21938 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–9008–6] 

Environmental Impacts Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements 

Filed 04/01/2013 Through 04/05/2013 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

Notice 

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that EPA make public its 

comments on EISs issued by other 

Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters 

on EISs are available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/ 

eisdata.html. 

EIS No. 20130086, Revised Final EIS, 

USFS, ID, Lower Orogrande, North 

Fork Ranger District, Clearwater 

National Forest, Review Period Ends: 

05/28/2013, Contact: George 

Harbaugh 208–935–4260. 

EIS No. 20130087, Draft EIS, BLM, NM, 

TriCounty Resource Management 

Plan, Comment Period Ends: 07/11/ 

2013, Contact: Jennifer Montoya 575– 

525–4316. 

EIS No. 20130088, Final Supplement, 

BOEM, 00, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil 

and Gas Lease Sales: 2013–2014 

Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233 

Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231, 

Review Period Ends: 05/13/2013, 

Contact: Poojan B. Tripathi 703–787– 

1738. 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20130041, Draft EIS, USFS, AZ, 

Salt River Allotments Vegetative 

Management, Comment Period Ends: 

05/08/2013, Contact: Debbie Cress 

928–467–3220, Revision to FR Notice 

Published 02/22/2013; Extending 

Comment Period from 04/08/2013 to 

05/08/2013. 

EIS No. 20130047, Draft EIS, NPS, FL, 

Everglades National Park Draft 

General Management Plan/East 

Everglades Wilderness Study, 

Comment Period Ends: 05/13/2013, 

Contact: Eric Thuerk 303–987–6852, 

Revision to FR Notice Published 03/ 

01/2013; Extending Comment Period 

from 4/15/2013 to 5/13/2013. 

Dated: April 9, 2013. 

Cliff Rader, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08661 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–R3–PAL–001; FRL–9801–9] 

Notice of Issuance of Final Air Permit; 

Architect of the Capitol—Capitol Power 

Plant 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final agency action. 

SUMMARY: This action is to provide 

notice that on January 23, 2013, EPA 

issued a final air permit to the Architect 

of the Capitol for the Capitol Power 

Plant (CPP). This permit became 

effective on February 25, 2013. 

The CPP permit establishes a 

plantwide applicability limit (PAL) for 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen as an 

indicator for nitrogen dioxide, 

particulate matter less than or equal to 

ten micrometers in diameter, and 

greenhouse gases. This action is being 

taken in accordance with EPA’s 

procedures for decision making set forth 

at 40 CFR part 124 and the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

ADDRESSES: The final permit, EPA’s 

response to public comments, and 

additional supporting information are 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

reg3artd/permitting/capitol_power.html. 

Copies of the final permit and EPA’s 

response to comments are also available 

for review at the EPA Region III office 

and upon request in writing. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding 

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Gordon, (215) 814–2039, or by 

email at gordon.mike@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

29, 2012, EPA published a request for 

public comment and notice of a public 

hearing for the CPP permit in the 

Washington Times. EPA received over 

200 comments during the public 

comment period, which ended on 

October 1, 2012. EPA carefully reviewed 

each of the comments submitted, and 

after consideration of the expressed 

view of all interested persons, the 

pertinent federal statutes and 

regulations, the applications and 

additional material relevant to the 

applications and contained in the 

administrative record, EPA made a 

decision in accordance with 40 CFR 

52.21 and 40 CFR part 124 to issue the 

final PAL permit to CPP. The permit 

was signed on January 23, 2013, and 

notice of the final permit decision was 

provided in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 124.15. The 

District Department of the Environment 

(DDOE) is also in the process of issuing 

permits to CPP, however, the DDOE’s 

permits are not part of this action. 

Under 40 CFR 124.19(f)(2), notice of 

any final EPA action regarding a permit 

issued under the authority of 40 CFR 

52.21 must be published in the Federal 

Register. Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA 

provides for review of any final EPA 

action in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the appropriate circuit. 

Such a petition for review of final EPA 

action must be filed within 60 days from 

the date of notice of such action in the 

Federal Register. For purposes of 

judicial review under the CAA, final 

EPA action occurs when a final 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

permit is issued or denied by EPA, and 

EPA review procedures are exhausted 

under 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1). 

Any person who filed comments on 

the draft CPP permit was provided the 

opportunity to petition the 

Environmental Appeals Board by 

February 25, 2013. No petitions were 

submitted; therefore the CPP permit 

became effective on February 25, 2013. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Diana Esher, 

Director, Air Protection Division, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08697 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2011–0141; FRL–9733–7] 

Final National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) General 

Permit for Discharges Incidental to the 

Normal Operation of a Vessel 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final permit issuance. 

SUMMARY: EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 9, and 10 are finalizing the NPDES 

Vessel General Permit (VGP) to 

authorize discharges incidental to the 

normal operation of non-military and 

non-recreational vessels greater than or 

equal to 79 feet in length. This VGP, 

which has an effective date of December 

19, 2013, will replace the current VGP, 

which was issued in December 2008 

and expires on December 19, 2013. EPA 

provided notice of the availability of the 

draft permit and accompanying fact 

sheet for public comment in the Federal 

Register on December 8, 2011. At that 

time, EPA also provided notice of 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices 21939 

availability of the draft small Vessel 

General Permit, on which the Agency 

has not yet taken final action. 

DATES: This permit is effective on 

December 19, 2013. 

In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, 

this permit shall be considered issued 

for the purpose of judicial review on the 

day 2 weeks after Federal Register 

publication. Under section 509(b) of the 

Clean Water Act, judicial review of this 

general permit can be had by filing a 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals within 120 days after 

the permit is considered issued for 

purposes of judicial review. Under 

section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, 

the requirements in this permit may not 

be challenged later in civil or criminal 

proceedings to enforce these 

requirements. In addition, this permit 

may not be challenged in other agency 

proceedings. Deadlines for submittal of 

notices of intent are provided in Part 1.5 

of the VGP. This permit also provides 

additional dates for compliance with the 

terms of this permit. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on the VGP, contact 

Ryan Albert at 202–564–0763 or Juhi 

Saxena at 202–564–0719, or at EPA 

Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of 

Wastewater Management, Mail Code 

4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington DC 20460; or email at 

vgp@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information 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. Public Outreach: Public Hearings and 

Public Meetings, Webcasts 

D. Who are the EPA regional contacts for 

the permit? 

II. Background of Permit 

A. Statutory and Regulatory History 

B. The 2008 VGP 

C. National Research Council and Science 

Advisory Board Ballast Water Studies 

III. Scope and Applicability of the 2013 VGP 

A. CWA Section 401 Certification and 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

B. Geographic Coverage of VGP 

C. Categories of Vessels Covered Under 

VGP 

D. Summary of the VGP and Significant 

Changes from the Proposed VGP 

IV. Analysis of Economic Impacts of VGP 

V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action applies to vessels 

operating in a capacity as a means of 

transportation that have discharges 

incidental to their normal operation into 

waters subject to this permit, except 

recreational vessels as defined in Clean 

Water Act section 502(25) and vessels of 

the Armed Forces as defined in Clean 

Water Act section 312(a)(14). For a 

discussion of applicability of this permit 

to fishing vessels greater than 79 feet in 

length and to ballast water discharges 

regardless of length, see section II.A 

below. Affected vessels are henceforth 

referred to as non-military, nonrecreational vessels. Unless otherwise 

excluded from coverage by Part 6 of the 

VGP, the waters subject to this permit 

are waters of the U.S. as defined in 40 

CFR 122.2. That provision defines 

‘‘waters of the U.S.’’ as certain inland 

waters and the territorial sea, which 

extends three miles from the baseline. 

More specifically, CWA section 502(8) 

defines ‘‘territorial seas’’ as ‘‘the belt of 

the seas measured from the line of the 

ordinary low water along that portion of 

the coast which is in direct contact with 

the open sea and the line marking the 

seaward limit of inland waters, and 

extending seaward a distance of three 

miles.’’ Note that the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) does not require NPDES permits 

for vessels or other floating craft 

operating as a means of transportation 

beyond the territorial seas, i.e., in the 

contiguous zone or ocean as defined by 

the CWA sections 502(9), (10). See CWA 

section 502(12) and 40 CFR 122.2 

(definition of ‘‘discharge of a 

pollutant’’). This permit, therefore, does 

not apply in such waters. 

Non-military, non-recreational vessels 

greater than 79 feet in length operating 

in a capacity as a means of 

transportation that need NPDES 

coverage for their incidental discharges 

will generally be covered under the 

VGP. 

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: 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2011– 

0141. The official public docket is the 

collection of materials for the final 

permit. It 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 20460. Although all 

documents in the docket are listed in an 

index, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov and 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. Please note that EPA is in the 

process of uploading materials in to the 

docket and expects to be finished with 

that process by two weeks from the date 

of publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically at 

www.federalregister.gov. An electronic 

version of the public docket is available 

through the Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. You may use the 

FDMS 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. Once at 

the Web site, enter the appropriate 

Docket ID No. in the ‘‘Search’’ box to 

view the docket. 

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA dockets. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. 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. 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 this section. 

3. Response to public comments. EPA 

received 5,486 comments on the 

proposed VGP from the shipping 

industry, States, Tribes, environmental 

groups, foreign governments and the 

public. EPA has responded to all 

comments received and has included 

these responses in a separate document 

in the public docket for this permit. See 

the document titled Proposed VGP: 

EPA’s Response to Public Comments. 

C. Public Outreach: Public Hearings and 

Public Meetings, Webcasts 

Because EPA anticipated a significant 

degree of public interest in the draft 

VGP, EPA held a public hearing on 

Wednesday January 11, 2012 to receive 

public comment and answer questions 

concerning the draft permit. The hearing 

was held at EPA East Room 1153, 1201 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington DC 

20460. In addition, EPA held a public 

meeting on Monday January 23, 2012, at 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

21940 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices 

the Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal Building, 

Room 331, 77 West Jackson Blvd., 

Chicago IL 60604. The purpose of those 

meetings was to present the proposed 

requirements of the draft VGP and the 

basis for those requirements, as well as 

to answer questions concerning the draft 

permit. The public meetings and public 

hearing were attended by a wide variety 

of stakeholders including 

representatives from industry, 

government agencies, and 

environmental organizations. In 

addition, EPA held a webcast on 

January 19, 2012 and two Question and 

Answer sessions on January 31 and 

February 7, 2012 to provide information 

on the proposed permit and to answer 

questions from interested parties that 

were unable to attend the public 

meetings or hearing. 

D. Who are the EPA regional contacts 

for this permit? 

For EPA Region 1, contact John Nagle 

at US EPA, Region 1, New England/ 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code: 

OEP 06–1, Boston, MA 02109–3912; or 

at tel.: (617) 918–1054; or email at 

nagle.john@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 2, contact Sieglinde 

Pylypchuk at US EPA, Region 2, 290 

Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866; or at tel.: (212) 637–4133; 

or email at 

pylypchuk.sieglinde@epa.gov. For 

Puerto Rico, contact Sergio Bosques at 

tel.: (787) 977–5838; or email at 

bosques.sergio@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 3, contact Mark 

Smith at US EPA, Region 3, 1650 Arch 

St., Mail Code: 3WP41, Philadelphia, 

PA 19103–2029, or at tel.: (215) 814– 

3105; or email at smith.mark@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 4, contact Marshall 

Hyatt at US EPA, Region 4 Water 

Protection Division, Atlanta Federal 

Center, 61 Forsyth St. SW., Atlanta, GA 

30303–3104; or at tel.: (404) 562–9304; 

or email at hyatt.marshall@epa.gov 

For EPA Region 5, contact Sean 

Ramach at US EPA, Region 5, 77 W 

Jackson Blvd., Mail Code: WN16J, 

Chicago, IL 60604–3507; or at tel.: (312) 

886–5284; or email at 

ramach.sean@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 6, contact Jenelle Hill 

at U.S. EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., 

Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202–2733; or at 

tel.: (214) 665–9737; or email at 

hill.jenelle@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 7, contact Alex 

Owutaka at U.S. EPA Region 7, 11201 

Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 

66219; or at tel.: (913) 551–7584; or 

email at owutaka.alex@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 8, contact Lisa 

Luebke at US EPA, Region 8, 1595 

Wynkoop St., Mail Code: 8P–W–WW, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129; or at tel.: (303) 

312–6256; or email at 

luebke.lisa@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene 

Bromley at US EPA, Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901; or at tel.: (415) 972–3510; 

or email at bromley.eugene@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 10, contact Cindi 

Godsey at US EPA, Region 10, 222 W 

7th Ave., Box 19, Anchorage, AK 99513; 

or at tel.: (907) 271–6561; or email at 

godsey.cindi@epa.gov. 

II. Background of Permit 

A. Statutory and Regulatory History 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) section 

301(a) 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 a 

‘‘discernible, confined and discrete 

conveyance’’ and includes a ‘‘vessel or 

other floating craft.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1362(14). 

The term ‘‘pollutant’’ includes, among 

other things, ‘‘garbage * * * chemical 

wastes * * * and industrial, municipal, 

and agricultural waste discharged into 

water.’’ The Act’s definition of 

‘‘pollutant’’ specifically excludes 

‘‘sewage from vessels or a discharge 

incidental to the normal operation of a 

vessel of the Armed Forces’’ within the 

meaning of CWA section 312. 33 U.S.C. 

1362(6). 

One way a person may discharge a 

pollutant without violating the CWA 

section 301 prohibition is by obtaining 

authorization to discharge (referred to 

herein as ‘‘coverage’’) under a CWA 

section 402 National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). Under CWA 

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 original VGP in 

response to a District Court ruling 

which vacated a longstanding regulatory 

exemption for discharges incidental to 

the normal operation of vessels at 40 

CFR 122.3(a). Northwest Envtl. 

Advocates et al. v. United States EPA, 

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69476 (N.D. Cal. 

2006). EPA developed the VGP to 

regulate incidental discharges from 

vessels operating in a capacity as a 

means of transportation. That permit 

was issued on December 18, 2008, with 

an effective date of December 19, 2008. 

73 FR79,473 (Dec. 29, 2008). 

Subsequently, the U.S. District Court for 

the Northern District of California 

issued an order providing that ‘‘the 

exemption for discharges incidental to 

the normal operation of a vessel, 

contained in 40 CFR 122.3(a), is vacated 

as of February 6, 2009.’’ Northwest 

Environmental Advocates et al. v. 

United States EPA, No. C 03–05760–SI 

(December 17, 2008). Therefore, the date 

when the regulated community was 

required to comply with the VGP was 

February 6, 2009. 

On July 31, 2008 Congress enacted 

Public Law 110–299, which generally 

prohibited NPDES permitting for 

discharges incidental to the normal 

operation of commercial fishing vessels 

(regardless of size) and those other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in 

length for two years from enactment. 

This moratorium was subsequently 

extended to December 18, 2013, by 

Public Law 111–215. On December 20, 

2012, President Obama signed the Coast 

Guard and Maritime Transportation Act 

of 2012, which extends the expiration 

date of the moratorium from December 

18, 2013 to December 18, 2014. § 703 of 

Public Law 112–213. That moratorium 

does not include ballast water 

discharges. Therefore, commercial 

fishing vessels that are greater than 79 

feet and do not have ballast water 

discharges will, barring further 

legislative action, not be required to 

seek coverage under the VGP until the 

moratorium expires on December 18, 

2014. That moratorium also does not 

apply to other incidental discharges, 

which on a case-by-case basis, EPA or 

the State, as appropriate, determines 

contribute to a violation of water quality 

standards or pose an unacceptable risk 

to human health or the environment. 

The original legislation called for EPA 

to study the relevant discharges and 

submit a report to Congress. EPA 

finalized this Report to Congress, 

entitled ‘‘Study of Discharges Incidental 

to Normal Operation of Commercial 

Fishing Vessels and Other NonRecreational Vessels Less Than 79 Feet’’ 

in August 2010, and it can be viewed at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/ 

background.cfm. 

B. The 2008 VGP 

The 2008 VGP addresses 26 potential 

vessel discharge streams by establishing 

effluent limits, including Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), to 

control the discharges of waste streams 

and constituents found in those waste 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices 21941 

streams. For these discharges, the 

permit establishes effluent limits 

pertaining to the constituents found in 

the effluent and BMPs designed to 

decrease the amount of constituents 

entering the waste stream. A vessel 

might not produce all of these 

discharges, but a vessel owner or 

operator is responsible for meeting the 

applicable effluent limits and 

complying with all the effluent limits 

for every listed discharge that the vessel 

produces. 

To obtain authorization, the owner or 

operator of a vessel that is either 300 or 

more gross registered tons or has the 

capacity to hold or discharge more than 

8 cubic meters (2113 gallons) of ballast 

water is required to submit a Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to receive permit coverage, 

beginning six months after the permit’s 

issuance date, but no later than nine 

months after the permit’s issuance date. 

Owners or operators of vessels that meet 

the applicable eligibility requirements 

for permit coverage but are not required 

to submit an NOI, including vessels less 

than 300 gross registered tons with no 

more than 8 cubic meters of ballast 

water capacity are automatically 

authorized by the permit to discharge 

according to the permit requirements. 

The 2008 VGP requires owners or 

operators of vessels to conduct routine 

self-inspections and monitoring of all 

areas of the vessel that the permit 

addresses. The routine self-inspections 

are required to be documented in the 

ship’s logbook. Analytical monitoring of 

certain discharges is required for certain 

types of vessels. The VGP also requires 

owners or operators of vessels to 

conduct comprehensive annual vessel 

inspections, to ensure even the hard-toreach areas of the vessel are inspected 

for permit compliance. If the vessel is 

placed in dry dock while covered under 

the permit, a dry dock inspection and 

report is required to be completed. 

Additional monitoring requirements are 

imposed on owners or operators of 

certain classes of vessels, based on their 

unique characteristics. 

For additional information on the 

2008 VGP, please go to www.epa.gov/ 

npdes or see Docket ID. No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2008–0055 at www.regulations.gov. 

C. National Research Council and 

Science Advisory Board Ballast Water 

Studies 

As part of its strategy for improving 

the Agency’s understanding of ballast 

water discharges, EPA, in partnership 

with the United States Coast Guard, 

commissioned two ballast water studies 

from highly respected, independent 

scientific entities. EPA commissioned 

these studies in order to produce the 

best possible scientific compendium of 

ballast water information relevant to the 

development of today’s VGP. EPA 

commissioned these studies to help 

inform the Agency’s decisions about 

what effluent limits to set for ballast 

water discharges. 

The first study was led by the 

National Research Council (which 

functions under the auspices of the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 

the National Academy of Engineering, 

and the Institute of Medicine) and 

addressed how to assess risk to water 

quality associated with ballast water 

discharges (NAS, 2011). For a copy of 

the NAS report, please go to: http:// 

www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=

13184. The second study was led by 

EPA’s autonomous Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) and evaluated the status of 

ballast water treatment technologies. For 

a copy of the SAB report, please see: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sab

product.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/BW%20

discharge!OpenDocument&Table

Row=2.3#2. 

III. Scope and Applicability of the 2013 

VGP 

A. CWA Section 401 Certification and 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

EPA may not issue a permit 

authorizing discharges into the waters of 

a State until that State has granted 

certification under CWA section 401 or 

has waived its right to certify (or been 

deemed to have waived). 33 U.S.C. 

1341(a)(1); 40 CFR 124.53(a). EPA gave 

each State, Tribe, and Territory as 

applicable over 9 months to certify, well 

over the 60 day regulatory norm for 

NPDES permits. EPA found that this 401 

certification had unusual circumstances 

which warranted additional time (e.g., 

the permits regulate discharges of 

mobile point sources; they have broad 

applicability to the waters of every State 

and Tribe in the country). If a State 

believed that any permit condition(s) 

more stringent than those contained in 

the draft permits were necessary to meet 

the applicable requirements of either the 

CWA or State law, the State had an 

opportunity to include those 

condition(s) in its certification. 40 CFR 

124.53(e)(1). A number of States 

provided such conditions in their 

certifications, and EPA has added them 

to the VGP pursuant to CWA section 

401(d). 33 U.S.C. 1341(d). 

Similarly, EPA may not authorize 

discharges under a general permit into 

waters of a State if the State objects with 

EPA’s National Consistency 

Determination, pursuant to the 

regulations implementing of the Coastal 

Zone Management Act (‘‘CZMA’’), 

specifically the regulations at 15 CFR 

930.31(d) and 930.36(e). If the State 

coastal zone management agency objects 

to the general permit, then the general 

permit is not available for use by 

potential general permit users in that 

State unless the applicant who wants to 

use the general permit provides the 

State agency with the applicant’s 

consistency determination and the State 

agency concurs. 15 CFR 930.31(d). 

NOAA has explained that ‘‘a State 

objection to a consistency determination 

for the issuance of a general permit 

would alter the form of CZMA 

compliance required, transforming the 

general permit into a series of case by 

case CZMA decisions and requiring an 

individual who wants to use the general 

permit to submit an individual 

consistency certification to the State 

agency in compliance with 15 CFR part 

930.’’ 71 FR 788, 793. 

B. Geographic Coverage of VGP 

The permit is applicable to discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of a 

vessel (identified in Part 1.2 of the VGP 

and section 3.5 of the VGP fact sheet) 

into waters subject to this permit, which 

means ‘‘waters of the U.S.’’ as defined 

in 40 CFR 122.2, except as otherwise 

excluded by Part 6 of the permit. This 

includes the territorial seas, defined in 

section 502(8) of the CWA, extending to 

three miles from the baseline. Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Costle, 586 F.2d 

650, 655–656 (9th Cir. 1978); Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. 

EPA, 863 F.2d 1420, 1435 (9th Cir. 

1988). 

The general permit will cover vessel 

discharges into the waters of the U.S. in 

all states and territories, regardless of 

whether a state is authorized to 

implement other aspects of the NPDES 

permit program within its jurisdiction, 

except as otherwise excluded by Part 6 

of the VGP. While, pursuant to CWA 

section 402(c), EPA typically is required 

to suspend permit issuance in 

authorized states, EPA may issue 

NPDES permits in authorized states for 

discharges incidental to the normal 

operation of a vessel because section 

402(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act 

prohibits EPA from issuing permits in 

authorized states only for ‘‘those 

discharges subject to [the state’s 

authorized] program.’’ Discharges 

formerly excluded under 40 CFR 122.3 

are not ‘‘subject to’’ authorized state 

programs. The vessel discharges that 

will be covered by the permit are 

discharges formerly excluded from 

NPDES permitting programs under 40 

CFR 122.3. (See discussion of the 

vacatur of this exclusion above.) 

Therefore the discharges at issue are not 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

21942 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices 

considered a part of any currently 

authorized state NPDES program. See 40 

CFR 123.1(i)(2) (where state programs 

have a greater scope of coverage than 

‘‘required’’ under the federal program, 

that additional coverage is not part of 

the authorized program) and 40 CFR 

123.1(g)(1) (authorized state programs 

are not required to prohibit point source 

discharges exempted under 40 

CFR122.3). 

C. Categories of Vessels Covered Under 

VGP 

The VGP applies to owners and 

operators of non-recreational vessels 

that are 79 feet (24.08 meters) and 

greater in length. The types of vessels 

covered under the VGP include cruise 

ships, ferries, barges, mobile offshore 

drilling units, oil tankers or petroleum 

tankers, bulk carriers, cargo ships, 

container ships, other cargo freighters, 

refrigerant ships, research vessels, 

emergency response vessels, including 

firefighting and police vessels, and any 

other vessels operating in a capacity as 

a means of transportation. Vessels of the 

Armed Forces of the United States are 

not eligible for coverage by this permit. 

The discharges eligible for coverage 

under this permit are those covered by 

the former exclusion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) 

prior to its vacatur. 

D. Summary of VGP and Significant 

Changes from the Proposed VGP 

1. Ballast Water 

Today’s final permit contains numeric 

technology-based effluent limitations 

that are applicable to vessels with 

ballast water tanks and over time will 

largely replace the non-numeric effluent 

limitations (BMPs) for ballast water in 

the 2008 VGP. These limitations will 

achieve significant reductions in the 

number of living organisms discharged 

via ballast water into waters subject to 

this permit. Ballast water discharges are 

widely recognized as one of the primary 

sources (or vectors) for the spread of 

aquatic invasive species, also known as 

aquatic nuisance species (ANS). When 

species in ballast tanks are transported 

between waterbodies and discharged, 

they have potential for establishing new, 

non-indigenous populations that can 

cause severe economic and ecological 

impacts. EPA has expressed the numeric 

effluent limit for ballast water 

discharges as numbers of living 

organisms per cubic meter of ballast 

water (i.e. as a maximum acceptable 

concentration) because reducing the 

concentration of living organisms will 

reduce inoculum densities of potential 

invasive species discharged in a vessel’s 

ballast water, i.e., thereby reducing the 

risk posed by the discharge. Today’s 

permit also contains maximum 

discharge limitations for certain 

biocides and residuals to limit the 

impact of these pollutants to waters 

subject to this permit. The final permit 

also allows most vessels which meet the 

treatment requirements to no longer 

perform ballast water exchange. Under 

the VGP, vessel owner/operators subject 

to the concentration-based numeric 

discharge limitations are able to meet 

these limits in one of four ways: treat 

ballast water to meet the applicable 

numeric limits of the VGP prior to 

discharge; transfer the ship’s ballast 

water to a third party for treatment at an 

NPDES permitted facility; use treated 

municipal/potable water as ballast 

water; or not discharge ballast water. As 

in the 2008 VGP, vessels enrolled in, 

and meeting the requirements of the 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Shipboard 

Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) 

would be deemed to be in compliance 

with the numeric limitations. 

As in the 2008 VGP, EPA has 

included certain mandatory practices 

for all vessels. These requirements are 

consistent with EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board’s recommendations to reduce 

risks at multiple points in the ballast’s 

operations (See EPA SAB 2011, 

available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ 

sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/6FFF1

BFB6F4E09FD852578CB006E0149/ 

$File/EPA-SAB-11-009-unsigned.pdf). 

Some of the mandatory practices for all 

vessels equipped with ballast water 

tanks that operate in waters of the U.S 

are to: avoid the discharge of ballast 

water into waters subject to this permit 

that are within or that may directly 

affect marine sanctuaries, marine 

preserves, marine parks, shellfish beds, 

or coral reefs; minimize or avoid uptake 

of ballast water in the listed areas and 

situations; clean ballast tanks regularly 

to remove sediments in mid-ocean or 

under controlled arrangements in port, 

or at drydock; when feasible and safe, 

vessels must use ballast water pumps 

instead of gravity draining to empty 

your ballast water tanks (to remove 

larger living organisms); and minimize 

the discharge of ballast water essential 

for vessel operations while in the waters 

subject to this permit. EPA estimated 

the cost and burden of the ballast water 

requirements in its economic analysis 

for the permit. 

EPA has determined that Best 

Available Technology Economically 

Achievable (BAT) over time will be a 

function of a vessel’s construction date, 

size, and class. The VGP imposes 

several best management practices 

(BMPs) for vessels until they are 

required to meet the numeric ballast 

water limits that EPA has found to be 

available, practicable and economically 

achievable. These interim requirements 

are substantially similar to those in the 

2008 VGP. One of the interim 

management measures is that all vessels 

which operate outside of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) that are equipped 

to carry ballast water and enter the Great 

Lakes via the Saint Lawrence Seaway 

System must conduct ballast water 

exchange or saltwater flushing (as 

applicable) of ballast water tanks 200 

nautical miles from any shore before 

entering either the U.S. or Canadian 

waters of the Seaway System. 

For certain existing vessels, EPA 

proposed a staggered implementation 

schedule to require the vessel to meet 

the numeric effluent limitations by the 

first drydocking after January 1, 2014 or 

January 1, 2016 depending on vessel 

size, which may extend beyond the 

permit term for certain vessels. EPA has 

finalized this schedule. However, EPA 

has adjusted the date in the final VGP 

defining ‘‘new build’’ vessels—which 

are vessels that are subject to numeric 

limits immediately upon the effective 

date of today’s permit—from those 

vessels that are newly constructed after 

January 1, 2012 to those that are newly 

constructed after December 1, 2013. 

EPA notes that this time schedule is 

consistent with the timelines set forth in 

the U.S. Coast Guard’s March 2012 final 

ballast water discharge standard 

rulemaking. 

In today’s permit, the numeric 

concentration-based treatment limits for 

ballast water discharges do not apply to 

some vessels, such as inland and certain 

seagoing vessels less than 1600 gross 

registered tons; vessels operating 

exclusively within a limited area on 

short voyages; unmanned, unpowered 

barges; and vessels built before January 

1, 2009 that operate exclusively in the 

Laurentian Great Lakes (referred to as 

‘‘Lakers’’). The draft VGP would have 

required any vessel (not otherwise 

exempt) with greater than 8 cubic 

meters of ballast water capacity to meet 

the numeric ballast effluent limitations 

for ballast water. In response to 

comments questioning the availability 

of systems for these vessels, EPA 

reconsidered the issue and concluded 

that though technologies are promising 

for future development, numeric ballast 

water treatment limits for inland and 

seagoing vessels less than 1600 gross 

registered tons do not represent BAT at 

this time or over the life of the permit. 

Among other things, most ballast water 

treatment systems have been designed 

for larger vessels and/or vessels which 

only uptake or discharge ballast water 

on either end of longer voyages. 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices 21943 

With respect to Lakers that are not 

subject to the numeric limits found in 

Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP, EPA has 

expanded the definition of Lakers to 

include vessels that operate exclusively 

in the Laurentian Great Lakes (i.e., 

existing vessels that operate upstream of 

the waters of the St. Lawrence River 

west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap 

de Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti 

Island, and west of a line along 63 W. 

longitude from Anticosti Island to the 

north shore of the St. Lawrence River). 

After considering public comment, EPA 

has determined that effluent limits 

based on ballast water treatment do not 

reflect BAT for existing vessels 

operating exclusively in the Laurentian 

Great Lakes at this time. Today’s VGP 

includes three management measures 

specific to Lakers which EPA believes 

reflect BAT, and represent common 

sense approaches to managing ballast 

water discharges for vessels when they 

have not installed ballast water 

treatment systems. 

Additionally, as proposed, the final 

VGP requires vessels entering the Great 

Lakes utilizing a ballast water treatment 

system to conduct ballast water 

exchange or saltwater flushing (as 

applicable) in addition to meeting the 

numeric limits for ballast water once 

they apply: (1) The vessel operates 

outside the Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) and more than 200 nm from any 

shore and then enters the Great Lakes, 

and (2) the vessel has taken on ballast 

water that has a salinity of less than 18 

ppt from a coastal, estuarine, or 

freshwater ecosystem within the 

previous month. If a vessel meeting the 

description in (1) has not taken on 

ballast water with a salinity of less than 

18 ppt in the previous month, the 

master of the vessel would be required 

to certify to this effect as part of the 

ballast water recordkeeping 

requirements before entering the Great 

Lakes. EPA believes that such a 

requirement significantly reduces the 

risk of new invasions from vessels 

entering the Great Lakes, but the 

Agency, for reasons pertaining to the 

efficacy of the requirement in other 

aquatic environments, has not extended 

it to other U.S. waters. Please see 

section 4.4.3.9 of the VGP Fact Sheet for 

discussion. 

2. Non-Ballast Water 

Compared to the 2008 VGP, today’s 

VGP imposes more prescriptive 

technology-based effluent limits in the 

form of Best Management Practices for 

discharges of oil to sea interfaces. The 

VGP requires that all powered vessels 

must use ‘‘environmentally acceptable 

lubricants’’ in their oil-to-sea interfaces 

unless it is technically infeasible to do 

so. Based on public comment received 

on the proposal, EPA clarified that, by 

using the reference to ‘‘technically 

infeasible,’’ EPA intends to refer to 

situations when: no EAL products are 

approved for use in a given application 

that meet manufacturer specifications 

for that equipment; users of products 

that are pre-lubricated (e.g., wire ropes) 

have no available alternatives 

manufactured with EALs; products 

meeting a manufacturers specifications 

are not available within any port in 

which the vessel calls; or changes to use 

an EAL must wait until the vessel’s next 

drydocking. EPA expects that it will be 

technically feasible for a significant 

portion of vessel operators to use EALs, 

particularly for newly built vessels, 

during this permit term. These 

requirements will reduce the toxicity of 

thousands of gallons or more of oil 

leaked into U.S. waters every year. 

In addition, EPA clarified that, even 

though the final permit requires that 

wire ropes or cables and other 

equipment must be thoroughly wiped 

down to remove excess lubricant before 

being placed into service and after 

periodic lubrication, wipe downs to 

remove excess lubricant are not required 

if doing so is deemed unsafe by the 

Master of the vessel. 

Additionally, in the event that the 

permitting moratorium for commercial 

fishing vessels is not extended past 

December 18, 2014, today’s permit will 

be available to authorize the discharge 

of fish hold effluent and will establish 

appropriate Best Management Practices 

for this discharge type after that date. 

Among other things, the proposed VGP 

contained a provision prohibiting the 

discard of unused bait overboard. In 

response to comments, the final VGP 

limits the scope this prohibition and 

clarifies that it applies only to unused 

live bait. Moreover, the prohibition does 

not apply to the unused live bait that is 

discharged into the same waterbody or 

watershed from which it was caught. 

The adjusted prohibition render it easy 

to implement and consistent with 

typical management practices regarding 

the use of live bait, while at the same 

time significantly reducing the risk of 

new invasive species (including fish 

pathogens) introductions attributable to 

the release of unused bait. 

EPA has also included numeric limits 

for exhaust gas scrubber effluent that are 

generally consistent with those 

established by International Maritime 

Organization guidelines for this 

discharge type. Today’s permit includes 

a revised discharge standard from 

washwater from the exhaust gas 

scrubber treatment system for pH. EPA 

believes the revised limit is both 

technically feasible and will ensure the 

discharge does not pose an unacceptable 

risk to receiving water. The proposed 

pH limit of no less than 6.5 was 

modified to better align with the IMO 

guidelines, and therefore, the final VGP 

requires that the discharge washwater 

must have a pH of no less than 6.0 

measured at the ship’s overboard 

discharge. See discussion in section 

4.4.26 of the VGP Fact Sheet for 

additional discussion. 

The VGP contains monitoring 

requirements for certain larger vessels 

for ballast water, bilgewater, graywater, 

and/or exhaust gas scrubber effluent if 

they discharge into waters subject to the 

permit. EPA has included these 

monitoring requirements to assure 

treatment systems are performing as 

required (when applicable) and to 

generate additional information for 

EPA’s future analyses. Based on public 

comments received on the proposed 

VGP, EPA has adjusted the frequency of 

monitoring for some or all parameters 

for each discharge type and/or 

applicability thresholds for vessels 

which must conduct monitoring. These 

revisions in the final VGP have 

generally resulted in a reduced burden 

for the regulated industry relative to the 

proposed VGP. EPA estimated the cost 

and burden of these requirements in its 

economic analysis for the permit. EPA 

had taken comment on more stringent 5 

ppm bilgewater oil and grease discharge 

limits for new build vessels in the VGP; 

based upon further analysis, EPA 

decided to retain the 15 ppm limit in 

the final permit but plans to work with 

our international partners at the IMO to 

explore the issue further. 

The final VGP requires new build 

vessels greater than 400 gross tons 

which discharge bilgewater into waters 

subject to this permit to annually collect 

a sample of the bilgewater effluent for 

analysis of oil using specified methods 

to demonstrate treatment equipment 

maintenance and compliance with this 

permit and record the reading on the oil 

content meter. If the vessel has a typeapproved oil discharge monitoring 

system including an overboard 

discharge control unit that prevents 

bilgewater discharges above 5 ppm and 

has two consecutive years’ worth of 

analytical monitoring results that are 

below 5 ppm for oil and grease during 

the permit term, a vessel may cease 

conducting the annual analytical 

bilgewater monitoring for the rest of the 

permit term. 

3. Administrative Improvements 

EPA has made several efficiency 

improvements, including clarifying that 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

21944 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices 

electronic recordkeeping is allowed 

under the permit, eliminating 

duplicative reporting, and allowing 

consolidated reporting for certain 

vessels. 

Under today’s final VGP, permittees 

not required to submit a NOI are 

required to complete and keep a Permit 

Authorization and Record of Inspection 

(PARI) Form onboard their vessel at all 

times. The final VGP contains the PARI 

form requirement because the Agency 

believes it is an efficient way for the 

owner/operator to certify that they have 

read and agreed to comply with the 

terms of the permit, and demonstrate 

basic understanding of the permit’s 

terms and conditions. In addition, the 

form will provide EPA (or its authorized 

representative) with a standardized 

foundation for conducting inspections. 

Under the final VGP, EPA has 

consolidated the one-time report and 

annual noncompliance report into one 

annual report. As discussed in the fact 

sheet for today’s permit, EPA found that 

the 2008 VGP reporting requirements 

resulted in confusion among some 

permittees. EPA believes that having a 

single annual report that permittees 

must file, which can include all of the 

permittee’s analytical monitoring results 

(as applicable) for the previous year, 

will reduce this confusion and result in 

better information for the Agency. 

Additionally, while the proposed VGP 

allowed operators of unmanned, 

unpowered barges to complete 

combined annual reports if they meet 

certain criteria, the final VGP expands 

the ability for certain vessels 

(unmanned unpowered barges and 

vessels under 300 gross tons) to submit 

a combined annual report, if they meet 

specified criteria, to maximize 

efficiency and reduce the burden on a 

significant portion of the regulated 

universe. Many of these vessels are 

fundamentally similar and have a 

limited number of discharges. Vessels 

less than 300 gross tons, as a class, tend 

to produce lower volumes of effluent 

than their larger ocean going 

counterparts. Hence, EPA has 

broadened the applicability of this 

provision in order to provide an 

efficient way to gather information by 

the agency without sacrificing data 

quality. 

IV. Analysis of Economic Impacts of 

VGP 

EPA performed an economic analysis 

for the VGP to evaluate the incremental 

costs of requirements in the permit. This 

analysis is available in the docket for 

today’s permit. A summary of the 

analysis follows. 

A. Analysis of VGP costs 

EPA estimates that approximately 

60,000 domestic flag and 12,400 foreign 

flag vessels would be covered under the 

VGP, but only a subset of these vessels 

would incur incremental costs as a 

result of the revised VGP requirements. 

To estimate the effect of revised permit 

requirements on an industry as a whole, 

EPA’s VGP analysis takes into account 

previous conditions and determines 

how the industry would act in the 

future in the absence of revised permit 

requirements. The baseline for this 

analysis is full industry compliance 

with existing federal and state 

regulations, including the 2008 VGP in 

the case of vessels currently covered by 

that permit; and current industry 

practices or standards that exceed 

current regulations to the extent that 

they can be empirically observed. In 

addition, a number of laws and 

associated regulations (including the 

National Invasive Species Act; the Act 

to Prevent Pollution from Ships; the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act; the Organotin Anti-fouling Paint 

Control Act; and others) already cover 

certain discharges that would be subject 

to the new permitting regime. The 

overlap between revised permit 

requirements and existing regulations 

and practices is discussed at greater 

length in the economic analysis. 

EPA estimated incremental 

compliance costs to commercial vessels 

associated with revised permit’s 

practices and discharge categories 

identified and the paperwork burden 

costs. Incremental costs are understood 

to result from the inclusion of all 

commercial fishing vessels 79 feet or 

larger under the VGP. As noted above, 

the moratorium on coverage for 

commercial fishing vessels and vessels 

less than 79 feet expires on December 

18, 2014. Commercial fishing vessels 79 

feet or larger will be covered by the 

VGP, and most non-recreational vessels 

less than 79 feet, including commercial 

fishing vessels, are expected to be 

covered by the sVGP. Changes in 

compliance costs also result from 

streamlining selected requirements, 

which is expected to reduce compliance 

costs for owners of certain vessels. 

Overall, EPA finds that revisions in the 

VGP requirements could result in 

aggregate annual incremental costs for 

domestic vessels ranging between $7.2 

and $23.0 million (in 2010$). This 

includes the paperwork burden costs 

and the sum of all practices for 

applicable discharge categories for all 

vessels estimated to be covered by the 

revised VGP. EPA notes that the total 

national cost estimate may be overly 

conservative (i.e. an overestimate of 

costs attributable to the permit) due to 

the inclusion of costs associated with 

commercial fishing vessels. The total 

annual compliance costs resulting from 

the 2013 VGP is reduced by $627,635 to 

$2,296,526 for the first year of permit 

coverage year as these vessels are not 

required to obtain NPDES coverage until 

at least December 18, 2014. 

The average per vessel compliance 

costs range between $51 and $7,004 per 

vessel. There is considerable 

uncertainty in the assumptions used for 

several practices and discharge 

categories and these estimates therefore 

provide illustrative ranges of the costs 

potentially associated with the 2013 

VGP rather than incremental costs 

incurred by any given vessel owner. 

Tank ships have the highest average 

compliance costs; this is driven by 

potential incremental costs for oil 

tankers exclusively engaged in 

coastwise trade that may install and 

operate onboard ballast water treatment 

systems to meet the 2013 VGP 

requirements applicable to ballast water 

discharges. 

To evaluate economic impacts of 

revised VGP requirements on the water 

transportation, fishing, and mining 

industries, EPA performed a firm-level 

analysis. The firm-level analysis 

examines the impact of any incremental 

cost per vessel to comply with the 

revised VGP requirements on model 

firms that represent the financial 

conditions of ‘‘typical’’ businesses in 

each of the examined industry sectors. 

More than ninety percent of the firms in 

the water transportation and fishing 

industries, and in the drilling oil and 

gas wells segment of the mining 

industry, are small, and EPA believes it 

is unlikely that firm-level impacts 

would be significant among large firms 

in this industry. Therefore, a firm-level 

analysis focuses on assessment of 

impacts on small businesses. To 

evaluate the potential impact of the final 

VGP on small entities, EPA used a costto-revenue test to evaluate the potential 

severity of economic impact on vessels 

and facilities owned by small entities. 

The test calculates annualized pre-tax 

compliance cost as a percentage of total 

revenues and uses a threshold of 1 and 

3 percent to identify facilities that 

would be significantly impacted as a 

result of this Permit. 

EPA applied a cost-to-revenue test 

which calculates annualized pre-tax 

compliance cost as a percentage of total 

revenues and used a threshold of 1 and 

3% to identify entities that would be 

significantly impacted as a result of this 

Permit. The total number of entities 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices 21945 

expected to exceed a 1% cost-to-revenue 

threshold ranges from 76 under low cost 

assumptions to 340 under high cost 

assumptions. Of this universe, the total 

number of entities expected to exceed a 

3% cost-to-revenue threshold ranges 

from 5 under low cost assumptions to 

30 under high cost assumptions. This is 

based out of 5,480 total small firms. 

Accordingly, EPA concludes that the 

VGP will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities or other 

businesses. 

B. Benefits of the VGP 

Although EPA was unable to evaluate 

the expected benefits of the permit in 

dollar terms due to data limitations, the 

Agency collected and considered 

relevant information to enable 

qualitative consideration of ecological 

benefits and to assess the importance of 

the ecological gains from the revisions. 

EPA expects that reductions in vessel 

discharges will benefit society in two 

broad categories: (1) Enhanced water 

quality from reduced pollutant 

discharges and (2) reduced risk of 

invasive species introduction and 

dispersal. With some of the most 

damaging invasive species having cost 

the U.S. economy upwards of 1 billion 

dollars each, the environmental and 

economic benefits of stopping and 

slowing new invasions introductions 

and dispersal are significant. 

Because many of the nation’s busiest 

ports are considered to be impaired by 

a variety of pollutants found in vessel 

discharges, reducing pollutant loadings 

from these discharges is expected to 

have benefits associated with the 

reduction of concentrations of nutrients, 

metals, oil, grease, and toxics in waters 

with high levels of vessel traffic. 

V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) EPA has 

determined this action is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821) and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

1. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Ramon Torres, 

Acting Director, Caribbean Environmental 

Protection Division, EPA Region 2. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Joan Leary Matthews, 

Division Director, Clean Water Division, EPA 

Region 2. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Jon M. Capacasa, 

Director, Water Protection Division, EPA 

Region 3. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

James D. Giattina, 

Director, Water Protection Division, EPA 

Region 4. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Tinka G. Hyde, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

William K. Honker, 

Director, Water Quality Protection Division, 

EPA Region 6. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Karen Flournoy, 

Director, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, 

EPA Region 7. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Derrith R. Watchman-Moore, 

Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of 

Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, EPA 

Region 8. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

John Kemmerer, 

Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 

9. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Daniel D. Opalski, 

Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, 

EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08662 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0025; FRL–9383–7] 

Notice of Receipt of Pesticide 

Products; Registration Applications To 

Register New Uses 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt 

of applications to register new uses for 

pesticide products containing currently 

registered active ingredients pursuant to 

the provisions of section 3(c) of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. 

This notice provides the public with an 

opportunity to comment on the 

applications. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 13, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number and the EPA Registration 

Number or EPA File Symbol of interest 

as shown in the body of this document, 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A 

contact person is listed at the end of 

each registration application summary 

and may be contacted by telephone, 

email, or mail. Mail correspondence to 

the Registration Division (7505P), Office 

of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

As part of the mailing address, include 

the contact person’s name, division, and 

mail code. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES