Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit for Point Source Discharges From the Application of Pesticides; Reissuance, 4289-4294 [2016-01564]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually. Total estimated burden: 1,390 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: $460,000 (per year), which includes $320,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs. Changes in the Estimates: The increase in burden from the mostrecently approved ICR is due to accounting for the assumption that all sources will spend one hour annually reviewing and understanding the rule requirements. Previously, the assumption was that only new sources would incur this burden. There is a small decrease in O&M cost in this ICR due to rounding of all calculated values to three significant digits. In addition, there is an increase of two annual responses due to a minor correction. The previous ICR did not account for notifications of operational changes in calculating the number of responses. Courtney Kerwin, Acting-Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. 2016–01472 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0499; FRL–9941–35– OW] Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit for Point Source Discharges From the Application of Pesticides; Reissuance Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of draft permit and request for public comment. AGENCY: All ten EPA Regions today are proposing for public comment the draft 2016 National Pollutant Discharge SUMMARY: Elimination System (NPDES) pesticide general permit (PGP)—the ‘‘draft 2016 PGP.’’ The draft 2016 PGP covers point source discharges from the application of pesticides to waters of the United States. Once finalized, the draft 2016 PGP will replace the existing permit that will expire at midnight on October 31, 2016. The draft 2016 PGP has the same conditions and requirements as the 2011 PGP and would authorize certain point source discharges from the application of pesticides to waters of the United States in accordance with the terms and conditions described therein. EPA proposes to issue this permit for five (5) years in all areas of the country where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. EPA solicits public comment on all aspects of the draft 2016 PGP. This Federal Register notice describes the draft 2016 PGP in general and also includes specific topics about which the Agency is particularly seeking comment. The fact sheet accompanying the permit contains supporting documentation. EPA encourages the public to read the fact sheet to better understand the draft 2016 PGP. DATES: Comments on the draft 2016 PGP must be received on or before March 11, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OW–2015–0499, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment 4289 contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. EPA Regional Office listed in Section I.D, or Prasad Chumble, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management at tel.: 202–564–0021 or email: chumble.prasad@epa.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This 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. Will public hearings be held on this action? D. Finalizing the Draft 2016 PGP E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for the Draft 2016 PGP? II. Background III. Scope and Applicability of the Draft 2016 PGP A. Geographic Coverage B. Categories of Facilities Covered C. Summary of the Permit Requirements and Provisions for Which EPA Is Soliciting Comment IV. Cost Impacts of the Draft 2016 PGP V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 VI. Executive Order 13175 I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? You may be affected by this action if you apply pesticides, under the use patterns in Section III.B., that result 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: TABLE 1—ENTITIES POTENTIALLY REGULATED BY THE DRAFT 2016 PGP Category NAICS mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Agriculture parties—General agricultural interests, farmers/producers, forestry, and irrigation. 111 Examples of potentially affected entities Crop Production ............. 113110 Timber Tract Operations. 113210 Forest Nurseries Gathering of Forest Products. 221310 Water Supply for Irrigation. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:57 Jan 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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. E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 4290 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices TABLE 1—ENTITIES POTENTIALLY REGULATED BY THE DRAFT 2016 PGP—Continued Category NAICS Examples of potentially affected entities Pesticide parties (includes pesticide manufacturers, other pesticide users/interests, and consultants). Public health parties (includes mosquito or other vector control districts and commercial applicators that service these). 325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing. 923120 Administration of Public Health Programs. Formulation and preparation of agricultural pest control chemicals. 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. 924120 Administration of Conservation Programs. 221 B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information? The draft 2016 PGP, fact sheet and all supporting documents are available at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0499. Electronic versions of the draft 2016 PGP and fact sheet are also available on EPA’s NPDES Web site at www.epa.gov/ npdes/pesticides. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Utility parties (includes utilities) ......................... may provide written or oral statements and data pertaining to the draft 2016 PGP at any such public hearing. C. Will public hearings be held on this action? EPA has not scheduled any public hearings to receive public comment concerning the draft 2016 PGP. However, interested persons may request a public hearing pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12 concerning the draft 2016 PGP. Requests for a public hearing must be sent or delivered in writing to the same address as provided above, for public comments prior to the close of the comment period. Requests for a public hearing must state the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12, EPA shall hold a public hearing if it finds, on the basis of requests, a significant degree of public interest in a public hearing on the draft 2016 PGP. If EPA decides to hold a public hearing, a public notice of the date, time and place of the hearing will be made at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Any person VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:57 Jan 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 Utilities ........................... 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 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. D. Finalizing the Draft 2016 PGP EPA intends to issue a final 2016 PGP on or prior to October 31, 2016 (the expiration date of the 2011 PGP). The final 2016 PGP will be issued after all public comments received during the public comment period have been considered and appropriate changes made to the draft 2016 PGP. EPA will include its response to comments received in the docket as part of the final permit decision. Once the final 2016 PGP becomes effective, eligible Operators may seek authorization under the new PGP as outlined in the permit. To ensure uninterrupted permit coverage from the 2011 PGP to the new permit, Operators, who are required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI), must submit their NOI for coverage under the new permit prior to discharge as outlined in the permit (no later than 10 or 30 days before discharge). See Part 1.2.4 of the draft 2016 PGP. E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for the Draft 2016 PGP? For EPA Region 1, contact George Papadopoulos at tel.: (617) 918–1579; or email at papadopoulos.george@epa.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 For EPA Region 2, contact Maureen Krudner at tel.: (212) 637–3874; or email at krudner.maureen@epa.gov. For EPA Region 3, contact Mark Smith at tel.: (215) 814–3105; or email at smith.mark@epa.gov. For EPA Region 4, contact Sam Sampath at tel.: (404) 562–9229; or email at sampath.sam@epa.gov. For EPA Region 5, contact Mark Ackerman at tel.: (312) 353–4145; or email at ackerman.mark@epa.gov. For EPA Region 6, contact Kilty Baskin at tel.: (214) 665–7500 or email at baskin.kilty@epa.gov. For EPA Region 7, contact Kimberly Hill at tel.: (913) 551–7841 or email at: hill.kimberly@epa.gov. For EPA Region 8, contact David Rise at tel.: (406) 457–5012 or email at: rise.david@epa.gov. For EPA Region 9, contact Pascal Mues at tel.: (415) 972–3768 or email at: mues.pascal@epa.gov. For EPA Region 10, contact Dirk Helder at tel.: (208) 378–5749 or email at: helder.dirk@epa.gov. II. Background 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 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ‘‘(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 ‘‘coverage’’) under a section 402 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. EPA issued the first Pesticide General Permit (PGP) on October 31, 2011 in response to a United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling vacating EPA’s 2006 Final Rule on Aquatic Pesticides. National Cotton Council of America. v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009). EPA developed the PGP to control point source discharges of biological pesticides, and chemical pesticides that leave a residue, into waters of the United States. Implementation of the 2011 PGP has been successful during its first four years. EPA is not aware of any lawsuits brought against Operators discharging under EPA’s PGP. The regulated community has raised very few implementation issues, and EPA resolved those issues. The provisions in the permit for pesticide applications during emergencies have been effectively implemented. Finally, Operators have generally submitted the NOIs and Annual Reports on time to the Agency. However, in an effort to pursue continuous improvement to protect water quality, EPA seeks comment on the draft 2016 PGP, in general, and on specific topics as described in Section III.C, below. III. Scope and Applicability of the Draft 2016 PGP A. Geographic Coverage EPA would provide permit coverage for classes of discharges where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. The geographic coverage of today’s draft VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:57 Jan 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 2016 PGP is listed below. Where the permit covers activities on Indian Country lands, those areas are as listed below within the borders of that state: EPA Region 1 • Massachusetts, including Indian Country lands within Massachusetts • Indian Country lands within Connecticut • New Hampshire • Indian Country lands within Rhode Island • Federal Facilities within Vermont EPA Region 2 • Indian Country lands within New York State • Puerto Rico EPA Region 3 • The District of Columbia • Federal Facilities within Delaware EPA Region 4 • Indian Country lands within Alabama • Indian Country lands within Florida • Indian Country lands within Mississippi • Indian Country lands within North Carolina EPA Region 5 • Indian Country lands within Michigan • Indian Country lands within Minnesota • Indian Country lands within Wisconsin EPA Region 6 • Indian Country lands within Louisiana • New Mexico, including Indian Country lands within New Mexico, except Navajo Reservation Lands (see Region 9) and Ute Mountain Reservation Lands (see Region 8) • Indian Country lands within Oklahoma • Discharges in 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 or geothermal resources, including transportation of crude oil or natural gas by pipeline, including Indian Country lands EPA Region 7 • Indian Country lands within Iowa • Indian Country lands within Kansas • Indian Country lands within Nebraska, except Pine Ridge Reservation lands (see Region 8) EPA Region 8 • Federal Facilities in Colorado, including those on Indian Country PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • • • • • 4291 lands within Colorado as well as the portion of the Ute Mountain Reservation located in New Mexico Indian Country lands within Montana Indian Country lands within North Dakota Indian Country lands within South Dakota, as well as the portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation located in Nebraska (see Region 7) Indian Country lands within Utah, except Goshute and Navajo Reservation lands (see Region 9) Indian Country lands within Wyoming EPA Region 9 • The Island of American Samoa • Indian Country lands within Arizona as well as Navajo Reservation lands in New Mexico (see Region 6) and Utah (see Region 8) • Indian Country lands within California • The Island of Guam • The Johnston Atoll • Midway Island, Wake Island, and other unincorporated U.S. possessions • 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 • Indian Country lands within Alaska • Idaho, including Indian Country lands within Idaho, except Duck Valley Reservation lands (see Region 9) • Indian Country lands within Oregon, except Fort McDermitt Reservation lands (see Region 9) • Federal Facilities in Washington, including those located on Indian Country lands within Washington. B. Categories of Facilities Covered The draft 2016 PGP has the same requirements and conditions as EPA’s 2011 PGP and regulates the same discharges to waters of the United States from the application of (1) biological pesticides, and (2) chemical pesticides that leave a residue. These apply to 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 and other flying insect pests in this use category include mosquitoes and black flies. • Weed and Algae Pest Control—to control weeds, algae, and pathogens that E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 4292 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices are pests in water and at water’s edge, including ditches and/or canals. • Animal Pest Control—to control animal pests in water and at water’s edge. Animal pests in this use category include fish, lampreys, insects, mollusks, and pathogens. • Forest Canopy Pest Control— application of a pesticide to a forest canopy to control the population of a pest species (e.g., insect or pathogen) where, to target the pests 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 III.1.1 of the Fact Sheet for the draft 2016 PGP. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES C. Summary of the Permit Requirements and Provisions for Which EPA Is Soliciting Comment Once issued, the final 2016 PGP will replace the 2011 PGP, which was issued for a five-year term on October 31, 2011 (see 76 FR 68750). The draft 2016 PGP has the same conditions and requirements as the existing 2011 PGP, and is structured in the same nine parts: (1) Coverage under the permit, (2) technology-based effluent limitations, (3) water quality-based effluent limitations, (4) monitoring, (5) pesticide discharge management plan, (6) corrective action, (7) recordkeeping and Annual Reporting, (8) EPA contact information and mailing addresses, and (9) permit conditions applicable to specific states, Indian country lands or territories. Additionally, as with the 2011 PGP, the draft 2016 PGP includes nine appendices with additional conditions and guidance for permittees: (A) Definitions, abbreviations, and acronyms, (B) standard permit conditions, (C) areas covered, (D) Notice of Intent (NOI) form, (E) Notice of Termination (NOT) form, (F) Pesticide Discharge Evaluation worksheet (PDEW), (G) Annual Reporting template, (H) Adverse Incident template, and (I) endangered species procedures. The following is a summary of the draft 2016 PGP’s requirements: • The draft 2016 PGP defines ‘‘Operator’’ (i.e., the entity required to obtain NPDES permit coverage for discharges) to include any (a) Applicator who performs the application of pesticides or has day-today control of the application of pesticides that results in a discharge to waters of the United States, or (b) Decision-maker who controls any decision to apply pesticides that results in a discharge to waters of the United States. There may be instances when a VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:57 Jan 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 single entity acts as both an Applicator and a Decision-maker. • All Applicators are required to minimize pesticide discharges by using only the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide application necessary to control the target pest, maintain pesticide application equipment in proper operating condition, control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, and monitor for and report any adverse incidents. • All Decision-makers are required, to the extent not determined by the Applicator, to minimize pesticide discharges by using only the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide application necessary to control the target pest. All Decision-makers are also required to control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards and monitor for and report any adverse incidents. • Certain Decision-makers [i.e., any agency for which pest management for land resource stewardship is an integral part of the organization’s operations, entities with a specific responsibility to control pests (e.g., mosquito and weed control districts), local governments or other entities that apply pesticides in excess of specified annual treatment area thresholds, and entities that discharge pesticides to Tier 3 waters or to waters of the United States containing National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern] are required to also submit an NOI to obtain authorization to discharge and implement pest management options to reduce the discharge of pesticides to waters of the United States. Of this group, certain large Decision-makers must also develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP), submit annual reports, and maintain detailed records. Certain small Decision-makers are required to complete a pesticide discharge evaluation worksheet for each pesticide application (in lieu of the more comprehensive PDMP), an annual report, and detailed recordkeeping. While EPA encourages the public to review and comment on all aspects and provisions in the draft 2016 PGP, EPA specifically solicits comments on the following as part of this reissuance: (1) Notice of Intent. As with the 2011 PGP, the draft 2016 PGP requires only certain Decision-makers, as discussed above, to submit NOIs. If an NOI is required, it must contain either a map or narrative description of the area and the potentially affected 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 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 waters or request coverage for all waters within the area for which they are requesting permit coverage. EPA is interested in feedback on whether the NOI data requirements capture adequate information on the pesticide application areas and associated waters of the United States for which permit coverage is being requested. For example, in the NOI submissions for the 2011 PGP, EPA received a variety of submissions for the Pest Management Areas ranging from maps of large waterbodies to specific subsections of streams. NOIs submitted under the 2011 PGP are available online at (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/aps/ f?p=PGP_2011:HOME::::::), and a summary of the data is available in the docket EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0257. EPA requests comments on whether different, or more specific and consistent, information should be required to better determine the locations of pesticides applications. As mentioned above, the draft 2016 PGP requires Decision-makers to include in their NOIs a description of the areas where pesticides are applied (or treatment areas) within the broader designated Pest Management Area. Within the Pest Management Area, Operators are required to determine if they are applying to impaired or Tier 3 waters; however, Operators are not required to determine whether their application will impact the water quality of drinking water supplies. EPA seeks feedback on how best to collect information to determine if pesticides activities covered under this permit could impact drinking water source protection areas. One possible approach would be to require a determination of whether a portion of the Pest Management Area is within a public drinking water supply source protection area. If EPA adopted this approach, EPA would add a ‘‘Yes/No’’ indicator to the eNOI form (Appendix D) to indicate whether a portion of the Pest Management Area is within a public water supply source water protection area. EPA solicits comment on this approach. (2) Annual Reporting. As with the 2011 PGP, the draft 2016 PGP requires any Decision-maker who is required to submit an NOI and is a large entity, and any Decision-maker with discharges to waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern including small entities, to submit an annual report to EPA that contains, among other things, a previous calendar year’s compilation of pesticide products applied, total annual quantities applied, locations where pesticide applications were made, and information on any adverse incidents or corrective actions E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices resulting from discharges covered under the draft 2016 PGP. See Appendix G of the draft 2016 PGP, Annual Report template. Due to the potential burden of accounting and submitting information on each and every location of application, type, and amount of pesticides, EPA asked for a compilation of that information for the previous year of application. However, as with the information requested in the NOI, EPA received a variety of descriptions for the Pest Management Areas and treatment areas in the Annual Reports. The Agency is interested in comments on the utility and value of the information collected by the reports. EPA would also like feedback on whether less, more, or different information would provide a more accurate accounting of the amount, type, and location of pesticide discharges. Annual Reports submitted under the 2011 PGP are available online at (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/aps/ f?p=PGP_2011:HOME::::::). In addition, to ensure consistency and prevent confusion among the pesticides user community, EPA seeks comment on whether the terminology is clear and easily understandable. For example, many state pesticide regulations require Applicators to report pesticides in ‘‘amount used,’’ unlike the 2011 PGP, which requires that pesticides be reported in ‘‘quantity applied.’’ See Part III.7 of the Fact Sheet for further discussion on Annual Reporting requirements. (3) Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBEL). The 2011 PGP contained several provisions to protect water quality and the draft 2016 PGP includes those same provisions. It includes a narrative WQBEL requiring that discharges be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. Failure to control discharges in a manner that meets applicable water quality standards is a violation of the permit. In addition to the narrative WQBEL, the draft 2016 PGP contains related provisions which act together to further protect water quality. These provisions were also included in the 2011 PGP. For example, the draft 2016 PGP requires the Operator to implement control measures and to take corrective action in response to any excursion of applicable water quality standards. Additionally, EPA expects that, as with the 2011 PGP, the Agency will receive CWA Section 401 certifications for the final 2016 PGP. Some of those certifications will include additional conditions that are required by the state, territory, or tribe, that are necessary to assure compliance with the applicable provisions of the CWA, including water VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:57 Jan 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 quality standards, in specific geographic areas where the permit is available. The CWA Section 401 certifications submitted by states, territories and tribes for the 2011 PGP are included in the docket at EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 0257–1267. The draft 2016 PGP retains the same eligibility provisions from the 2011 PGP which provides additional water quality protection. For instance, the draft 2016 PGP makes clear that Operators must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and other requirements including, but not limited to, requirements contained in the labeling of pesticide products approved under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), known as ‘‘FIFRA labeling.’’ If Operators are found to have applied a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with any 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. Many provisions of FIFRA labeling—such as those relating to application sites, rates, frequency, and methods, as well as provisions concerning proper storage and disposal of pesticide wastes and containers—are requirements that protect water quality. Also, it is important to note that biological pesticides do not cause water quality toxicity because they do not work through a toxic mode of action, and the discharges of chemical pesticides that would be covered by the draft 2016 PGP are residues of pesticides after they have performed their intended purpose. Thus, residue concentrations will be no higher than the concentration of the pesticide as applied. To provide further protection, the draft 2016 PGP also includes the provision from the 2011 PGP which excludes from coverage any discharges of pesticides to waters listed as impaired, including waters with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), where the waterbody is impaired for the active ingredient in that pesticide or its degradates. For geographic areas covered under the draft 2016 PGP, the 303(d) list of impairments 1 indicates that of the 17 pesticide active ingredients identified on the impairment list, seven are for legacy pollutants that have had their FIFRA registrations cancelled and are no longer authorized for use. Furthermore, for the remaining pesticides, analysis of the 2011 PGP annual reports data indicate 1 https://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_ cy.control?p_report_type=T. PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4293 that none of the reported pesticides are on the 303(d) list of impairments in geographic areas where the PGP is authorized. See document titled, ‘‘Comparison of 303(d) Pesticides Impairment Data with 2011 PGP Annual Reports Data’’ in the docket. In addition, as identified in Part 1.2.3 of the 2011 PGP and the draft 2016 PGP, for eligible discharges (e.g., discharges to waters that are impaired for pollutants other than the pesticide product or degradates of that product), EPA may determine that additional TBELs or WQBELs are necessary, or may deny coverage under the PGP and require submission of an application for an individual permit. Prior to reissuing permits, EPA evaluates opportunities for improving permit requirements to protect water quality. Although EPA finds that the conditions and requirements of the draft 2016 PGP are protective of water quality, EPA is aware that some states, tribes, and territories include additional WQBELs in their states-issued permits or included additional conditions in their 401 certifications for the draft 2011 PGP. EPA has examined these additional BMPs and permit conditions and seeks feedback on whether some of these additional measures or others should be added to the draft 2016 PGP WQBELs to further protect water quality. EPA has included examples of some permit requirements from NPDES authorized state WQBELs in the docket. See document titled, ‘‘Examples of State PGP Provisions that Address WQBELs/ WQ Monitoring.’’ Additionally, examples of some BMPs from pesticides labels are available in the docket as well. See document titled, ‘‘Examples of BMPs in Pesticides Product FIFRA Labels to Address Water Quality.’’ IV. Cost Impacts of the PGP EPA performed a cost impact analysis on Operators covered by the 2011 PGP for the purpose of examining the economic achievability of complying with the technology-based effluent limitations and the administrative requirements embodied in the permit. EPA performs this type of analysis where a general permit is developed in the absence of existing applicable national effluent limitations. Based on the 2011 PGP analysis and the updated cost analysis for the draft 2016 PGP, EPA expects that there will be minimal burden on entities, including small businesses, covered under the draft 2016 PGP. EPA finds the limitations to be economically achievable. A copy of EPA’s cost analysis, titled, ‘‘Cost Impact Analysis for the Draft 2016 Pesticide General Permit (PGP),’’ is available in E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 4294 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices the docket. EPA solicits additional information during the public notice of the draft 2016 PGP that will allow for a more accurate cost analysis, and will update the cost impact analysis as appropriate, for the final permit. V. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review The draft 2016 PGP is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. VI. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES This action does not have tribal implications as specified in E.O. 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. EPA directly implements the NPDES Program, including the proposed 2016 PGP, in Indian Country; therefore, in compliance with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process to permit tribes to have meaningful and timely input into the renewal of the 2016 PGP. To gain an understanding of, and where necessary, to address tribal implications of the draft 2016 PGP, EPA conducted the following activities: • October 28, 2015—EPA mailed notification letters to tribal leaders initiating consultation and coordination on the renewal of the PGP. The initiation letter was posted on the tribal portal Web site at https://tcots.epa.gov. • November 19, 2015—EPA held an informational teleconference open to all tribal representatives, and reserved the last part of the teleconference for official consultation comments. Seven tribal officials participated. EPA also invited tribes to submit written comments on the draft 2016 PGP. The presentation was posted on the tribal portal Web site at https://tcots.epa.gov. Although EPA did not receive any comments during the formal consultation period, EPA encourages tribes to participate in the public review process by submitting comments through regulations.gov. EPA will consider the comments and address them in the final action. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:57 Jan 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 Dated: January 14, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. Dated: January 14, 2016. Joan Leary Matthews, Director, Clean Water Division, EPA Region 2. Dated: January 14, 2016. Jose C. Font, Division Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA Region 2. Dated: January 13, 2016. Jon M. Capacasa, Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3. Dated: January 13, 2016. James D. Giattina, Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 4. Dated: January 13, 2016. Tinka G. Hyde, Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5. Dated: January 14, 2016. William K. Honker, P.E., Director, Water Division, EPA Region 6. Dated: January 14, 2016. Karen A. Flournoy, Director, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, EPA Region 7. Dated: January 14, 2016. Darcy O’Connor, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, EPA Region 8. Dated: January 13, 2016. Tomas Torres, Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9. Dated: January 14, 2016. Daniel D. Opalski, Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10. [FR Doc. 2016–01564 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–9941–73–ORD] Office of Research and Development; Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of a New Equivalent Method Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of the designation of a new equivalent method for monitoring ambient air quality. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated, in accordance with 40 CFR part 53, one new reference method for measuring concentrations of PM10 in the ambient air. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Vanderpool, Exposure Methods and Measurement Division (MD–D205– 03), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Email: Vanderpool.Robert@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) as set forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either reference or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for determining compliance with the NAAQSs. A list of all reference or equivalent methods that have been previously designated by EPA may be found at https://www.epa.gov/ ttn/amtic/criteria.html. The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new reference method for measuring concentrations of a new equivalent method for measuring pollutant concentrations of PM10 in the ambient air. These designations are made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as amended on August 31, 2011 (76 FR 54326–54341). The new equivalent method for PM10 is an automated monitoring method utilizing a measurement principle based on sample collection by filtration and analysis by beta-ray attenuation and is identified as follows: EQPM–1215–226, ‘‘Met One Instruments, Inc. E–BAM + Beta Attenuation Mass Monitor ¥ PM10 FEM Configuration,’’ configured for 24 1-hour average measurements of PM10 by beta attenuation, using a glass fiber filter tape roll (460130 or 460180), a sample flow rate of 16.67 liters/min, with the standard (BX–802) EPA PM10 inlet (meeting 40 CFR 50 Appendix L specifications) and equipped with 9250 ambient temperature sensor. Instrument must be operated in accordance with the E–BAM + Particulate Monitor operation manual, revision 1 or later. This designation applies to PM10 measurements only. The application for equivalent method determination for the PM10 method was received by the Office of Research and Development on November 19, 2015. This monitor is commercially available from the applicant, Met One Instruments, Inc., 1600 Washington Blvd., Grants Pass, OR 97526. E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4289-4294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01564]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0499; FRL-9941-35-OW]

Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Pesticide General Permit for Point Source Discharges From the
Application of Pesticides; Reissuance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of draft permit and request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: All ten EPA Regions today are proposing for public comment the
draft 2016 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
pesticide general permit (PGP)--the ``draft 2016 PGP.'' The draft 2016
PGP covers point source discharges from the application of pesticides
to waters of the United States. Once finalized, the draft 2016 PGP will
replace the existing permit that will expire at midnight on October 31,
2016. The draft 2016 PGP has the same conditions and requirements as
the 2011 PGP and would authorize certain point source discharges from
the application of pesticides to waters of the United States in
accordance with the terms and conditions described therein. EPA
proposes to issue this permit for five (5) years in all areas of the
country where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. EPA solicits
public comment on all aspects of the draft 2016 PGP. This Federal
Register notice describes the draft 2016 PGP in general and also
includes specific topics about which the Agency is particularly seeking
comment. The fact sheet accompanying the permit contains supporting
documentation. EPA encourages the public to read the fact sheet to
better understand the draft 2016 PGP.

DATES: Comments on the draft 2016 PGP must be received on or before
March 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2015-0499, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA Regional Office listed in Section
I.D, or Prasad Chumble, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of
Wastewater Management at tel.: 202-564-0021 or email:
chumble.prasad@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 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. Will public hearings be held on this action?
D. Finalizing the Draft 2016 PGP
E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for the Draft 2016 PGP?
II. Background
III. Scope and Applicability of the Draft 2016 PGP
A. Geographic Coverage
B. Categories of Facilities Covered
C. Summary of the Permit Requirements and Provisions for Which
EPA Is Soliciting Comment
IV. Cost Impacts of the Draft 2016 PGP
V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
VI. Executive Order 13175

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be affected by this action if you apply pesticides, under
the use patterns in Section III.B., that result 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:

Table 1--Entities Potentially Regulated by the Draft 2016 PGP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS potentially affected
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture parties--General 111 Crop Producers of crops
agricultural interests, Production. mainly for food and
farmers/producers, forestry, fiber, including
and irrigation. farms, orchards,
groves, greenhouses,
and nurseries that
have irrigation
ditches requiring
pest control.
113110 Timber The operation of
Tract Operations. timber tracts for
the purpose of
selling standing
timber.
113210 Forest Growing trees for
Nurseries reforestation and/or
Gathering of gathering forest
Forest Products. products, such as
gums, barks, balsam
needles, rhizomes,
fibers, Spanish
moss, ginseng, and
truffles.
221310 Water Operating irrigation
Supply for systems.
Irrigation.

[[Page 4290]]

Pesticide parties (includes 325320 Pesticide Formulation and
pesticide manufacturers, and Other preparation of
other pesticide users/ Agricultural agricultural pest
interests, and consultants). Chemical control chemicals.
Manufacturing.
Public health parties 923120 Government
(includes mosquito or other Administration establishments
vector control districts and of Public Health primarily engaged in
commercial applicators that Programs. the planning,
service these). administration, and
coordination of
public health
programs and
services, including
environmental health
activities.
Resource management parties 924110 Government
(includes State departments Administration establishments
of fish and wildlife, State of Air and Water primarily engaged in
departments of pesticide Resource and the administration,
regulation, State Solid Waste regulation, and
environmental agencies, and Management enforcement of air
universities). Programs. 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.
924120 Government
Administration establishments
of Conservation primarily engaged in
Programs. 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?

The draft 2016 PGP, fact sheet and all supporting documents are
available at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-
0499. Electronic versions of the draft 2016 PGP and fact sheet are also
available on EPA's NPDES Web site at www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides.

C. Will public hearings be held on this action?

EPA has not scheduled any public hearings to receive public comment
concerning the draft 2016 PGP. However, interested persons may request
a public hearing pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12 concerning the draft 2016
PGP. Requests for a public hearing must be sent or delivered in writing
to the same address as provided above, for public comments prior to the
close of the comment period. Requests for a public hearing must state
the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. Pursuant
to 40 CFR 124.12, EPA shall hold a public hearing if it finds, on the
basis of requests, a significant degree of public interest in a public
hearing on the draft 2016 PGP. If EPA decides to hold a public hearing,
a public notice of the date, time and place of the hearing will be made
at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Any person may provide written
or oral statements and data pertaining to the draft 2016 PGP at any
such public hearing.

D. Finalizing the Draft 2016 PGP

EPA intends to issue a final 2016 PGP on or prior to October 31,
2016 (the expiration date of the 2011 PGP). The final 2016 PGP will be
issued after all public comments received during the public comment
period have been considered and appropriate changes made to the draft
2016 PGP. EPA will include its response to comments received in the
docket as part of the final permit decision. Once the final 2016 PGP
becomes effective, eligible Operators may seek authorization under the
new PGP as outlined in the permit. To ensure uninterrupted permit
coverage from the 2011 PGP to the new permit, Operators, who are
required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI), must submit their NOI for
coverage under the new permit prior to discharge as outlined in the
permit (no later than 10 or 30 days before discharge). See Part 1.2.4
of the draft 2016 PGP.

E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for the Draft 2016 PGP?

For EPA Region 1, contact George Papadopoulos at tel.: (617) 918-
1579; or email at papadopoulos.george@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 2, contact Maureen Krudner at tel.: (212) 637-3874;
or email at krudner.maureen@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 3, contact Mark Smith at tel.: (215) 814-3105; or
email at smith.mark@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 4, contact Sam Sampath at tel.: (404) 562-9229; or
email at sampath.sam@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 5, contact Mark Ackerman at tel.: (312) 353-4145; or
email at ackerman.mark@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 6, contact Kilty Baskin at tel.: (214) 665-7500 or
email at baskin.kilty@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 7, contact Kimberly Hill at tel.: (913) 551-7841 or
email at: hill.kimberly@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 8, contact David Rise at tel.: (406) 457-5012 or
email at: rise.david@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 9, contact Pascal Mues at tel.: (415) 972-3768 or
email at: mues.pascal@epa.gov.
For EPA Region 10, contact Dirk Helder at tel.: (208) 378-5749 or
email at: helder.dirk@epa.gov.

II. Background

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

[[Page 4291]]

``(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 ``coverage'') under a section 402 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.
EPA issued the first Pesticide General Permit (PGP) on October 31,
2011 in response to a United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruling vacating EPA's 2006 Final Rule on Aquatic Pesticides. National
Cotton Council of America. v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009). EPA
developed the PGP to control point source discharges of biological
pesticides, and chemical pesticides that leave a residue, into waters
of the United States.
Implementation of the 2011 PGP has been successful during its first
four years. EPA is not aware of any lawsuits brought against Operators
discharging under EPA's PGP. The regulated community has raised very
few implementation issues, and EPA resolved those issues. The
provisions in the permit for pesticide applications during emergencies
have been effectively implemented. Finally, Operators have generally
submitted the NOIs and Annual Reports on time to the Agency. However,
in an effort to pursue continuous improvement to protect water quality,
EPA seeks comment on the draft 2016 PGP, in general, and on specific
topics as described in Section III.C, below.

III. Scope and Applicability of the Draft 2016 PGP

A. Geographic Coverage

EPA would provide permit coverage for classes of discharges where
EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. The geographic coverage of
today's draft 2016 PGP is listed below. Where the permit covers
activities on Indian Country lands, those areas are as listed below
within the borders of that state:
EPA Region 1
Massachusetts, including Indian Country lands within
Massachusetts
Indian Country lands within Connecticut
New Hampshire
Indian Country lands within Rhode Island
Federal Facilities within Vermont
EPA Region 2
Indian Country lands within New York State
Puerto Rico
EPA Region 3
The District of Columbia
Federal Facilities within Delaware
EPA Region 4
Indian Country lands within Alabama
Indian Country lands within Florida
Indian Country lands within Mississippi
Indian Country lands within North Carolina
EPA Region 5
Indian Country lands within Michigan
Indian Country lands within Minnesota
Indian Country lands within Wisconsin
EPA Region 6
Indian Country lands within Louisiana
New Mexico, including Indian Country lands within New Mexico,
except Navajo Reservation Lands (see Region 9) and Ute Mountain
Reservation Lands (see Region 8)
Indian Country lands within Oklahoma
Discharges in 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 or geothermal resources, including transportation of
crude oil or natural gas by pipeline, including Indian Country lands
EPA Region 7
Indian Country lands within Iowa
Indian Country lands within Kansas
Indian Country lands within Nebraska, except Pine Ridge
Reservation lands (see Region 8)
EPA Region 8
Federal Facilities in Colorado, including those on Indian
Country lands within Colorado as well as the portion of the Ute
Mountain Reservation located in New Mexico
Indian Country lands within Montana
Indian Country lands within North Dakota
Indian Country lands within South Dakota, as well as the
portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation located in Nebraska (see Region
7)
Indian Country lands within Utah, except Goshute and Navajo
Reservation lands (see Region 9)
Indian Country lands within Wyoming
EPA Region 9
The Island of American Samoa
Indian Country lands within Arizona as well as Navajo
Reservation lands in New Mexico (see Region 6) and Utah (see Region 8)
Indian Country lands within California
The Island of Guam
The Johnston Atoll
Midway Island, Wake Island, and other unincorporated U.S.
possessions
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
Indian Country lands within Alaska
Idaho, including Indian Country lands within Idaho, except
Duck Valley Reservation lands (see Region 9)
Indian Country lands within Oregon, except Fort McDermitt
Reservation lands (see Region 9)
Federal Facilities in Washington, including those located on
Indian Country lands within Washington.

B. Categories of Facilities Covered

The draft 2016 PGP has the same requirements and conditions as
EPA's 2011 PGP and regulates the same discharges to waters of the
United States from the application of (1) biological pesticides, and
(2) chemical pesticides that leave a residue. These apply to 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 and other flying insect pests
in this use category include mosquitoes and black flies.
Weed and Algae Pest Control--to control weeds, algae, and
pathogens that

[[Page 4292]]

are pests in water and at water's edge, including ditches and/or
canals.
Animal Pest Control--to control animal pests in water and
at water's edge. Animal pests in this use category include fish,
lampreys, insects, mollusks, and pathogens.
Forest Canopy Pest Control--application of a pesticide to
a forest canopy to control the population of a pest species (e.g.,
insect or pathogen) where, to target the pests 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 III.1.1 of the Fact Sheet for
the draft 2016 PGP.

C. Summary of the Permit Requirements and Provisions for Which EPA Is
Soliciting Comment

Once issued, the final 2016 PGP will replace the 2011 PGP, which
was issued for a five-year term on October 31, 2011 (see 76 FR 68750).
The draft 2016 PGP has the same conditions and requirements as the
existing 2011 PGP, and is structured in the same nine parts: (1)
Coverage under the permit, (2) technology-based effluent limitations,
(3) water quality-based effluent limitations, (4) monitoring, (5)
pesticide discharge management plan, (6) corrective action, (7)
recordkeeping and Annual Reporting, (8) EPA contact information and
mailing addresses, and (9) permit conditions applicable to specific
states, Indian country lands or territories. Additionally, as with the
2011 PGP, the draft 2016 PGP includes nine appendices with additional
conditions and guidance for permittees: (A) Definitions, abbreviations,
and acronyms, (B) standard permit conditions, (C) areas covered, (D)
Notice of Intent (NOI) form, (E) Notice of Termination (NOT) form, (F)
Pesticide Discharge Evaluation worksheet (PDEW), (G) Annual Reporting
template, (H) Adverse Incident template, and (I) endangered species
procedures.
The following is a summary of the draft 2016 PGP's requirements:
The draft 2016 PGP defines ``Operator'' (i.e., the entity
required to obtain NPDES permit coverage for discharges) to include any
(a) Applicator who performs the application of pesticides or has day-
to-day control of the application of pesticides that results in a
discharge to waters of the United States, or (b) Decision-maker who
controls any decision to apply pesticides that results in a discharge
to waters of the United States. There may be instances when a single
entity acts as both an Applicator and a Decision-maker.
All Applicators are required to minimize pesticide
discharges by using only the amount of pesticide and frequency of
pesticide application necessary to control the target pest, maintain
pesticide application equipment in proper operating condition, control
discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, and
monitor for and report any adverse incidents.
All Decision-makers are required, to the extent not
determined by the Applicator, to minimize pesticide discharges by using
only the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide application
necessary to control the target pest. All Decision-makers are also
required to control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water
quality standards and monitor for and report any adverse incidents.
Certain Decision-makers [i.e., any agency for which pest
management for land resource stewardship is an integral part of the
organization's operations, entities with a specific responsibility to
control pests (e.g., mosquito and weed control districts), local
governments or other entities that apply pesticides in excess of
specified annual treatment area thresholds, and entities that discharge
pesticides to Tier 3 waters or to waters of the United States
containing National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of
Concern] are required to also submit an NOI to obtain authorization to
discharge and implement pest management options to reduce the discharge
of pesticides to waters of the United States. Of this group, certain
large Decision-makers must also develop a Pesticide Discharge
Management Plan (PDMP), submit annual reports, and maintain detailed
records. Certain small Decision-makers are required to complete a
pesticide discharge evaluation worksheet for each pesticide application
(in lieu of the more comprehensive PDMP), an annual report, and
detailed recordkeeping.
While EPA encourages the public to review and comment on all
aspects and provisions in the draft 2016 PGP, EPA specifically solicits
comments on the following as part of this reissuance:
(1) Notice of Intent. As with the 2011 PGP, the draft 2016 PGP
requires only certain Decision-makers, as discussed above, to submit
NOIs. If an NOI is required, it must contain either a map or narrative
description of the area and the potentially affected 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 the NOI data requirements capture adequate
information on the pesticide application areas and associated waters of
the United States for which permit coverage is being requested. For
example, in the NOI submissions for the 2011 PGP, EPA received a
variety of submissions for the Pest Management Areas ranging from maps
of large waterbodies to specific subsections of streams. NOIs submitted
under the 2011 PGP are available online at (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/aps/f?p=PGP_2011:HOME::::::), and a summary of the data is available in
the docket EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257. EPA requests comments on whether
different, or more specific and consistent, information should be
required to better determine the locations of pesticides applications.
As mentioned above, the draft 2016 PGP requires Decision-makers to
include in their NOIs a description of the areas where pesticides are
applied (or treatment areas) within the broader designated Pest
Management Area. Within the Pest Management Area, Operators are
required to determine if they are applying to impaired or Tier 3
waters; however, Operators are not required to determine whether their
application will impact the water quality of drinking water supplies.
EPA seeks feedback on how best to collect information to determine if
pesticides activities covered under this permit could impact drinking
water source protection areas. One possible approach would be to
require a determination of whether a portion of the Pest Management
Area is within a public drinking water supply source protection area.
If EPA adopted this approach, EPA would add a ``Yes/No'' indicator to
the eNOI form (Appendix D) to indicate whether a portion of the Pest
Management Area is within a public water supply source water protection
area. EPA solicits comment on this approach.
(2) Annual Reporting. As with the 2011 PGP, the draft 2016 PGP
requires any Decision-maker who is required to submit an NOI and is a
large entity, and any Decision-maker with discharges to waters of the
United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern including
small entities, to submit an annual report to EPA that contains, among
other things, a previous calendar year's compilation of pesticide
products applied, total annual quantities applied, locations where
pesticide applications were made, and information on any adverse
incidents or corrective actions

[[Page 4293]]

resulting from discharges covered under the draft 2016 PGP. See
Appendix G of the draft 2016 PGP, Annual Report template. Due to the
potential burden of accounting and submitting information on each and
every location of application, type, and amount of pesticides, EPA
asked for a compilation of that information for the previous year of
application. However, as with the information requested in the NOI, EPA
received a variety of descriptions for the Pest Management Areas and
treatment areas in the Annual Reports. The Agency is interested in
comments on the utility and value of the information collected by the
reports. EPA would also like feedback on whether less, more, or
different information would provide a more accurate accounting of the
amount, type, and location of pesticide discharges. Annual Reports
submitted under the 2011 PGP are available online at (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/aps/f?p=PGP_2011:HOME::::::). In addition, to
ensure consistency and prevent confusion among the pesticides user
community, EPA seeks comment on whether the terminology is clear and
easily understandable. For example, many state pesticide regulations
require Applicators to report pesticides in ``amount used,'' unlike the
2011 PGP, which requires that pesticides be reported in ``quantity
applied.'' See Part III.7 of the Fact Sheet for further discussion on
Annual Reporting requirements.
(3) Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBEL). The 2011 PGP
contained several provisions to protect water quality and the draft
2016 PGP includes those same provisions. It includes a narrative WQBEL
requiring that discharges be controlled as necessary to meet applicable
water quality standards. Failure to control discharges in a manner that
meets applicable water quality standards is a violation of the permit.
In addition to the narrative WQBEL, the draft 2016 PGP contains
related provisions which act together to further protect water quality.
These provisions were also included in the 2011 PGP. For example, the
draft 2016 PGP requires the Operator to implement control measures and
to take corrective action in response to any excursion of applicable
water quality standards. Additionally, EPA expects that, as with the
2011 PGP, the Agency will receive CWA Section 401 certifications for
the final 2016 PGP. Some of those certifications will include
additional conditions that are required by the state, territory, or
tribe, that are necessary to assure compliance with the applicable
provisions of the CWA, including water quality standards, in specific
geographic areas where the permit is available. The CWA Section 401
certifications submitted by states, territories and tribes for the 2011
PGP are included in the docket at EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257-1267.
The draft 2016 PGP retains the same eligibility provisions from the
2011 PGP which provides additional water quality protection. For
instance, the draft 2016 PGP makes clear that Operators must comply
with all applicable statutes, regulations, and other requirements
including, but not limited to, requirements contained in the labeling
of pesticide products approved under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), known as ``FIFRA labeling.'' If Operators
are found to have applied a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with any
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. Many provisions of FIFRA labeling--such as those relating to
application sites, rates, frequency, and methods, as well as provisions
concerning proper storage and disposal of pesticide wastes and
containers--are requirements that protect water quality. Also, it is
important to note that biological pesticides do not cause water quality
toxicity because they do not work through a toxic mode of action, and
the discharges of chemical pesticides that would be covered by the
draft 2016 PGP are residues of pesticides after they have performed
their intended purpose. Thus, residue concentrations will be no higher
than the concentration of the pesticide as applied.
To provide further protection, the draft 2016 PGP also includes the
provision from the 2011 PGP which excludes from coverage any discharges
of pesticides to waters listed as impaired, including waters with Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), where the waterbody is impaired for the
active ingredient in that pesticide or its degradates. For geographic
areas covered under the draft 2016 PGP, the 303(d) list of impairments
\1\ indicates that of the 17 pesticide active ingredients identified on
the impairment list, seven are for legacy pollutants that have had
their FIFRA registrations cancelled and are no longer authorized for
use. Furthermore, for the remaining pesticides, analysis of the 2011
PGP annual reports data indicate that none of the reported pesticides
are on the 303(d) list of impairments in geographic areas where the PGP
is authorized. See document titled, ``Comparison of 303(d) Pesticides
Impairment Data with 2011 PGP Annual Reports Data'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ https://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, as identified in Part 1.2.3 of the 2011 PGP and the
draft 2016 PGP, for eligible discharges (e.g., discharges to waters
that are impaired for pollutants other than the pesticide product or
degradates of that product), EPA may determine that additional TBELs or
WQBELs are necessary, or may deny coverage under the PGP and require
submission of an application for an individual permit.
Prior to reissuing permits, EPA evaluates opportunities for
improving permit requirements to protect water quality. Although EPA
finds that the conditions and requirements of the draft 2016 PGP are
protective of water quality, EPA is aware that some states, tribes, and
territories include additional WQBELs in their states-issued permits or
included additional conditions in their 401 certifications for the
draft 2011 PGP. EPA has examined these additional BMPs and permit
conditions and seeks feedback on whether some of these additional
measures or others should be added to the draft 2016 PGP WQBELs to
further protect water quality. EPA has included examples of some permit
requirements from NPDES authorized state WQBELs in the docket. See
document titled, ``Examples of State PGP Provisions that Address
WQBELs/WQ Monitoring.'' Additionally, examples of some BMPs from
pesticides labels are available in the docket as well. See document
titled, ``Examples of BMPs in Pesticides Product FIFRA Labels to
Address Water Quality.''

IV. Cost Impacts of the PGP

EPA performed a cost impact analysis on Operators covered by the
2011 PGP for the purpose of examining the economic achievability of
complying with the technology-based effluent limitations and the
administrative requirements embodied in the permit. EPA performs this
type of analysis where a general permit is developed in the absence of
existing applicable national effluent limitations. Based on the 2011
PGP analysis and the updated cost analysis for the draft 2016 PGP, EPA
expects that there will be minimal burden on entities, including small
businesses, covered under the draft 2016 PGP. EPA finds the limitations
to be economically achievable. A copy of EPA's cost analysis, titled,
``Cost Impact Analysis for the Draft 2016 Pesticide General Permit
(PGP),'' is available in

[[Page 4294]]

the docket. EPA solicits additional information during the public
notice of the draft 2016 PGP that will allow for a more accurate cost
analysis, and will update the cost impact analysis as appropriate, for
the final permit.

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

The draft 2016 PGP is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in E.O.
13175. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. EPA
directly implements the NPDES Program, including the proposed 2016 PGP,
in Indian Country; therefore, in compliance with the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with
tribal officials early in the process to permit tribes to have
meaningful and timely input into the renewal of the 2016 PGP. To gain
an understanding of, and where necessary, to address tribal
implications of the draft 2016 PGP, EPA conducted the following
activities:
October 28, 2015--EPA mailed notification letters to
tribal leaders initiating consultation and coordination on the renewal
of the PGP. The initiation letter was posted on the tribal portal Web
site at https://tcots.epa.gov.
November 19, 2015--EPA held an informational
teleconference open to all tribal representatives, and reserved the
last part of the teleconference for official consultation comments.
Seven tribal officials participated. EPA also invited tribes to submit
written comments on the draft 2016 PGP. The presentation was posted on
the tribal portal Web site at https://tcots.epa.gov.

Although EPA did not receive any comments during the formal
consultation period, EPA encourages tribes to participate in the public
review process by submitting comments through regulations.gov. EPA will
consider the comments and address them in the final action.

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

Dated: January 14, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Dated: January 14, 2016.
Joan Leary Matthews,
Director, Clean Water Division, EPA Region 2.
Dated: January 14, 2016.
Jose C. Font,
Division Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA
Region 2.
Dated: January 13, 2016.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3.
Dated: January 13, 2016.
James D. Giattina,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 4.
Dated: January 13, 2016.
Tinka G. Hyde,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.
Dated: January 14, 2016.
William K. Honker, P.E.,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 6.
Dated: January 14, 2016.
Karen A. Flournoy,
Director, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, EPA Region 7.
Dated: January 14, 2016.
Darcy O'Connor,
Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and
Regulatory Assistance, EPA Region 8.
Dated: January 13, 2016.
Tomas Torres,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.
Dated: January 14, 2016.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-01564 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.