands within the State of Arizona as well
as Navajo Reservation lands in New Mexico (see Region 6) and Utah (see
Region 8)
Indian Country lands within the State of California
The Island of Guam
The Johnston Atoll
The Midway Island and Wake Island
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Indian Country lands within the State of Nevada, as well
as the Duck Valley Reservation in Idaho, the Fort McDermitt Reservation
in Oregon (see Region 10) and the Goshute Reservation in Utah (see
Region 8)
EPA Region 10
The State of Alaska, including Indian Country lands
The State of Idaho, including Indian Country lands within
the State of Idaho, except Duck Valley Reservation lands (see Region 9)
Indian Country lands within the State of Oregon, except
Fort McDermitt Reservation lands (see Region 9)
Federal Facilities in the State of Washington, including
those located on Indian Country lands within the State of Washington
B. Categories of Facilities Covered
Today's draft general permit regulates discharges to waters of the
United States from the application of (1) biological pesticides, and
(2) chemical pesticides that leave a residue for the following
pesticide use patterns:
Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control--to control
public health/nuisance and other flying insect pests that develop or
are present during a portion of their life cycle in or above standing
or flowing water. Public health/nuisance pests in this use category
include but are not limited to mosquitoes and black flies.
Aquatic Weed and Algae Control--to control weeds and algae
in water and at water's edge.
Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control--to control invasive or
other nuisance species in water and at water's edge. Aquatic nuisance
animals in this use category include, but are not limited to fish,
lampreys, and mollusks.
Forest Canopy Pest Control--aerial application of a
pesticide over a forest canopy to control the population of a pest
species (e.g., insect or pathogen) where to target the pest effectively
a portion of the pesticide unavoidably will be applied over and
deposited to water.
The scope of activities encompassed by these pesticide use patterns
is described in greater detail in Part 2.2 of this draft general
permit.
C. Summary of Permit Terms and Requirements
Coverage Under This Permit
This permit will be available to operators of discharges to waters
of the U.S. from the application of (1) biological pesticides, and (2)
chemical pesticides that leave a residue for the following pesticide
use patterns: mosquito and other flying insect pest control; aquatic
weed and algae control; aquatic nuisance animal control; and forest
canopy pest control. Not eligible for coverage under this permit are
discharges to waters of the U.S. identified as impaired for the
specific pesticide or its degradates being applied and any discharges
to outstanding national resource waters (i.e., Tier 3 waters under
anti-degradation regulations). To obtain authorization under this
permit an operator must meet the eligibility requirements identified
above and if the operator knows or reasonably should have known that
its activities will exceed any annual treatment area threshold
described in Part 1.2.2 of the permit, then an NOI must be submitted
for permit coverage.
Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that
EPA consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. National
Marine Fisheries Service (collectively called the ``Services'') to
ensure that the permit is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any threatened or endangered species or adversely affect
its critical habitat. Consultation between EPA and the Services is
currently ongoing with the results of that action to be included in the
final permit. As a result of these consultations, EPA may need to
consider adding conditions to the permit to further protect listed
species and critical habitat. These requirements may include additional
effluent limitations, monitoring, planning, recordkeeping, and/or
reporting. A more detailed discussion of the permit conditions that may
be considered is provided in Part III.10.F. of the permit fact sheet.
Based on consultation to date, EPA included language in the draft
general permit that would require:
--Any operator that is required to submit an NOI to indicate in that
NOI whether threatened and endangered species and/or its critical
habitat are present in the area where permit coverage is being
requested;
--Where a pre-existing ESA Section 7 or Section 10 action already
addresses discharges from activities also covered under this permit,
that the conditions and/or requirements of those actions are
incorporated as enforceable conditions of this general permit; and
--All operators to notify the Services if they become aware of any
adverse incident to a Federally-listed threatened or endangered species
or its critical habitat, that may have resulted from a discharge from
their pesticide application.
EPA requests comment on appropriate measures to protect endangered and
threatened species, including the possible measures discussed in Part
III.10.F of the draft Permit Fact Sheet.
Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
The draft permit, in Part 2, requires all operators to minimize
pesticide discharges into waters by doing the following: (1) Use the
lowest effective amount of pesticide product per application and
optimum frequency of pesticide applications necessary to control the
target pest; (2) perform
[[Page 31782]]
regular maintenance activities to reduce leaks, spills, or unintended
discharges of pesticides associated with the application of pesticides
covered under this permit; and (3) maintain application equipment in
proper operating condition by calibrating and cleaning/repairing such
equipment on a regular basis to ensure effective pesticide application
and pest control. Operators that exceed an annual treatment area
threshold must also implement Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
practices that require these operators to: (1) Identify and assess the
pest problem; (2) evaluate effective pest management; and (3) follow
appropriate procedures for pesticide use.
It is important to note that although the FIFRA labeling is not an
effluent limitation, if the permittee is found to have applied a
pesticide in a manner inconsistent with the relevant water-quality
related FIFRA labeling requirements, EPA will presume that the effluent
limitation to minimize pesticides entering the Waters of the United
States has been violated under the NPDES permit. Therefore, use
inconsistent with certain FIFRA labeling requirements could result in
the permittee being held liable for CWA violation as well as a FIFRA
violation.
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
In addition to the technology-based effluent limitations, the
operator is required to control its discharge as necessary to meet
applicable water quality standards. In general, EPA expects that
compliance with the technology-based effluent limitations and other
terms and conditions in this permit will meet the water-quality
effluent limitation. Part 3 contains permit conditions to prohibit any
discharges that causes or contributes to an excursion of any applicable
numeric or narrative EPA-approved State, territory, or tribal or EPA
promulgated water quality standard.
Site Monitoring
Part 4 requires entities to monitor to assess compliance with this
permit. Permittees must monitor for observable adverse incidents in the
treatment area and where pesticides are discharged to waters of the
United States. Specifically operators are required to visually monitor
for adverse impacts (as defined in the permit) during application, or
during post application surveillance that is conducted as a regular
part of doing business.
Pesticide Discharge Management Plan
An operator who is subject to Part 2.2 of this permit (i.e., one
who is required to submit an NOI) must prepare a pesticide discharge
management plan (PDMP) for its pest management area. Operators who know
or should have reasonably known prior to commencement of discharge,
that they will exceed an annual treatment area threshold identified in
Part 1.2.2 for that year, must develop a PDMP prior to first pesticide
application covered under this permit. Operators who do not know or
would reasonably not know until after commencement of discharge, that
they will exceed an annual treatment area threshold identified in Part
1.2.2 for that year, must develop a PDMP prior to exceeding the annual
treatment area threshold. Operators commencing discharge in response to
a declared pest emergency situation as defined in Appendix A, that will
cause the operator to exceed an annual treatment area threshold, must
develop a PDMP no later than 90 days after responding to the declared
pest emergency. The PDMP must include information on the pesticide
discharge management team, pest management area, control measure,
including evaluation and selection of pest management, and schedules
and procedures for pest surveillance, equipment maintenance,
application rate and frequency, assessing environmental conditions,
spill prevention, spill response, adverse incident response, and
pesticide monitoring. The PDMP, together with the additional
documentation requirements in Part 7, document the practices the
operator is implementing to meet the effluent limitations in this
permit.
Corrective Action
Part 6 outlines situations that require operators to review and
revise their control measures. Changes to control measures must be made
before the next pesticide application that results in a discharge or,
if not possible, as soon as practicable. This draft permit also
outlines the procedures for notification, reporting, and documentation
of corrective actions for adverse incidents, spills and leaks and other
situations triggering the need for such actions.
Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting
In Part 7, operators required to submit an NOI are required to keep
certain records of their pesticide discharges to demonstrate compliance
with the permit conditions. This draft permit specifies which records
must be kept and the timeframe for record retention. In addition, any
operator who is required to submit an NOI must submit an annual report
to EPA. The draft permit specifies the information that must be
included in the annual report and the timeframe for submission.
D. Key Permit Provisions for Which EPA Is Soliciting Comment
EPA seeks comment on all aspects of this draft general permit and
the accompanying fact sheet; however, in particular, EPA is soliciting
comments on the following aspects of this permit:
Number of Entities Covered Under This Permit
This general permit provides coverage for the following four use
patterns: mosquito and other flying insect pest control; aquatic weed
and algae control; aquatic nuisance animal control; and forest canopy
pest control. To gain a better understanding of the universe of
permittees that would be covered under this permit, EPA is soliciting
information on the numbers, types and sizes of entities that conduct
pesticide application for each use pattern. Entities include those who
decide that application of pesticides is necessary (for example,
mosquito control districts, counties, irrigation control districts and
other local governments) as well as those entities that apply the
pesticides (for example, for-hire commercial applicators).
Activities Covered
This general permit provides coverage for the following four use
patterns: mosquito and other flying insect pest control; aquatic weed
and algae control; aquatic nuisance animal control; and forest canopy
pest control.
EPA believes that these four use patterns would encompass the
majority of pesticide applications that would result in point source
discharges to waters of the U.S. This draft permit would not provide
coverage for other pesticide use patterns; however, EPA is still
exploring whether other use patterns should be included. Specifically,
EPA has not included most use patterns that target land-based pests and
flying pests that are not near or over water. EPA is seeking comment on
whether certain pesticide application activities targeting such pests
may involve unavoidable point-source discharges to waters of the United
States. EPA is also requesting comment on whether this general permit
should provide coverage for any such activities, and if so, which
activities should be covered. If, after considering comments, EPA
expands coverage of this permit, the effluent limitations for the
[[Page 31783]]
additional use patterns would likely be similar to what is being
proposed in this draft permit. Due to the likely similarities between
such additional activities and the associated effluent limitations, EPA
expects that there will not be a need to re-propose the general permit
to cover such additional activities in the final permit. In this case,
entities in the newly included use pattern(s) could seek coverage under
this general permit. Any point source discharges of pollutants to
waters of the United States not covered by this or another general
permit will need coverage under an individual permit. EPA also requests
comments on how the effluent limitations provided in this permit could
apply to the additional activities and whether there are additional or
different effluent limitations that might be appropriate for such
activities. EPA is also soliciting comments on whether it should
exclude from coverage under the general permit all discharges to waters
that are impaired generally for ``pesticides'' rather than only
excluding from coverage those discharges to waters that are impaired
for the specific pesticide being applied or its degradates.
Limitations on Coverage
This permit does not authorize coverage for certain discharges to
pesticide-impaired waters and Tier 3 waters. Specifically, this permit
does not authorize discharges of pesticides or their degradates to
waters impaired for those specific pesticides or degradates.
Additionally, this permit does not authorize discharges to outstanding
national resource waters (Tier 3 waters). EPA would like input on
whether it is appropriate to exclude these discharges from coverage
under the general permit or if there are conditions that could be added
to the general permit that could adequately address these situations.
Sharing of Responsibilities
This permit establishes requirements to control discharges from the
application of pesticides that are specific to the discharge regardless
of who is defined as the ``operator'' of the discharge. An ``operator''
is defined as that entity required under the NPDES program to obtain
permit coverage for point source discharges of pollutants to waters of
the United States. As written, this permit acknowledges that in many
instances, the entity making the decision to apply pesticides is
different than the entity that actually applies the pesticides (for
example, a mosquito control district may decide that a pesticide
application is needed and enter into a contract with a for-hire
commercial applicator to perform the application). EPA, however,
defines both of these entities as ``operators.'' EPA drafted this
permit with the intent of clarifying which entity is expected to
implement which permit conditions with the goal of minimizing
duplication of effort while still providing flexibility for multiple
operators to decide how compliance with permit conditions will be
achieved. Generally, the entity making the decision to apply pesticides
is responsible for complying with provisions of the permit leading up
to the actual application of the pesticide (such as IPM identifying and
assessing the pest problem) and any activities after application of the
pesticide. The applicator of the pesticide, if different, is
responsible for those permit requirements that occur during or directly
related to the actual application of the pesticide (such as maintaining
and calibrating equipment). EPA is interested in whether the approach
in this draft general permit is clear and if it provides a logical
approach to the expected sharing of responsibilities.
Notices of Intent
In general, as set forth in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2), dischargers
seeking coverage under a general permit must submit a notice of intent
(NOI) to be covered by the permit. However, 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(v)
provides EPA the authority to cover entities under a general permit
without requiring the submission of an NOI. In Part 1.2.2 of this
permit, EPA proposes annual treatment area thresholds for the
submission of NOIs. EPA is proposing this NOI framework to: (1) Obtain
NOIs from the largest dischargers, (2) eliminate duplicative reporting
by multiple operators for an individual discharge, and (3) clarify the
type of entity responsible for submitting the NOI. Operators that do
not exceed an annual treatment area threshold are covered automatically
under this permit without the need to submit an NOI. EPA is interested
in feedback on whether this NOI framework strikes an appropriate
balance between capturing information on discharges from the largest
pesticide application activities and avoiding the imposition of
unreasonable burdens on operators whose pesticide application
activities affect smaller areas. EPA is also interested in information
on whether the size of the thresholds is appropriate, and whether they
result in obtaining NOIs from an appropriately targeted set of large
dischargers.
If an NOI is required, it must contain either a map or narrative
description of the area and the waters of the United States and the
pesticide use patterns for which permit coverage is being requested for
the duration of the permit. Operators can identify specific waters or
request coverage for all waters within the area for which they are
requesting permit coverage. EPA is interested in feedback on whether
this approach adequately captures the areas and associated waters of
the United States for which permit coverage is being requested.
Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
This draft permit contains narrative technology-based effluent
limitations for the class and scope of activities and operators covered
under this permit. After much research and discussion with experts, EPA
determined that the effluent limitations identified in Part 2 of the
permit, including IPM practice