Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 31775 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Reporting: At the end of your 

project period, you must submit a final 

performance report, including financial 

information, as directed by the 

Secretary. If you receive a multi-year 

award, you must submit an annual 

performance report that provides the 

most current performance and financial 

expenditure information as directed by 

the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. In 

general, grantees must comply with 

applicable reporting requirements in 34 

CFR parts 75 and 80. In addition, 

grantees will be required to provide 

periodic performance and financial 

reports, as specified in individual grant 

award conditions and 34 CFR 222.195. 

The Secretary may also require more 

frequent performance reports under 34 

CFR 75.720(c). For specific 

requirements on reporting, please go to 

http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/ 

appforms/appforms.html. 

4. Performance Measures: The 

Department has established the 

following performance measure for this 

program: an increasing percentage of 

LEAs receiving Impact Aid Construction 

funds will report that the overall 

condition of their school buildings is 

adequate. Data for this measure will be 

reported to the Department on Table 10 

of the application for Impact Aid 

Section 8003 Basic Support Payments. 

VII. Agency Contact 

For Further Information Contact: 

Kristen Walls-Rivas, Impact Aid 

Program, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 

3C155, Washington, DC 20202–6244. 

Telephone: (202) 260–3858 or by e-mail: 

Impact.Aid@ed.gov. 

If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll 

free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

VIII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document 

and a copy of the application package in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of 

this notice. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– 

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: June 1, 2010. 

Thelma Mele ́ndez de Santa Ana, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13491 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9159–2] 

Draft National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide 

General Permit for Point Source 

Discharges From the Application of 

Pesticides 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of draft permit and 

notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: All ten EPA Regions today are 

proposing a draft NPDES general permit 

for point source discharges from the 

application of certain pesticides to 

waters of the United States. Once 

finalized, this permit will be available to 

operators in those areas where EPA is 

the NPDES permitting authority. This 

action is in response to the Sixth Circuit 

Court’s ruling that vacated an EPA 

regulation that excluded discharges 

from the application of pesticides to or 

over, including near waters of the 

United States from the need to obtain an 

NPDES permit if the application was 

done in accordance with other laws. 

EPA requested and was granted a twoyear stay of the Court’s mandate to 

provide time to draft and implement the 

permit noticed today. The stay of the 

mandate expires on April 9, 2011; 

where after, NPDES permits will be 

required for all point source discharges 

to waters of the United States of 

biological pesticides, and chemical 

pesticides that leave a residue. 

This Federal Register notice briefly 

summarizes the requirements in this 

draft general permit for pesticides 

applications to waters of the U.S. EPA 

is soliciting public comment on all 

aspects of the draft NPDES permit. This 

Federal Register notices also includes a 

list of specific issues about which the 

Agency is particularly asking for 

comment. Supporting documentation to 

the permit is contained in an 

accompanying fact sheet. The public is 

encouraged to read this fact sheet to 

better understand the permit 

requirements. The fact sheet and permit 

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ 

npdes/pesticides. 

DATES: Comments on the draft general 

permit must be received on or before 

July 19, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2010–0257, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov. 

3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2010–0257. 

4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attention: Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0257. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 

0257. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
31776 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov 

or in hard copy at a docket facility. The 

Office of Water (OW) Docket Center is 

open from 8:30 until 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The OW Docket Center 

telephone number is (202) 566–2426, 

and the Docket address is OW Docket, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. 

Public meetings and public hearing: 

EPA will hold three (3) public meetings 

in: Albuquerque, New Mexico on June 

14, 2010; Boise, Idaho on June 16, 2010; 

Boston, Massachusetts on June 21, 2010; 

and a public hearing in Washington, DC 

on June 23, 2010. The focus of each 

meeting/hearing is to present the draft 

general permit and the basis for the draft 

permit requirements, and to answer 

questions concerning the draft permit. 

At these meetings, any person may 

provide written or oral statements and 

data pertaining to the draft permit. The 

date, time and location of the public 

meetings and public hearing are as 

follows: 

• Albuquerque, New Mexico: 

Monday, June 14, 2010, at the CNM 

Workforce Training Center, Room 101, 

5600 Eagle Rock Avenue, NE, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, from 12 

p.m.–3 p.m. 

• Boise, Idaho: Wednesday, June 16, 

2010, at the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Rooms 206 & 219, 1150 North Curtis 

Road, Boise, Idaho from 9 a.m. to 12 

p.m. 

• Boston, Massachusetts: Monday, 

June 21, 2010, at EPA Region 1, 5 Post 

Office Square—Suite 100, Conference 

Room 1529, Boston, MA 02109–3912, 

from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

• Washington, DC: Wednesday, June 

23, 2010, at the EPA East Building, 

Room 1153, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20004, from 10 

a.m. to 1 p.m. 

If you would like to present a statement 

at the public hearing in Washington, 

DC, please contact Virginia Garelick at 

202–564–2316 to register your intent to 

provide a public statement. Speakers 

will be given up to three minutes (or as 

time allows) to provide their comments 

on a first come first served basis. Any 

additional comments will need to be 

provided in writing. EPA will consider 

all comments received and will include 

copies of such in the Administrative 

Record. 

EPA encourages interested and 

potentially affected stakeholders to 

attend one of the scheduled public 

meetings and provide oral or written 

comments. Please note that the public 

meetings may close early if all business 

is finished. Oral or written comments 

received at the public meetings will be 

entered into the Docket for this permit. 

If you are unable to attend, you may 

submit comments to the EPA Water 

Docket at the address identified in the 

ADDRESSES section listed above. 

More information on these meetings 

will be available on the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides, 

including any additional dates and 

locations if scheduled. Due to limited 

seating, those wishing to attend EPA’s 

public meetings are asked to please send 

an e-mail message containing their 

name, telephone number and 

organization to Virginia Garelick at 

garelick.virginia@epa.gov. An e-mail 

message is not required, however. 

Anyone wishing to may attend provided 

space is available. If you need a sign 

language interpreter at any of these 

meetings, you should notify Ms. 

Garelick of such at least ten business 

days prior to the meetings so that 

appropriate arrangements can be made. 

For further information, including 

registration information, please refer to 

the following Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides. 

Webcast: EPA has scheduled a 

Webcast to provide information on this 

draft permit and to answer questions for 

interested parties that are unable to 

attend the public meetings or hearing. 

The webcast will be broadcast on June 

17, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time (EST). For information 

on how to register and attend the 

webcast, see EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/npdes/training. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on this draft NPDES 

general permit, contact the appropriate 

EPA Regional Office listed in Section 

I.F, or contact Jack Faulk, EPA 

Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of 

Wastewater Management at tel.: 202– 

564–0768 or e-mail: faulk.jack@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

D. Finalizing This Permit 

E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for 

this draft permit? 

II. Statutory and Regulatory History 

A. Clean Water Act 

B. NPDES Permits 

C. History of Pesticide Application 

Regulations 

D. Court Decisions Leading to the CWA 

Regulation Concerning Pesticide 

Applications 

E. 2006 Agency Rulemaking Excluding 

Discharges From Pesticide Applications 

From NPDES Permitting 

F. Legal Challenges to the 2006 NPDES 

Pesticides Rule and Resulting Court 

Decision 

III. Scope and Applicability of This NPDES 

Pesticides General Permit 

A. Geographic Coverage 

B. Categories of Facilities Covered 

C. Summary of Permit Terms and 

Requirements 

D. Key Permit Provisions for Which EPA is 

Soliciting Comment 

E. Permit Appeal Procedures 

IV. Economic Impacts of the Pesticides 

General Permit 

V. Executive Order 12866 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be affected by this action if 

your application of pesticides, under the 

use patterns in Section III.B., results in 

a discharge to waters of the United 

States in one of the geographic areas 

identified in Section III.A. Potentially 

affected entities, as categorized in the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS), may include, but are 

not limited to: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 31777 

TABLE 1—ENTITIES POTENTIALLY REGULATED BY THIS PERMIT

Category NAICS Examples of potentially affected entities 

Agriculture parties—General agricultural interests, farmers/producers, forestry, and irrigation.111 Crop Production ........................................ Producers of crops mainly for food and fiber 

including farms, orchards, groves, greenhouses, and nurseries that have irrigation 

ditches requiring pest control. 

113110 Timber Tract Operations ..................... The operation of timber tracts for the purpose 

of selling standing timber. 

113210 Forest Nurseries Gathering of Forest 

Products.

Growing trees for reforestation and/or gathering forest products, such as gums, barks, 

balsam needles, rhizomes, fibers, Spanish 

moss, ginseng, and truffles. 

221310 Water Supply for Irrigation .................. Operating irrigation systems. 

Public health parties (includes mosquito or 

other vector control districts and commercial 

applicators that service these).

923120 Administration of Public Health Programs.Government establishments primarily engaged in the planning, administration, and 

coordination of public health programs and 

services, including environmental health activities. 

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.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. 

Public health parties (includes mosquito or 

other vector control districts and commercial 

applicators that service these).

923120 Administration of Public Health Programs.Government establishments primarily engaged in the planning, administration, and 

coordination of public health programs and 

services, including environmental health activities. 

924120 Administration of Conservation Programs.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. 

Utility parties (includes utilities) .......................... 221 Utilities ...................................................... Provide electric power, natural gas, steam 

supply, water supply, and sewage removal 

through a permanent infrastructure of lines, 

mains, and pipes. 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2010–0257. The official public docket is 

the collection of materials that is 

available for public viewing at the Water 

Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/ 

DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. Although all documents in the 

docket are listed in an index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. EPA 

policy is that copyrighted material will 

not be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. Publicly available docket 

materials are available in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center Public Reading 

Room, open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is 202–566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Water 

Docket is 202–566–2426. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the United States 

government on-line source for Federal 

regulations at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Electronic versions of this draft 

permit and fact sheet are available on 

EPA’s NPDES Web site at www.epa.gov/ 

npdes/pesticides. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
31778 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to 

view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. For additional 

information about EPA’s public docket, 

visit the EPA Docket Center homepage 

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

dockets.htm. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the Docket Facility 

identified in Section I.A.1. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI 

Do not submit this information to EPA 

through regulations.gov or e-mail. 

Clearly mark all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on computer discs mailed 

to EPA, mark the surface of the disc as 

CBI. Also identify electronically the 

specific information contained in the 

disc that you claim is CBI. In addition 

to one complete version of the specific 

information claimed as CBI, you must 

submit a copy that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI for 

inclusion in the public document. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

For public commenters, it is 

important to note that EPA’s policy is 

that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing in EPA’s electronic public 

docket as EPA receives them and 

without change, unless the comment 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. When EPA 

identifies a comment containing 

copyrighted material, EPA will provide 

a reference to that material in the 

version of the comment that is placed in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. The 

entire printed comment, including the 

copyrighted material, will be available 

in the public docket. 

Public comments submitted on 

computer disks that are mailed or 

delivered to the docket will be 

transferred to EPA’s electronic public 

docket. Public comments in paper form 

that are mailed or delivered to the 

Docket will be scanned and placed in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. Where 

practical, physical objects will be 

photographed, and the photograph will 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket along with a brief description 

written by the docket staff. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify this permit by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

section or part of this permit. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and suggest 

substitute language for your requested 

changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

D. Finalizing This Permit 

After the close of the public comment 

period on this draft, EPA will issue a 

final permit. That final permit will be 

issued after all public comments 

received during the public comment 

period have been considered and 

appropriate changes made to this 

permit. EPA’s response to comments 

received will be included in the docket 

as part of the final permit decision. 

E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for 

this draft permit? 

For EPA Region 1, contact George 

Papadopoulos at USEPA Region 1, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, 

MA 02109–3912; or at tel.: (617) 918– 

1579; or e-mail at 

papadopoulos.george@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 2, contact Maureen 

Krudner at USEPA Region 2, 290 

Broadway, New York, NY 10007–1866; 

or tel.: (212) 637–3874; or e-mail at 

krudner.maureen@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 3, contact Peter 

Weber at USEPA Region 3, 1650 Arch 

Street, Mail Code: 3WP41, Philadelphia, 

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

5749; or e-mail at weber.peter@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 4, contact Sam 

Sampath at USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street, SW., Atlanta, CA 30303–8960; or 

at tel.: (404) 562–9229; or e-mail at 

sampath.sam@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 5, contact Morris 

Beaton at USEPA Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code: WN16J, 

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

353–0850; or e-mail at 

beaton.morris@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 6, contact Phillip 

Jennings at USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 1200, Mail Code: 6WO, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733; or at tel.: (214) 

665–7538 or e-mail at 

jennings.phillip@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 7, contact Kimberly 

Hill at USEPA Region 7, 901 North Fifth 

Street, Mail Code: XX, Kansas City, KS 

66101; or at tel.: (913) 551–7841 or email at: hill.kimberly@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 8, contact David Rise 

at USEPA Region 8, Montana 

Operations Office, Federal Building, 10 

West 15th Street, Suite 3200, Mail Code: 

8MO, Helena, MT 59626; or at tel.: 406– 

457–5012 or e-mail at: 

rise.david@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 9, contact Pascal 

Mues, USEPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, Mail Code: WTR–5, San 

Francisco, CA 94105; or at tel.: (415) 

972–3768 or e-mail at: 

mues.pascal@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 10, contact Dirk 

Helder, USEPA Region 10 Idaho 

Operations Office, 1435 North Orchard 

Street, Boise, ID 83706 or at tel.: 208– 

378–5749 or e-mail at: 

helder.dirk@epa.gov. 

II. Statutory and Regulatory History 

A. Clean Water Act 

Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) provides that ‘‘the discharge of 

any pollutant by any person shall be 

unlawful’’ unless the discharge is in 

compliance with certain other sections 

of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). The CWA 

defines ‘‘discharge of a pollutant’’ as ‘‘(A) 

any addition of any pollutant to 

navigable waters from any point source, 

(B) any addition of any pollutant to the 

waters of the contiguous zone or the 

ocean from any point source other than 

a vessel or other floating craft.’’ 33 

U.S.C. 1362(12). A ‘‘point source’’ is any 

‘‘discernible, confined and discrete 

conveyance’’ but does not include 

‘‘agricultural stormwater discharges and 

return flows from irrigated agriculture.’’ 

33 U.S.C. 1362(14). 

The term ‘‘pollutant’’ includes, among 

other things, ‘‘garbage * * * chemical 

wastes, biological materials * * * and 

industrial, municipal, and agricultural 

waste discharged into water.’’ 33 U.S.C. 

1362(6). 

A person may discharge a pollutant 

without violating the section 301 

prohibition by obtaining authorization 

to discharge (referred to herein as 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 31779 

‘‘coverage’’) under a section 402 National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

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

section 402(a), EPA may ‘‘issue a permit 

for the discharge of any pollutant, or 

combination of pollutants, 

notwithstanding section 1311(a)’’ upon 

certain conditions required by the Act. 

B. NPDES Permits 

An NPDES permit authorizes the 

discharge of a specified amount of a 

pollutant or pollutants into a receiving 

water under certain conditions. The 

NPDES program relies on two types of 

permits: individual and general. An 

individual permit is a permit 

specifically tailored for an individual 

discharger. Upon receiving the 

appropriate permit application(s), the 

permitting authority, i.e., EPA or a state 

or territory, develops a draft permit for 

public comment for that particular 

discharger based on the information 

contained in the permit application 

(e.g., type of activity, nature of 

discharge, receiving water quality). 

Following consideration of public 

comments, a final permit is then issued 

to the discharger for a specific time 

period (not to exceed 5 years) with a 

provision for reapplying for further 

permit coverage prior to the expiration 

date. 

A general permit covers multiple 

facilities/sites/activities within a 

specific category for a specific period of 

time (not to exceed 5 years). For general 

permits, EPA or a state or territory 

develops and issues the permit with 

dischargers then obtaining coverage 

under the permit, typically through 

submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI). 

A general permit is also subject to 

public comment, as is being done under 

this Federal Register notice, and is 

developed and issued by a permitting 

authority (in this case, EPA). 

Under 40 CFR 122.28, general permits 

may be written to cover categories of 

point sources having common elements, 

such as facilities that involve the same 

or substantially similar types of 

operations, that discharge the same 

types of wastes, or that are more 

appropriately regulated by a general 

permit. Given the vast number of 

pesticide applicators requiring NPDES 

permit coverage and the discharges 

common to these applicators, EPA 

believes that it makes administrative 

sense to issue this general permit, rather 

than issuing individual permits to each 

applicator. Entities still have the ability 

to seek individual permit coverage. 

Courts have approved of the use of 

general permits. See e.g., Natural Res. 

Def. Council v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 

(DC Cir. 1977); EDC v. U.S. EPA, 344 

F.3d 832, 853 (Ninth Cir. 2003). The 

general permit approach allows EPA to 

allocate resources in a more efficient 

manner and to provide more timely 

coverage. As with any permit, the CWA 

requires the general permit to contain 

technology-based effluent limitations, as 

well as any more stringent limits when 

necessary to meet applicable state water 

quality standards. 

C. History of Pesticide Application 

Regulation Under FIFRA 

EPA regulates the sale, distribution 

and use of pesticides in the United 

States under the statutory framework of 

FIFRA to ensure that, when used in 

conformance with FIFRA labeling 

directions, pesticides will not pose 

unreasonable risks to human health and 

the environment. All new pesticides 

must undergo a rigorous registration 

procedure under FIFRA during which 

EPA assesses a variety of potential 

human health and environmental effects 

associated with use of the product. 

Under FIFRA, EPA is required to 

consider the effects of pesticides on the 

environment by determining, among 

other things, whether a pesticide ‘‘will 

perform its intended function without 

unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment,’’ and whether ‘‘when used 

in accordance with widespread and 

commonly recognized practice [the 

pesticide] will not generally cause 

unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment.’’ 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5). In 

performing this analysis, EPA examines, 

among other things, the ingredients of a 

pesticide, the intended type of 

application site and directions for use, 

and supporting scientific studies for 

human health and environmental effects 

and exposures. The applicant for 

registration of the pesticide must submit 

data as required by EPA regulations. 

When EPA approves a pesticide for a 

particular use, the Agency imposes 

labeling restrictions governing such use. 

Compliance with the labeling 

requirements ensures that the pesticide 

serves an intended purpose and avoids 

unreasonable adverse effects. It is illegal 

under Section 12(a)(2)(G) of FIFRA to 

use a registered pesticide in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling. States 

have primary authority under FIFRA to 

enforce ‘‘use’’ violations, but both the 

States and EPA have ample authority to 

prosecute pesticide misuse when it 

occurs. 

D. Court Decisions Leading to the CWA 

Regulation Concerning Pesticide 

Applications 

Over the past ten years, several courts 

addressed the question of whether the 

CWA requires NPDES permits for 

pesticide applications. These cases 

resulted in some confusion among the 

regulated community and other affected 

citizens about the applicability of the 

CWA to pesticides applied to waters of 

the United States. In 2001, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

held in Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent 

Irrigation District (Talent) that an 

applicator of herbicides was required to 

obtain an NPDES permit under the 

circumstances before the court. 243 

F.3rd 526 (Ninth Cir. 2001). 

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit in League 

of Wilderness Defenders et al. v. 

Forsgren (Forsgren) held that the 

application of pesticides to control 

Douglas Fir Tussock Moths in National 

Forest lands required an NPDES permit. 

309 F.3d 1181 (Ninth Cir. 2002). The 

court in Forsgren did not analyze the 

question of whether the pesticides 

applied were pollutants, because it 

incorrectly assumed that the parties 

agreed that they were (in fact, the 

United States expressly reserved its 

arguments on that issue in its brief to 

the District Court. Id. at 1184, n.2). The 

court instead analyzed the question of 

whether the aerial application of the 

pesticide constituted a point source 

discharge, and concluded that it did. Id. 

at 1185. 

Since Talent and Forsgren, California, 

Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, all of 

which are within the Ninth Circuit, 

have issued permits for the application 

of certain types of pesticides (e.g., 

products to control aquatic weeds and 

algae and products to control mosquito 

larvae). Other States have continued 

their longstanding practice of not 

issuing permits to people who apply 

pesticides to waters of the United States. 

These varying practices reflected the 

substantial uncertainty among 

regulators, the regulated community, 

and the public regarding how the CWA 

applies to pesticides that have been 

properly applied and used for their 

intended purpose. 

Additionally, the Second Circuit 

Court of Appeals addressed the 

applicability of the CWA’s NPDES 

permit requirements to pesticide 

applications. In Altman v. Town of 

Amherst (Altman), the court vacated 

and remanded for further development 

of the record a District Court decision 

holding that the Town of Amherst was 

not required to obtain an NPDES permit 

to spray mosquitocides over waters of 

the United States. 47 Fed. Appx. 62, 67 

(Second Cir. 2002). The United States 

filed an amicus brief setting forth the 

Agency’s views in the context of that 

particular case. In its opinion, the 

Second Circuit stated that ‘‘[u]ntil the 

EPA articulates a clear interpretation of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
31780 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 

current law—among other things, 

whether properly used pesticides 

released into or over waters of the 

United States can trigger the 

requirement for NPDES permits * * * 

—the question of whether properly used 

pesticides can become pollutants that 

violate the CWA will remain open.’’ Id. 

at 67. 

In 2005, the Ninth Circuit again 

addressed the CWA’s applicability to 

pesticide applications. In Fairhurst v. 

Hagener, the court held that pesticides 

applied directly to a lake to eliminate 

non-native fish species, where there are 

no residues or unintended effects, are 

not ‘‘pollutants’’ under the CWA because 

they are not chemical wastes. 422 F.3d 

1146 (Ninth Cir. 2005). 

Recently, the Second Circuit 

reaffirmed the recent Sixth Circuit 

decision in ruling that trucks and 

helicopters that sprayed pesticides 

should be considered point sources 

under the CWA. Peconic Baykeeper Inc. 

v. Suffolk County, 2nd Cir., No. 09–97– 

cv, 3/30/10. 

E. 2006 Agency Rulemaking Excluding 

Discharges From Pesticides From 

NPDES Permitting 

On November 27, 2006 (71 FR 68483), 

EPA issued a final rule (hereinafter 

called the ‘‘2006 NPDES Pesticides 

Rule’’) clarifying two specific 

circumstances in which an NPDES 

permit is not required to apply 

pesticides to or over, including near 

water provided that the application is 

consistent with relevant Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) requirements. They are: (1) 

The application of pesticides directly to 

water to control pests; and (2) the 

application of pesticides to control pests 

that are present over, including near, 

water where a portion of the pesticides 

will unavoidably be deposited to the 

water to target the pests. 

F. Legal Challenges to the 2006 NPDES 

Pesticides Rule and Resulting Court 

Decision 

On January 19, 2007, EPA received 

petitions for review of the 2006 NPDES 

Pesticides Rule from both 

environmental and industry groups. 

Petitions were filed in eleven circuit 

courts with the case, National Cotton 

Council, et al, v. EPA, assigned to the 

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Sixth 

Circuit). On January 9, 2009, the Sixth 

Circuit vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES 

Pesticides Rule under a plain language 

reading of the CWA. National Cotton 

Council of America v. EPA, 553 F.3d 

927 (Sixth Cir. 2009). The Court held 

that the CWA unambiguously includes 

‘‘biological pesticides,’’ and ‘‘chemical 

pesticides’’ that leave a residue within 

its definition of ‘‘pollutant.’’ 

Specifically, the application of chemical 

pesticides that leaves no residue is not 

a pollutant. The Court also found that 

the application of pesticides is from a 

point source. 

Based on the Court’s decision, 

chemical pesticides that leave no 

residue do not require an NPDES 

permit. However, EPA assumes for 

purpose of this permit that all chemical 

pesticides have a residue, and, therefore 

would need a permit unless it can be 

shown that there is no residual. Unlike 

chemical pesticides (where the residual 

is the pollutant), the Court further found 

that biological pesticides are pollutants 

regardless of whether the application 

results in residuals and such discharges 

need an NPDES permit. 

In response to this decision, on April 

9, 2009, EPA requested a two-year stay 

of the mandate to provide the Agency 

time to develop general permits, to 

assist NPDES-authorized states to 

develop their NPDES permits, and to 

provide outreach and education to the 

regulated community and other 

stakeholders. On June 8, 2009, the Sixth 

Circuit granted EPA the two-year stay of 

the mandate until April 9, 2011. On 

November 2, 2009, Industry Petitioners 

of the Sixth Circuit Case petitioned the 

Supreme Court to review the Sixth 

Circuit’s decision. On February 22, 

2010, the Supreme Court issued its 

decision denying petitions to review the 

Sixth Circuit decision. 

As a result of the Court’s decision on 

the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule, at the 

end of the two-year stay, NPDES permits 

will be required for point source 

discharges to waters of the U.S. of 

biological pesticides, and of chemical 

pesticides that leave a residue. Until 

April 9, 2011, the rule remains in effect 

and NPDES permits are not required. 

In response to the Court’s decision, 

EPA is proposing this draft general 

permit for four specific pesticide use 

patterns. The specified use patterns may 

not represent every pesticide 

application activity for which a 

discharge requires NPDES permit 

coverage. The four use patterns 

included in this draft permit are 

generally consistent with what was 

addressed in the 2006 NPDES Pesticides 

Rule. 

Neither the Court’s ruling nor EPA’s 

issuance of this general permit affects 

the existing CWA exemptions for 

irrigation return flow and agricultural 

stormwater runoff, which are excluded 

from the definition of a point source 

under Section 502(14) of the CWA and 

do not require NPDES permit coverage. 

III. Scope and Applicability of This 

NPDES Pesticides General Permit 

A. Geographic Coverage 

EPA will provide permit coverage for 

classes of discharges where EPA is the 

NPDES permitting authority. The 

geographic coverage of today’s draft 

permit is listed below. Where this 

permit covers activities on Indian 

Country lands, those areas are as listed 

below within the borders of that state: 

EPA Region 1 

• The Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, including Indian 

Country lands 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Connecticut 

• The State of New Hampshire 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Rhode Island 

• Federal Facilities in the State of 

Vermont 

EPA Region 2 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of New York 

• The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

EPA Region 3 

• The District of Columbia 

• Federal Facilities in the State of 

Delaware 

EPA Region 4 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Alabama 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Florida 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Mississippi 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of North Carolina 

EPA Region 5 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Michigan 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Minnesota 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Wisconsin 

EPA Region 6 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Louisiana 

• The State of New Mexico, including 

Indian Country lands within the State of 

New Mexico, except Navajo Reservation 

Lands (see Region 9) and Ute Mountain 

Reservation Lands (see Region 8) 

• The State of Oklahoma, including 

Indian Country lands 

• Discharges in the State of Texas that 

are not under the authority of the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(formerly TNRCC), including activities 

associated with the exploration, 

development, or production of oil or gas 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 31781 

or geothermal resources, including 

transportation of crude oil or natural gas 

by pipeline 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Texas 

EPA Region 7 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Iowa 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Kansas 

• Indian Country lands the State of 

Nebraska, except Pine Ridge Reservation 

lands (see Region 8) 

EPA Region 8 

• Federal Facilities in the State of 

Colorado, except those located on 

Indian Country lands 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Colorado, as well as the portion 

of the Ute Mountain Reservation located 

in New Mexico 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Montana 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of North Dakota 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of South Dakota, as well as the 

portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation 

located in Nebraska (see Region 7) 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Utah, except Goshute and 

Navajo Reservation lands (see Region 9) 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Wyoming 

EPA Region 9 

• The Island of American Samoa 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Arizona as well as Navajo 

Reservation lands in New Mexico (see 

Region 6) and Utah (see Region 8) 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of California 

• The Island of Guam 

• The Johnston Atoll 

• The Midway Island and Wake 

Island 

• The Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Nevada, as well as the Duck 

Valley Reservation in Idaho, the Fort 

McDermitt Reservation in Oregon (see 

Region 10) and the Goshute Reservation 

in Utah (see Region 8) 

EPA Region 10 

• The State of Alaska, including 

Indian Country lands 

• The State of Idaho, including Indian 

Country lands within the State of Idaho, 

except Duck Valley Reservation lands 

(see Region 9) 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Oregon, except Fort McDermitt 

Reservation lands (see Region 9) 

• Federal Facilities in the State of 

Washington, including those located on 

Indian Country lands within the State of 

Washington 

B. Categories of Facilities Covered 

Today’s draft general permit regulates 

discharges to waters of the United States 

from the application of (1) biological 

pesticides, and (2) chemical pesticides 

that leave a residue for the following 

pesticide use patterns: 

• Mosquito and Other Flying Insect 

Pest Control—to control public health/ 

nuisance and other flying insect pests 

that develop or are present during a 

portion of their life cycle in or above 

standing or flowing water. Public 

health/nuisance pests in this use 

category include but are not limited to 

mosquitoes and black flies. 

• Aquatic Weed and Algae Control— 

to control weeds and algae in water and 

at water’s edge. 

• Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control— 

to control invasive or other nuisance 

species in water and at water’s edge. 

Aquatic nuisance animals in this use 

category include, but are not limited to 

fish, lampreys, and mollusks. 

• Forest Canopy Pest Control—aerial 

application of a pesticide over a forest 

canopy to control the population of a 

pest species (e.g., insect or pathogen) 

where to target the pest effectively a 

portion of the pesticide unavoidably 

will be applied over and deposited to 

water. 

The scope of activities encompassed 

by these pesticide use patterns is 

described in greater detail in Part 2.2 of 

this draft general permit. 

C. Summary of Permit Terms and 

Requirements 

Coverage Under This Permit 

This permit will be available to 

operators of discharges to waters of the 

U.S. from the application of (1) 

biological pesticides, and (2) chemical 

pesticides that leave a residue for the 

following pesticide use patterns: 

mosquito and other flying insect pest 

control; aquatic weed and algae control; 

aquatic nuisance animal control; and 

forest canopy pest control. Not eligible 

for coverage under this permit are 

discharges to waters of the U.S. 

identified as impaired for the specific 

pesticide or its degradates being applied 

and any discharges to outstanding 

national resource waters (i.e., Tier 3 

waters under anti-degradation 

regulations). To obtain authorization 

under this permit an operator must meet 

the eligibility requirements identified 

above and if the operator knows or 

reasonably should have known that its 

activities will exceed any annual 

treatment area threshold described in 

Part 1.2.2 of the permit, then an NOI 

must be submitted for permit coverage. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

and Critical Habitat 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) requires that EPA 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and U.S. National Marine 

Fisheries Service (collectively called the 

‘‘Services’’) to ensure that the permit is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any threatened or 

endangered species or adversely affect 

its critical habitat. Consultation between 

EPA and the Services is currently 

ongoing with the results of that action 

to be included in the final permit. As a 

result of these consultations, EPA may 

need to consider adding conditions to 

the permit to further protect listed 

species and critical habitat. These 

requirements may include additional 

effluent limitations, monitoring, 

planning, recordkeeping, and/or 

reporting. A more detailed discussion of 

the permit conditions that may be 

considered is provided in Part III.10.F. 

of the permit fact sheet. Based on 

consultation to date, EPA included 

language in the draft general permit that 

would require: 

—Any operator that is required to 

submit an NOI to indicate in that NOI 

whether threatened and endangered 

species and/or its critical habitat are 

present in the area where permit 

coverage is being requested; 

—Where a pre-existing ESA Section 7 or 

Section 10 action already addresses 

discharges from activities also 

covered under this permit, that the 

conditions and/or requirements of 

those actions are incorporated as 

enforceable conditions of this general 

permit; and 

—All operators to notify the Services if 

they become aware of any adverse 

incident to a Federally-listed 

threatened or endangered species or 

its critical habitat, that may have 

resulted from a discharge from their 

pesticide application. 

EPA requests comment on appropriate 

measures to protect endangered and 

threatened species, including the 

possible measures discussed in Part 

III.10.F of the draft Permit Fact Sheet. 

Technology-Based Effluent Limitations 

The draft permit, in Part 2, requires 

all operators to minimize pesticide 

discharges into waters by doing the 

following: (1) Use the lowest effective 

amount of pesticide product per 

application and optimum frequency of 

pesticide applications necessary to 

control the target pest; (2) perform 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
31782 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 

regular maintenance activities to reduce 

leaks, spills, or unintended discharges 

of pesticides associated with the 

application of pesticides covered under 

this permit; and (3) maintain 

application equipment in proper 

operating condition by calibrating and 

cleaning/repairing such equipment on a 

regular basis to ensure effective 

pesticide application and pest control. 

Operators that exceed an annual 

treatment area threshold must also 

implement Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) practices that require these 

operators to: (1) Identify and assess the 

pest problem; (2) evaluate effective pest 

management; and (3) follow appropriate 

procedures for pesticide use. 

It is important to note that although 

the FIFRA labeling is not an effluent 

limitation, if the permittee is found to 

have applied a pesticide in a manner 

inconsistent with the relevant waterquality related FIFRA labeling 

requirements, EPA will presume that 

the effluent limitation to minimize 

pesticides entering the Waters of the 

United States has been violated under 

the NPDES permit. Therefore, use 

inconsistent with certain FIFRA labeling 

requirements could result in the 

permittee being held liable for CWA 

violation as well as a FIFRA violation. 

Water Quality-Based Effluent 

Limitations 

In addition to the technology-based 

effluent limitations, the operator is 

required to control its discharge as 

necessary to meet applicable water 

quality standards. In general, EPA 

expects that compliance with the 

technology-based effluent limitations 

and other terms and conditions in this 

permit will meet the water-quality 

effluent limitation. Part 3 contains 

permit conditions to prohibit any 

discharges that causes or contributes to 

an excursion of any applicable numeric 

or narrative EPA-approved State, 

territory, or tribal or EPA promulgated 

water quality standard. 

Site Monitoring 

Part 4 requires entities to monitor to 

assess compliance with this permit. 

Permittees must monitor for observable 

adverse incidents in the treatment area 

and where pesticides are discharged to 

waters of the United States. Specifically 

operators are required to visually 

monitor for adverse impacts (as defined 

in the permit) during application, or 

during post application surveillance 

that is conducted as a regular part of 

doing business. 

Pesticide Discharge Management Plan 

An operator who is subject to Part 2.2 

of this permit (i.e., one who is required 

to submit an NOI) must prepare a 

pesticide discharge management plan 

(PDMP) for its pest management area. 

Operators who know or should have 

reasonably known prior to 

commencement of discharge, that they 

will exceed an annual treatment area 

threshold identified in Part 1.2.2 for that 

year, must develop a PDMP prior to first 

pesticide application covered under this 

permit. Operators who do not know or 

would reasonably not know until after 

commencement of discharge, that they 

will exceed an annual treatment area 

threshold identified in Part 1.2.2 for that 

year, must develop a PDMP prior to 

exceeding the annual treatment area 

threshold. Operators commencing 

discharge in response to a declared pest 

emergency situation as defined in 

Appendix A, that will cause the 

operator to exceed an annual treatment 

area threshold, must develop a PDMP 

no later than 90 days after responding 

to the declared pest emergency. The 

PDMP must include information on the 

pesticide discharge management team, 

pest management area, control measure, 

including evaluation and selection of 

pest management, and schedules and 

procedures for pest surveillance, 

equipment maintenance, application 

rate and frequency, assessing 

environmental conditions, spill 

prevention, spill response, adverse 

incident response, and pesticide 

monitoring. The PDMP, together with 

the additional documentation 

requirements in Part 7, document the 

practices the operator is implementing 

to meet the effluent limitations in this 

permit. 

Corrective Action 

Part 6 outlines situations that require 

operators to review and revise their 

control measures. Changes to control 

measures must be made before the next 

pesticide application that results in a 

discharge or, if not possible, as soon as 

practicable. This draft permit also 

outlines the procedures for notification, 

reporting, and documentation of 

corrective actions for adverse incidents, 

spills and leaks and other situations 

triggering the need for such actions. 

Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting 

In Part 7, operators required to submit 

an NOI are required to keep certain 

records of their pesticide discharges to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

permit conditions. This draft permit 

specifies which records must be kept 

and the timeframe for record retention. 

In addition, any operator who is 

required to submit an NOI must submit 

an annual report to EPA. The draft 

permit specifies the information that 

must be included in the annual report 

and the timeframe for submission. 

D. Key Permit Provisions for Which EPA 

Is Soliciting Comment 

EPA seeks comment on all aspects of 

this draft general permit and the 

accompanying fact sheet; however, in 

particular, EPA is soliciting comments 

on the following aspects of this permit: 

Number of Entities Covered Under This 

Permit 

This general permit provides coverage 

for the following four use patterns: 

mosquito and other flying insect pest 

control; aquatic weed and algae control; 

aquatic nuisance animal control; and 

forest canopy pest control. To gain a 

better understanding of the universe of 

permittees that would be covered under 

this permit, EPA is soliciting 

information on the numbers, types and 

sizes of entities that conduct pesticide 

application for each use pattern. Entities 

include those who decide that 

application of pesticides is necessary 

(for example, mosquito control districts, 

counties, irrigation control districts and 

other local governments) as well as 

those entities that apply the pesticides 

(for example, for-hire commercial 

applicators). 

Activities Covered 

This general permit provides coverage 

for the following four use patterns: 

mosquito and other flying insect pest 

control; aquatic weed and algae control; 

aquatic nuisance animal control; and 

forest canopy pest control. 

EPA believes that these four use 

patterns would encompass the majority 

of pesticide applications that would 

result in point source discharges to 

waters of the U.S. This draft permit 

would not provide coverage for other 

pesticide use patterns; however, EPA is 

still exploring whether other use 

patterns should be included. 

Specifically, EPA has not included most 

use patterns that target land-based pests 

and flying pests that are not near or over 

water. EPA is seeking comment on 

whether certain pesticide application 

activities targeting such pests may 

involve unavoidable point-source 

discharges to waters of the United 

States. EPA is also requesting comment 

on whether this general permit should 

provide coverage for any such activities, 

and if so, which activities should be 

covered. If, after considering comments, 

EPA expands coverage of this permit, 

the effluent limitations for the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 31783 

additional use patterns would likely be 

similar to what is being proposed in this 

draft permit. Due to the likely 

similarities between such additional 

activities and the associated effluent 

limitations, EPA expects that there will 

not be a need to re-propose the general 

permit to cover such additional 

activities in the final permit. In this 

case, entities in the newly included use 

pattern(s) could seek coverage under 

this general permit. Any point source 

discharges of pollutants to waters of the 

United States not covered by this or 

another general permit will need 

coverage under an individual permit. 

EPA also requests comments on how the 

effluent limitations provided in this 

permit could apply to the additional 

activities and whether there are 

additional or different effluent 

limitations that might be appropriate for 

such activities. EPA is also soliciting 

comments on whether it should exclude 

from coverage under the general permit 

all discharges to waters that are 

impaired generally for ‘‘pesticides’’ 

rather than only excluding from 

coverage those discharges to waters that 

are impaired for the specific pesticide 

being applied or its degradates. 

Limitations on Coverage 

This permit does not authorize 

coverage for certain discharges to 

pesticide-impaired waters and Tier 3 

waters. Specifically, this permit does 

not authorize discharges of pesticides or 

their degradates to waters impaired for 

those specific pesticides or degradates. 

Additionally, this permit does not 

authorize discharges to outstanding 

national resource waters (Tier 3 waters). 

EPA would like input on whether it is 

appropriate to exclude these discharges 

from coverage under the general permit 

or if there are conditions that could be 

added to the general permit that could 

adequately address these situations. 

Sharing of Responsibilities 

This permit establishes requirements 

to control discharges from the 

application of pesticides that are 

specific to the discharge regardless of 

who is defined as the ‘‘operator’’ of the 

discharge. An ‘‘operator’’ is defined as 

that entity required under the NPDES 

program to obtain permit coverage for 

point source discharges of pollutants to 

waters of the United States. As written, 

this permit acknowledges that in many 

instances, the entity making the 

decision to apply pesticides is different 

than the entity that actually applies the 

pesticides (for example, a mosquito 

control district may decide that a 

pesticide application is needed and 

enter into a contract with a for-hire 

commercial applicator to perform the 

application). EPA, however, defines 

both of these entities as ‘‘operators.’’ 

EPA drafted this permit with the intent 

of clarifying which entity is expected to 

implement which permit conditions 

with the goal of minimizing duplication 

of effort while still providing flexibility 

for multiple operators to decide how 

compliance with permit conditions will 

be achieved. Generally, the entity 

making the decision to apply pesticides 

is responsible for complying with 

provisions of the permit leading up to 

the actual application of the pesticide 

(such as IPM identifying and assessing 

the pest problem) and any activities 

after application of the pesticide. The 

applicator of the pesticide, if different, 

is responsible for those permit 

requirements that occur during or 

directly related to the actual application 

of the pesticide (such as maintaining 

and calibrating equipment). EPA is 

interested in whether the approach in 

this draft general permit is clear and if 

it provides a logical approach to the 

expected sharing of responsibilities. 

Notices of Intent 

In general, as set forth in 40 CFR 

122.28(b)(2), dischargers seeking 

coverage under a general permit must 

submit a notice of intent (NOI) to be 

covered by the permit. However, 40 CFR 

122.28(b)(2)(v) provides EPA the 

authority to cover entities under a 

general permit without requiring the 

submission of an NOI. In Part 1.2.2 of 

this permit, EPA proposes annual 

treatment area thresholds for the 

submission of NOIs. EPA is proposing 

this NOI framework to: (1) Obtain NOIs 

from the largest dischargers, (2) 

eliminate duplicative reporting by 

multiple operators for an individual 

discharge, and (3) clarify the type of 

entity responsible for submitting the 

NOI. Operators that do not exceed an 

annual treatment area threshold are 

covered automatically under this permit 

without the need to submit an NOI. EPA 

is interested in feedback on whether this 

NOI framework strikes an appropriate 

balance between capturing information 

on discharges from the largest pesticide 

application activities and avoiding the 

imposition of unreasonable burdens on 

operators whose pesticide application 

activities affect smaller areas. EPA is 

also interested in information on 

whether the size of the thresholds is 

appropriate, and whether they result in 

obtaining NOIs from an appropriately 

targeted set of large dischargers. 

If an NOI is required, it must contain 

either a map or narrative description of 

the area and the waters of the United 

States and the pesticide use patterns for 

which permit coverage is being 

requested for the duration of the permit. 

Operators can identify specific waters or 

request coverage for all waters within 

the area for which they are requesting 

permit coverage. EPA is interested in 

feedback on whether this approach 

adequately captures the areas and 

associated waters of the United States 

for which permit coverage is being 

requested. 

Technology-Based Effluent Limitations 

This draft permit contains narrative 

technology-based effluent limitations for 

the class and scope of activities and 

operators covered under this permit. 

After much research and discussion 

with experts, EPA determined that the 

effluent limitations identified in Part 2 

of the permit, including IPM practices 

for operators that will exceed an annual 

treatment area threshold (i.e., those who 

must submit an NOI) should be 

included in this general permit. Since 

this is the first general permit for these 

types of discharges, EPA specifically 

requests comments on this section for 

the following questions: 

1. What types of government 

agencies/departments have the 

responsibility or are mandated to 

perform pest control? Are they already 

required to implement IPM? What 

specific IPM practices do they already 

perform? 

2. Are there private commercial 

entities that apply pesticides below the 

threshold that should be expected to 

implement IPM? If so, who are these 

and what IPM practices should they be 

required to implement? Are any private 

commercial entities that apply 

pesticides below the threshold currently 

implementing IPM practices? Is the use 

of annual treatment area thresholds an 

appropriate mechanism for establishing 

technology-based effluent limitations 

and if so, are the thresholds provided in 

the draft general permit appropriate? 

3. Are there more specific IPM 

procedures that we can incorporate into 

this permit to better define IPM 

expectations of permittees above or 

below the threshold? Would an EPAdeveloped IPM template be practical 

and help? If so, what should be 

included? Are there industry-specific 

templates already available? 

4. Will requiring IPM of small public 

or private entities not already required 

to implement IPM under this draft 

general permit force them to go out of 

business or choose not to spray at the 

expense of public health or the 

environment? 

5. How much do the IPM procedures 

required in this permit cost? 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
31784 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 

6. Are entities above the thresholds 

already doing these practices? If not, 

what would be the consequences/costs 

of these requirements? 

Water Quality Based Effluent 

Limitations 

EPA is soliciting comment on the 

water quality based effluent limitations 

in this proposed permit, and whether 

other parameters or narrative 

requirements would be appropriate. 

Monitoring 

EPA is requesting comment on the 

value, feasibility and safety of visual 

monitoring during application and of 

post application surveillance 

monitoring. 

EPA is considering having the largest 

of the large applicators provide ambient 

sampling data. How large would be 

appropriate for such a requirement? 

Should these data be used to enhance 

the cycle of information EPA will use in 

assessing the selected BMPs rather than 

compliance? What types of monitoring 

requirements are appropriate for each of 

the four pesticide use categories covered 

under this permit? What would be the 

cost of monitoring? What are the best 

monitoring methodologies when 

sampling for the residues of chemical 

pesticides? What sampling approaches 

accommodate issues of safety and 

accessibility? What timing and 

frequencies are best in these situations? 

Annual Reports 

Any operator required to submit an 

NOI is also required to submit an annual 

report that contains, among other things, 

a compilation of pesticides applied, 

quantities applied, locations where 

pesticide applications were made 

during the previous calendar year, and 

information on any adverse incidents or 

corrective actions resulting from 

discharges covered under this permit. 

The Agency is interested in comment on 

the scope of operators required to 

submit annual reports and the type, 

level of detail, and practical utility of 

the information being requested. 

E. Permit Appeal Procedures 

Within 120 days following notice of 

EPA’s final decision for the general 

permit under 40 CFR 124.15, any 

interested person may appeal the permit 

in the Federal Court of Appeals in 

accordance with Section 509(b)(1) of the 

CWA. Persons affected by a general 

permit may not challenge the conditions 

of a general permit as a right in further 

Agency proceedings. They may instead 

either challenge the general permit in 

court, or apply for an individual permit 

as specified at 40 CFR 122.21 (and 

authorized at 40 CFR 122.28), and then 

petition the Environmental Appeals 

Board to review any conditions of the 

individual permit (40 CFR 124.19 as 

modified on May 15, 2000, 65 FR 

30886). See also 40 CFR 23.12 for filing 

notice of judicial review requirements. 

IV. Economic Impacts of the Pesticides 

General Permit 

As a result of the Sixth Circuit Court 

decision on EPA’s 2006 NPDES 

Pesticides Rule, operators of discharges 

to waters of the U.S. from the 

application of pesticides now require 

NPDES permits for those discharges. 

EPA expects that costs associated with 

complying with the effluent limits 

under this general permit will be similar 

to costs under individual permits for 

similar activities; however, 

administrative costs for both EPA as the 

permitting authority and operators as 

permittees are expected to be lower 

under this general permit than under 

individual permits. In other words, the 

general permit itself can be expected to 

reduce rather than increase costs for 

permittees as compared to the baseline 

of individual permitting. 

EPA expects the economic impact on 

covered entities, including small 

businesses, to be minimal. Since EPA is 

developing a general permit in the 

absence of existing national Effluent 

Limitations Guidelines or Best 

Professional Judgment (BPJ) effluent 

limitations in other NPDES-issued 

permits, the Agency performed an 

economic impact analysis of the 

Pesticides General Permit for the 

purpose of examining the economic 

achievability of complying with the 

technology-based effluent limitations 

embodied in the permit. The economic 

impact analysis is included in the 

administrative record for this permit. 

Based on that analysis, EPA expects that 

there will be minimal burden on 

entities, including small businesses, 

covered under the general permit. EPA 

is asking for additional information 

during the public notice of the draft 

permit and will update the analysis as 

appropriate for the final permit. 

V. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to 

result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or Tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. It has been determined that this 

is a significant regulatory action under 

the terms of EO 12866 and it was 

therefore submitted to OMB for review. 

A summary of substantive changes 

made during OMB review, including an 

identification of those made at the 

suggestion of OIRA, is included in the 

docket. 

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

et seq. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 

1. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 

Kevin Bricke, 

Acting Director, Division of Environmental 

Planning and Protection, EPA Region 2. 

Dated: May 27, 2010. 

Carl-Axel P. Soderberg, 

Division Director, Caribbean Environmental 

Protection Division, EPA Region 2. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 

Jon M. Capacasa, 

Director, Water Protection Division, EPA 

Region 3. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 

James D. Giattina, 

Director, Water Protection Division, EPA, 

Region 4. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 

Tinka G. Hyde, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 

William K. Honker, 

Deputy Director, Water Quality Protection 

Division, EPA Region 6. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 

Glenn Curtis, 

Chief, Wastewater and Infrastructure 

Management Branch, EPA Region 7. 

Dated: May 27, 2010. 

Stephen S. Tuber, 

Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of 

Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, EPA 

Region 8. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 31785 

Alexis Strauss, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 

Michael A. Bussell, 

Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, 

EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13468 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8990–7] 

Environmental Impacts Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–1399 or http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements. 

Filed 05/24/2010 through 05/28/2010. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

Notice 

In accordance with Section 309(a) of 

the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to 

make its comments on EISs issued by 

other Federal agencies public. 

Historically, EPA has met this mandate 

by publishing weekly notices of 

availability of EPA comments, which 

includes a brief summary of EPA’s 

comment letters, in the Federal 

Register. Since February 2008, EPA has 

been including its comment letters on 

EISs on its Web site at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/ 

eisdata.html. Including the entire EIS 

comment letters on the Web site 

satisfies the Section 309(a) requirement 

to make EPA’s comments on EISs 

available to the public. Accordingly, on 

March 31, 2010, EPA discontinued the 

publication of the notice of availability 

of EPA comments in the Federal 

Register. 

EIS No. 20100201, Draft EIS, FHWA, 00, 

Southeast High Speed Rail RichmondRaleigh Project, Addresses the 162 

mile Segment between Richmond, VA 

to Raleigh, NC, Comment Period 

Ends: 08/30/2010, Contact: John 

Winkle 202–493–60607. 

EIS No. 20100202, Draft EIS, USFS, TX, 

Comal County Regional Habitat 

Conservation Plan, Application for 

Incidental Take Permit, Comal 

County, TX, Comment Period Ends: 

07/28/2010, Contact: Bill Seawell 

512–490–0057. 

EIS No. 20100203, Draft Supplement, 

USFS, AK, Programmatic EIS—Exxon 

Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan 

DOI/DOC, New Circumstances 

Bearing on the Council’s Restoration 

Effort, Implementation, Prince 

William Sound, Gulf of Alaska, AK, 

Comment Period Ends: 07/19/2010, 

Contact: Laurel Jennings 206–526– 

4525. 

EIS No. 20100204, Final EIS, USN, GU, 

Mariana Islands Range Complex 

(MIRC), To Address Ongoing and 

Proposed Military Training Activities, 

Mariana Islands, GU, Wait Period 

Ends: 07/06/2010, Contact: Nora 

Macariola-See 808–472–1402. 

EIS No. 20100205, Draft Supplement, 

USFS, CA, Beaverslide Timber Sale 

and Fuel Treatment Project, 

Additional Analysis and New 

Information, Six Rivers National 

Forest, Mad River Range District, 

Trinity County, CA, Comment Period 

Ends: 07/19/2010, Contact: Thomas 

Hudson 707–574–6233. 

EIS No. 20100206, Draft EIS, FHWA, 

OR, Newberg Dundee Bypass Project, 

Proposal to Build a Four Lane 

Expressway and Reduce Congestion 

on OR 99W, from OR 99W/OR 8 to the 

top of Rex Hill, USACE 404/Removal 

Fill Permits, Funding, Yamhill and 

Washington Counties, OR, Comment 

Period Ends: 07/19/2010, Contact: 

Michelle Eraut 503–587–4716. 

EIS No. 20100207, Draft EIS, USFS, SD, 

Nautilus Project Area, Multiple 

Resource Management Actions, 

Implementation, Black Hills National 

Forest, Northern Hills Ranger District, 

Lawrence, Meade and Pennington, 

SD, Comment Period Ends: 07/19/ 

2010, Contact: Chris Stores 605–642– 

4622. 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20100189, Final EIS, NPS, AK, 

Legislative—Glacier Bay National 

Park Project, Authorize Harvest of 

Glaucous-Winged Gull Eggs by the 

Huna Tlingit, Implementation, AK, 

Wait Period Ends: 06/28/2010, 

Contact: Cherry Payne 907–697–2230. 

Revision to FR Notice Published 5/28/ 

2010: Correction to Lead Agency from 

BLM to NPS. 

EIS No. 20100193, Final EIS, FRA, CA, 

Adoption—March 2004 Transbay 

Terminal/Caltrain Downtown 

Extension/Redevelopment Program 

(Transbay Program) Phase 1, San 

Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara, 

CA, Wait Period Ends: 06/28/2010, 

Contact: David Valenstein 202–493– 

6368. 

Revision to FR Notice Published 05/ 

28/2010: Correction to Contact Person 

Name and Telephone. 

Dated: June 1, 2010. 

Robert W. Hargrove, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13458 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0421; FRL–8826-1] 

Pesticide Products; Registration 

Applications 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications 

to register pesticide products containing 

Fluxapyroxad, an active ingredient not 

included in any previously registered 

pesticide product. Pursuant to the 

provisions of section 3(c)(4) of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby 

providing notice of receipt and 

opportunity to comment on these 

applications. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0421, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010– 

0421. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES