Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 43123 

statements in the Federal Register or 

elsewhere,’’ and stated that ‘‘[t]his 

review suggests that the Agency has 

generally treated NPDES general permits 

effectively as rules, though at times it 

has given contrary indications as to 

whether these actions are rules or 

permits.’’ Id. at 36496. Based on EPA’s 

further legal analysis of the issue, the 

Agency ‘‘concluded, as set forth in the 

proposal, that NPDES general permits 

are permits [i.e., adjudications] under 

the APA and thus not subject to APA 

rulemaking requirements or the RFA.’’ 

Id. Accordingly, the Agency stated that 

‘‘the APA’s rulemaking requirements are 

inapplicable to issuance of such 

permits,’’ and thus ‘‘NPDES permitting 

is not subject to the requirement to 

publish a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking under the APA or any other 

law * * * [and] it is not subject to the 

RFA.’’ Id. at 36497. 

However, the Agency went on to 

explain that, even though EPA had 

concluded that it was not legally 

required to do so, the Agency would 

voluntarily perform the RFA’s smallentity impact analysis. Id. EPA 

explained the strong public interest in 

the Agency following the RFA’s 

requirements on a voluntary basis: 

‘‘[The notice and comment] process also 

provides an opportunity for EPA to 

consider the potential impact of general 

permit terms on small entities and how 

to craft the permit to avoid any undue 

burden on small entities.’’ Id. 

Accordingly, with respect to the NPDES 

permit that EPA was addressing in that 

Federal Register notice, EPA stated that 

‘‘the Agency has considered and 

addressed the potential impact of the 

general permit on small entities in a 

manner that would meet the 

requirements of the RFA if it applied.’’ 

Id. 

Subsequent to EPA’s conclusion in 

1998 that general permits are 

adjudications rather than rules, as noted 

above, the DC Circuit recently held that 

Nationwide general permits under 

Section 404 are ‘‘rules’’ rather than 

‘‘adjudications.’’ Thus, this legal 

question remains ‘‘a difficult one’’ 

(supra). However, EPA continues to 

believe that there is a strong public 

policy interest in EPA applying the 

RFA’s framework and requirements to 

the Agency’s evaluation and 

consideration of the nature and extent of 

any economic impacts that a CWA 

general permit could have on small 

entities (e.g., small businesses). In this 

regard, EPA believes that the Agency’s 

evaluation of the potential economic 

impact that a general permit would have 

on small entities, consistent with the 

RFA framework discussed below, is 

relevant to, and an essential component 

of, the Agency’s assessment of whether 

a CWA general permit would place 

requirements on dischargers that are 

appropriate and reasonable. 

Furthermore, EPA believes that the 

RFA’s framework and requirements 

provide the Agency with the best 

approach for the Agency’s evaluation of 

the economic impact of general permits 

on small entities. While using the RFA 

framework to inform its assessment of 

whether permit requirements are 

appropriate and reasonable, EPA will 

also continue to ensure that all permits 

satisfy the requirements of the CWA. 

Accordingly, EPA has committed to 

operate in accordance with the RFA’s 

framework and requirements during the 

Agency’s issuance of CWA general 

permits (in other words, the Agency has 

committed that it will apply the RFA in 

its issuance of general permits as if 

those permits do qualify as ‘‘rules’’ that 

are subject to the RFA). 

B. Application of RFA Framework to 

Proposed Issuance of CGP 

EPA has concluded, consistent with 

the discussion in Section IV.A above, 

that the issuance of the 2009 CGP could 

affect a handful of small entities. In the 

areas where the CGP is effective (see 

Section II.E), (those areas where EPA is 

the permit authority), a total of 27 

construction projects were authorized 

under the 2004 CGP—some of these 

project could have been operated by 

small entities. However, EPA has 

concluded that the proposed issuance of 

the 2009 CGP is unlikely to have an 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities. The 2009 CGP includes the 

same requirements as those of the 

national 2008 CGP issued by other EPA 

regions. Additionally, an operator’s use 

of the CGP is volitional (i.e., a 

discharger could apply for an individual 

permit rather than for coverage under 

this general permit) and, given the more 

streamlined process for obtaining permit 

coverage, is less burdensome than an 

individual NPDES permit. EPA intends 

to include an updated economic 

screening analysis with the issuance of 

the next national CGP. 

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

et seq. 

Dated: August 17, 2009. 

James D. Giattina, Director, 

Water Protection Division, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E9–20595 Filed 8–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0008; FRL–8433–4] 

Tribal Pesticide Program Council; 

Notice of Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Tribal Pesticide Program 

Council (TPPC) will hold a two-day 

meeting on Wednesday, October 14, 

2009 and Thursday, October 15, 2009. 

This notice announces the location and 

times for the meeting and sets forth 

tentative agenda topics. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 and 

Thursday, October 15, 2009 from 9 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. 

To request accommodation of a 

disability, please contact the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON

CONTACT, at least 10 days prior to the 

meeting, to give EPA as much time as 

possible to process your request. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in 

the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) 

4th Floor South Conference Room, One 

Potomac Yard, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 

Arlington, VA 22202. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Powell, Field and External Affairs 

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7384; fax number: (703) 308– 

1850; e-mail address: 

powell.mary@epa.gov; or Lillian 

Wilmore, TPPC Administrator, 1595 

Beacon St. #3, Brookline, MA 02446– 

4617; telephone number: (617) 232– 

5742; fax number: (617) 277–1656; email address: NAEcology@aol.com. For 

information about the TPPC, please see 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/tribes/ 

tppc.htm. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be interested in this meeting 

if you are interested in the TPPC’s 

information-exchange relationship with 

EPA regarding important issues in 

Indian country related to human and 

environmental exposure to pesticides 

and insight into EPA’s decision-making 

process. All parties are invited and 

encouraged to participate as 

appropriate. Potentially affected entities 

may include, but are not limited to, 

those who use, or conduct testing of, 

chemical substances under the Federal 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43124 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) or the Federal Food, Drug 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0008. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either in the electronic docket 

at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the Office of 

Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory 

Public Docket in Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of 

operation of this Docket Facility are 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

2. Electronic access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. 

II. Tentative Agenda 

1. Report from the new TPPC 

Administrator. 

2. Report on the international IPM 

conference. 

3. Presentation on the inspection 

needs of tribes along the Colorado River. 

4. Updates from OPP and EPA’s Office 

of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance. 

5. EPA Regional reports. 

6. Discussion on the use of restricteduse pesticides in Indian country. 

7. Tribal Caucus (TPPC only). 

III. How Can I Request to Participate in 

this Meeting? 

If you wish to participate in this 

meeting, you may submit a request to 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not submit 

any information in your request that is 

considered Confidential Business 

Information. Requests to participate in 

the meeting, identified by docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0008, 

must be received on or before 

September 8, 2009. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, pesticides 

and pests, Tribes. 

Dated: August 17, 2009. 

William R. Diamond, 

Director, Field and External Affairs Division, 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–20605 Filed 8–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8949–9] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; 

Announcement of EPA Letter 

Addressing Recent Court Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On December 19, 2008, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) 

vacated two provisions in EPA’s General 

Provisions Rule promulgated under 

section 112 of the Clean Air Act that 

exempt sources from the requirement to 

comply with otherwise applicable 

section 112(d) emission standards 

during periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction. We are announcing the 

public availability of a letter that EPA 

has issued addressing concerns that 

have been raised regarding the impact of 

that decision if the mandate effectuating 

the vacatur issues. 

DATES: August 26, 2009, EPA announces 

the availability of EPA’s letter related to 

a recent court decision regarding 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Charlie Garlow, U.S. EPA Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, Office of Civil Enforcement, 

Air Enforcement Division (MAIL CODE 

2242A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

Washington, DC 20460, telephone 

number (202) 564–1088, fax number 

(202) 564–0068, e-mail address: 

garlow.charlie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA 

recently issued a letter, dated July 22, 

2009, from Adam Kushner, Director, 

Office of Civil Enforcement, to various 

parties that addresses concerns that 

have been raised regarding the impact of 

the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 

F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). In that 

decision, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (DC Circuit) vacated 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), which are two 

provisions in EPA’s General Provisions 

Rule promulgated under section 112 of 

the Clean Air Act that exempt sources 

from the requirement to comply with 

otherwise applicable section 112(d) 

emission standards during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction. 

Industry Intervenors appealed the 

December 2008 Sierra Club decision by 

filing petitions for rehearing. On July 30, 

2009, the DC Circuit denied these 

petitions. On August 5, 2009, EPA filed 

a motion seeking a 60-day stay of the 

mandate. On August 6, 2009, Industry 

Intervenors filed a motion to stay the 

mandate pending their appeal of the 

decision to the United States Supreme 

Court. Until the D.C. Circuit issues a 

mandate effectuating the vacatur, 40 

CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) remain in 

effect. EPA has posted a copy of the July 

22, 2009 letter and a copy of the Sierra 

Club decision on the EPA Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/civil/caa/ssm.html. EPA 

has also included on the Web site a 

copy of relevant pleadings in the Sierra 

Club litigation. EPA intends to update 

this Web site as appropriate with 

additional information relating to the 

Sierra Club decision. 

Dated: August 14, 2009. 

Cynthia Giles, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

[FR Doc. E9–20593 Filed 8–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0208; FRL–8429–6] 

Maneb; Product Cancellation Order 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA’s 

order for the cancellations, voluntarily 

requested by the registrant and accepted 

by the Agency, of products containing 

the pesticide maneb, pursuant to section 

6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), as amended. This cancellation 

order follows a September 12, 2008 

Federal Register Notice of Receipt of 

Requests from the United Phosphorous, 

Inc. registrant to voluntarily cancel all 

their maneb product registrations. These 

are not the last maneb products 

registered for use in the United States. 

In the September 12, 2008 notice, EPA 

indicated that it would issue an order 

implementing the cancellations, unless 

the Agency received substantive 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES