53702 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 2014 / Notices 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack 

Faulk, Water Permits Division, Office of 

Water (4203M), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: 202–564–0768; 

email address: faulk.jack@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Supporting documents which explain 

in detail the information that the EPA 

will be collecting are available in the 

public docket for this ICR. The docket 

can be viewed online at 

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The telephone number 

for the Docket Center is 202–566–1744. 

For additional information about EPA’s 

public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.), EPA is soliciting 

comments and information to enable it 

to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (ii) evaluate the 

accuracy of the Agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (iv) minimize the burden 

of the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including through 

the use of appropriate automated 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. EPA will consider the 

comments received and amend the ICR 

as appropriate. The final ICR package 

will then be submitted to OMB for 

review and approval. At that time, EPA 

will issue another Federal Register 

notice to announce the submission of 

the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to 

submit additional comments to OMB. 

Abstract: In December 2003, a longstanding exclusion of discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of 

vessels from the NPDES program 

became the subject of a lawsuit in the 

U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of California (Northwest Envtl. 

Advocates et al. v. United States EPA, 

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5373 (N.D. Cal. 

2005). The District Court issued a final 

order in September 2006 providing that 

the blanket exemption for discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of a 

vessel, contained in 40 CFR § 122.3(a), 

shall be vacated as of September 30, 

2008. On July 23, 2008, the U.S. Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 

District Court’s decision. This meant 

that, effective December 19, 2008, 

except for those vessels exempted from 

NPDES permitting by congressional 

legislation, discharges incidental to the 

normal operation of vessels that were 

excluded from NPDES permitting by 40 

CFR § 122.3(a) were subject to the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) section 301 

prohibition against discharging, unless 

authorized by an NPDES permit. 

In late July 2008, Congress enacted 

two pieces of legislation to exempt 

discharges incidental to the normal 

operation of certain types of vessels 

from the need to obtain an NPDES 

permit. 

The first of these, entitled the Clean 

Boating Act of 2008, amends the CWA 

to provide that discharges incidental to 

the normal operation of recreational 

vessels are not subject to NPDES 

permitting, and instead, creates a new 

regulatory regime to be implemented by 

EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard under the 

new 312(o) of the CWA. S. 2766, Pub. 

L. 110–188 (July 29, 2008). 

The second piece of legislation 

provided for a temporary moratorium on 

NPDES permitting for discharges, except 

for ballast water, subject to the 40 CFR 

§ 122.3(a) exclusion from (1) 

commercial fishing vessels (as defined 

in 46 U.S.C. § 2101 and regardless of 

size) and (2) from those other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in 

length. S. 3298, Pub. L/10–299 (July 31, 

2008). The statute’s NPDES permitting 

moratorium ran for a two-year period 

beginning on its July 31, 2008 

enactment date, during which time EPA 

was 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 (EPA, 2010), a copy of 

which is available on EPA’s Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. The 

moratorium was subsequently extended 

to December 18, 2013 by P.L. 111–215 

and further extended to December 18, 

2014 by the Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2012 (H.R. 2838) 

signed on December 20, 2012 (Pub. L. 

112–213). 

On December 8, 2011, EPA published 

the draft permit in the Federal Register 

and the Agency published the final 

Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) also 

in today’s Federal Register to ensure 

that NPDES permit coverage is available 

for those vessels currently excluded 

from permitting by that moratorium. 

This ICR calculates the burden and 

costs associated with the NPDES 

program, identifies the types of 

activities regulated under the NPDES 

program, and describes the roles and 

responsibilities of the Agency associated 

with the sVGP. 

Form numbers: None. 

Respondents/affected entities: Entities 

potentially affected by this action are 

owners/operators of commercial fishing 

vessels and non-recreational, nonmilitary vessels less than 79 feet in 

length that are operating as a means of 

transportation with incidental 

discharges to waters of the United 

States. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

required for owners/operators needing 

to obtain or retain the benefit of permit 

coverage under the sVGP. 

Estimated number of respondents: 

137,739 (total). 

Frequency of response: Once, 

annually as needed, quarterly. 

Total estimated burden: 138,597 

hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.03(b). 

Total estimated cost: $5,064,298 (per 

year), includes $0 annualized capital or 

operation & maintenance costs. 

Changes in estimates: This is a new 

information collection. 

Dated: August 29, 2014. 

Sheila E. Frace, 

Acting Director, Office of Wastewater 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2014–21402 Filed 9–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2011–0150; FRL–9916–36– 

OW] 

Final National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Small 

Vessel General Permit for Discharges 

Incidental to the Normal Operation of 

Vessels Less Than 79 Feet 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of final permit issuance. 

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 

8, 9, and 10 are finalizing the NPDES 

Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) to 

authorize discharges incidental to the 

normal operation of non-military and 

non-recreational vessels less than 79 

feet in length. EPA is finalizing the 

sVGP, which has an effective date of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 2014 / Notices 53703 

December 19, 2014, to authorize 

discharges from vessels less than 79 feet 

in length, because the law imposing a 

moratorium against NPDES permitting 

of these discharges expires on December 

18, 2014. That law generally provides 

that no NPDES permits shall be required 

for discharges (except discharges of 

ballast water) incidental to the normal 

operation of vessels less than 79 feet 

and all commercial fishing vessels. 

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. 

DATES: This permit is effective on 

December 19, 2014. 

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. This permit also provides 

additional dates for compliance with the 

terms of the permit. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on the sVGP, 

contact Jack Faulk at (202) 564–0768 or 

Ryan Albert at (202) 564–0763, 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 these documents 

and other related information? 

C. Public Outreach: Public Hearings and 

Public Meetings, Web Casts 

D. Who are the EPA regional contacts for 

this permit? 

II. Statutory and Regulatory History 

III. Scope and Applicability of the 2014 sVGP 

A. CWA Section 401 Certification and 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

B. Geographic Coverage of sVGP 

C. Categories of Vessels Covered Under the 

sVGP 

D. Summary of the sVGP 

E. Summary of Significant Changes from 

the Proposed sVGP 

IV. Analysis of Economic Impacts of sVGP 

A. Costs of the sVGP 

B. Benefits of the sVGP 

V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action applies to vessels less 

than 79 feet in length 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 (CWA) 

section 502(25) and vessels of the 

Armed Forces as defined in CWA 

section 312(a)(14). Affected vessels are 

henceforth referred to as non-military, 

non-recreational vessels. Unless 

otherwise excluded from coverage by 

Part 5 of the sVGP, 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 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 

(78 FR 21938, April 12, 2013). Similarly 

situated vessels less than 79 feet in 

length may be covered under the VGP, 

or may instead opt for coverage under 

the sVGP. Commercial fishing vessels 

greater than 79 feet in length are not 

eligible for coverage under the sVGP but 

can be covered under the VGP should 

they need to do so (e.g., after expiration 

of the moratorium from permit 

requirements for these vessels). 

B. How can I get copies of these 

documents and other related 

information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action: 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2011– 

0150. The official public docket is the 

collection of materials, including the 

administrative record required by 40 

CFR 124.18, 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 may not be 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. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically at http://

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 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. 

C. Public Outreach: Public Hearings and 

Public Meetings, Web Casts 

Because EPA anticipated a significant 

degree of public interest in the draft 

sVGP and the draft VGP, EPA held a 

public hearing on Wednesday January 

11, 2012, to receive public comment and 

answer questions concerning the draft 

permits. The hearing was held at EPA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
53704 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 2014 / Notices 

East Room 1153, 1201 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington DC 20460. In 

addition, EPA held a public meeting on 

Monday January 23, 2012, at 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 these two draft general 

permits and the basis for those 

requirements, as well as to answer 

questions concerning the draft permits. 

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 online 

Question and Answer sessions on 

January 31 and February 7, 2012, to 

provide information on the proposed 

permits 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 tel.: (617) 918–1054; or email at 

nagle.john@epa.gov; or 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. 

For EPA Region 2 in New York and 

New Jersey, contact Patricia Pechko at 

tel.: (212) 637–3796; or email at 

pechko.patricia@epa.gov; or at US EPA, 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, 

New York, NY 10007–1866 or for EPA 

Region 2 in Puerto Rico and the Virgin 

Islands, contact Sergio Bosques at tel.: 

(787) 977–5838; or email at 

bosques.sergio@epa.gov; or at US EPA 

Region 2, Caribbean Environmental 

Protection Division, City View Plaza II— 

Suite 7000, 48 Rd. 165 Km 1.2, 

Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968–8069. 

For EPA Region 3, contact Mark 

Smith at tel.: (215) 814–3105; or email 

at smith.mark@epa.gov; or at US EPA, 

Region 3, 1650 Arch St., Mail Code: 

3WP41, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. 

For EPA Region 4, contact Karrie-Jo 

Robinson at tel.: (404) 562–9308; or 

email at robinson.karrie-jo@epa.gov; or 

Kip Tyler at 404–562–9294 or email at 

tyler.kip@epa.gov; or at US EPA, Region 

4/Water Permits Division, Atlanta 

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St. SW., 

Atlanta, GA 30303–3104. 

For EPA Region 5, contact Sean 

Ramach at tel.: (312) 886–5284; or email 

at ramach.sean@epa.gov; or US EPA, 

Region 5, 77 W Jackson Blvd., Mail 

Code: WN16J, Chicago, IL 60604–3507. 

For EPA Region 6, contact Jenelle Hill 

at tel.: (214) 665–9737; or email at 

hill.jenelle@epa.gov; or at US EPA, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733. 

For EPA Region 7, contact Alex 

Owutaka at tel.: (913) 551–7584; or 

email at owutaka.alex@epa.gov; or at US 

EPA, Region 7, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

For EPA Region 8, contact Lisa 

Luebke at tel.: (303) 312–6256; or email 

at luebke.lisa@epa.gov; or at US EPA, 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., Mail Code: 

8P–W–WW, Denver, CO 80202. 

For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene 

Bromley at tel.: (415) 972–3510; or email 

at bromley.eugene@epa.gov; or at US 

EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

For EPA Region 10, contact Cindi 

Godsey at tel.: (206) 553–1676; or email 

at godsey.cindi@epa.gov; or at US EPA, 

Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

II. 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. section 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. 

Historically, EPA had not required 

NPDES permits for discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of a 

vessel; however, on July 23, 2008, the 

United States Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals upheld a lower court decision 

that the Agency’s approach to exclude 

these discharges from permitting 

exceeded the Agency’s authority to do 

so under the Clean Water Act. 

Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. 

United States EPA, 2006 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 69476 (N.D. Cal. 2006). This 

decision prompted EPA and Congress to 

take several actions. For larger vessels 

(i.e., greater than 79 feet in length), EPA 

issued the Vessel General Permit (VGP) 

in late 2008 to provide a mechanism for 

these vessels to comply with CWA 

permitting obligations. For smaller 

vessels and commercial fishing vessels, 

Congress enacted Public Law (Pub. L.) 

110–299 to provide a two-year 

permitting moratorium to allow time for 

EPA to study discharges from these 

vessels and provide a Report to 

Congress (‘‘Study of Discharges 

Incidental to Normal Operation of 

Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other 

Non-Recreational Vessels Less Than 79 

Feet,’’ August 2010). Congress has 

subsequently extended the permitting 

moratorium for smaller vessels and 

commercial fishing vessels through 

December 18, 2014. (Pub. L. 111–215 

and Pub. L. 112–213). 

The Small Vessel General Permit 

(sVGP), as finalized, is a mechanism for 

EPA to provide coverage for discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of 

non-military and non-recreational 

vessels less than 79 feet in length once 

the discharge moratorium ends on 

December 18, 2014. All discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of a 

vessel less than 79 feet, when that vessel 

is operating in capacity as a means of 

transportation, are eligible for coverage 

under this permit. 

EPA is issuing this permit in advance 

of the date permit coverage is required 

to give small vessel owners and 

operators time to read and prepare for 

these new permit requirements. 

III. Scope and Applicability of the 2014 

sVGP 

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 nine months to certify, 

well over the 60 day regulatory norm for 

NPDES permits. EPA found that this 401 

certification had unusual circumstances 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 2014 / Notices 53705 

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 permit 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). Twenty-three states and 

one Indian tribe provided such 

conditions in their certifications, and 

EPA has added them to the sVGP 

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). The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (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. No state 

objected to EPA’s national consistency 

determination. 

B. Geographic Coverage of sVGP 

The sVGP is applicable to discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of a 

vessel (identified in Part 1.4 of the sVGP 

and section 3.6 of the sVGP fact sheet) 

into waters subject to these permits, 

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

defined in 40 CFR 122.2, except as 

otherwise excluded by Part 5 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 5 

of the sVGP. 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 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 

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 

the sVGP 

The sVGP applies to discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of 

non-military, non-recreational vessels 

less than 79 feet (unless a vessel elects 

for coverage under the VGP instead). 

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 the sVGP 

EPA is today finalizing the sVGP for 

vessels less than 79 feet. EPA is 

finalizing the sVGP to provide coverage 

for vessels less than 79 feet in length 

because the Public Law (Pub. L.) 110– 

299 NPDES permitting moratorium 

(subsequently extended by Pub. L. 111– 

215 and Pub. L. 112–213) expires on 

December 18, 2014. EPA recognizes that 

small commercial vessels are different 

in operation than larger commercial 

vessels, generally have fewer discharge 

types, and that owner/operators of 

smaller vessels have particularized 

expertise and different resources 

available to manage their vessels than 

owner/operators of larger vessels. 

Hence, the sVGP is structured 

differently for this class of permittees. 

The sVGP will not require the vessel 

owner or operator to submit a Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to receive permit coverage. 

However, as with vessels not required to 

submit an NOI under the 2013 VGP, 

sVGP permittees are required to 

complete and keep a Permit 

Authorization and Record of Inspection 

(PARI) form onboard their vessel at all 

times (either in paper form or 

electronically). EPA also notes that 

vessel owner/operators of vessels less 

than 79 feet may choose whether they 

wish to seek coverage under the sVGP 

or the VGP. The PARI form, different 

forms for the sVGP and VGP, will 

document under which permit the 

owner/operator has sought coverage. 

The discharges covered in the sVGP are 

categorized into several broad categories 

listed in the permit and include: 

common-sense requirements for general 

discharges, fuel management, engine 

and oil control, solid and liquid waste 

management, deck washdown and 

runoff and above water line hull 

cleaning, vessel hull maintenance, 

graywater, fish hold effluent, ballast 

water, and overboard cooling water 

discharges. The sVGP includes nonnumeric effluent limits in the form of 

Best Management Practices (BMPs), 

which were developed for these 

discharges because EPA has determined 

that it is infeasible to calculate numeric 

effluent limits at this time. The BMPs 

are designed to minimize the amount of 

any discharge produced as well as 

reduce the likelihood the discharge 

would enter a waterbody. EPA 

determined that for most small vessel 

discharges, minimization of pollutants 

in discharges can be achieved without 

using highly engineered, complex 

treatment systems. The sVGP also 

requires the owner/operator to inspect 

the vessel quarterly and take any 

corrective action, as necessary, and 

certify to such on the PARI form each 

year. 

E. Summary of Significant Changes 

From the Proposed sVGP 

EPA received comments from more 

than 70 commenters and based on those 

comments, the Agency made a number 

of revisions to the proposed permit as 

reflected in today’s action. Significant 

changes from the proposed permit are 

summarized below and discussed in 

more detail in the permit fact sheet and 

in the response to comments document 

available in the docket (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2011–0150 accessible at 

http://www.regulations.gov): 

1. Removed the requirement that only 

vessels with less than 8 cubic meters of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
53706 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 2014 / Notices 

ballast water are eligible for sVGP 

coverage. 

2. Added a provision that, when 

feasible and safe, operators must use 

ballast water pumps instead of gravity 

draining to empty these tanks. 

3. Defined what it means for an 

environmentally acceptable lubricant 

(EAL) to be ‘‘technically infeasible’’ for 

a vessel to use as the term is used in the 

permit describing when EALs may not 

be required and added the Swedish 

Standard SS 155434, Convention for the 

Protection of the Marine Environment of 

the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) 

requirements, and EPA’s Design for the 

Environment (DfE) to the list of 

acceptable labeling programs for EALs. 

4. Clarified the prohibition against 

discharging unused bait overboard is 

specific to unused ‘‘live’’ bait from a 

different water body. 

5. Added a condition that 

accumulated bilgewater must be 

removed, to the extent practicable, prior 

to transporting a vessel from one 

waterbody to another over land. 

6. Added a prohibition against using 

any other organotin compound (beyond 

an absolute prohibition of tributyl tin) 

as a hull coating except in certain 

instances. 

7. Clarified vessel hull cleaning 

should not be done within 90 days of 

painting, unless the vessel’s hull is 

‘‘substantially fouled’’ and that cleaning 

of hulls does not necessarily have to 

done using ‘‘only soft sponges.’’ 

8. Clarified that discharges from 

continuous ‘‘once-through’’ ambient 

water used for keeping the catch alive 

during transit is not subject to the 

permit requirements for discharging to 

shore-based facilities. 

9. Clarified that ‘‘periodic’’ 

inspections of the engine and of the hull 

are to be done at least quarterly. 

10. Clarified that any problems 

identified during the quarterly visual 

inspection or when inspecting fuel and 

hydraulic systems for damage or leaks 

must be corrected as soon as possible. 

11. Added a condition that a quarterly 

inspection is not required on vessels 

that are not in the water for that quarter 

but this must be documented on the 

PARI form for that quarter. 

12. Added definitions for several 

terms used in the permit, including 

‘‘ballast tank,’’ ‘‘ballast water,’’ ‘‘ballast 

water capacity,’’ ‘‘fish hold,’’ 

‘‘minimally-toxic,’’ ‘‘minimally-toxic 

soaps, cleaners, and detergents,’’ 

‘‘minimize,’’ ‘‘not bioaccumulative,’’ 

‘‘seafood processing,’’ and ‘‘sewage from 

vessels.’’ 

13. Added State and Tribal-specific 

requirements for 21 states and one tribe, 

pursuant to CWA § 401, to the permit. 

IV. Analysis of Economic Impacts of 

sVGP 

A. Costs of the sVGP 

EPA estimates that between 115,000 

and 138,000 vessels are potentially 

affected by the sVGP requirements. The 

establishments that own and operate 

vessels that will be subject to the sVGP 

are primarily associated with the fishing 

and water transportation industries, and 

with the oil and gas sector within the 

mining industry. To estimate the effect 

of sVGP requirements on an industry as 

a whole, EPA’s analysis takes into 

account previous conditions and 

determines how the industry would act 

in the future in the absence of permit 

requirements. The baseline for this 

analysis is full industry compliance 

with existing federal and state 

regulations and with current industry 

practices or standards that exceed 

current regulations to the extent that 

they can be empirically observed. EPA 

estimated potential compliance costs to 

vessels associated with each of the 

practices and discharge categories 

identified in the sVGP, and with the 

inspection and recordkeeping 

requirements. Overall, EPA finds that 

sVGP requirements could result in total 

annual incremental costs for domestic 

vessels ranging between $7.1 million 

and $16.9 million (2010$) in the 

aggregate. This includes the paperwork 

burden costs and the incremental costs 

of all practices for applicable discharge 

categories. Per vessel incremental 

compliance costs average between $17 

and $133 per year, depending on the 

number of applicable discharge 

categories and baseline practices. 

To evaluate economic impacts of 

sVGP requirements on the affected 

industries, EPA performed a firm-level 

analysis. The firm-level analysis 

examines the impact of incremental 

costs per vessel to comply with the 

sVGP requirements on model firms that 

represent the financial conditions of 

‘‘typical’’ businesses in each of the 

examined industry sectors. Since nearly 

all firms in the affected industries are 

small, the firm-level analysis focuses on 

assessment of impacts on small 

businesses. Further, given the 

distribution of revenue among firms in 

the affected industry sectors, which 

suggests a relatively greater potential for 

impacts to small firms in the 

commercial fishing industry, EPA 

looked more specifically at this industry 

when assessing the significance of 

impacts. To evaluate the potential 

impact of the sVGP on small entities, 

EPA used a cost-to-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. Because the impact 

of sVGP compliance is likely to be most 

significant for firms at the lower end of 

the firm size spectrum, the analysis 

focused on firms in the smallest revenue 

category in each industry. The results of 

this test provide estimated compliance 

cost thresholds that range between $331 

and $680 per year (1%) and between 

$994 and $2,040 per year (3%), 

depending on the industry. The 

estimated sVGP compliance costs ($17 

to $133 per year) are well below these 

thresholds. Based on this firm-level 

analysis using the average 

characteristics of firms in the lowest 

revenue category, EPA concludes that 

the sVGP will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities based on 

information showing that firms would 

have lower compliance costs than 

would exceed the 1 percent cost-torevenue threshold under high-end cost 

assumptions. 

B. Benefits of the sVGP 

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. 

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 12866 (58 FR 

51735 (October 4, 1993)) 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 2014 / Notices 53707 

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

et seq. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Deborah A. Szaro, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

1. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Joan Leary Matthews, 

Director, Clean Water Division, EPA Region 

2. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Jose C. Font, 

Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection 

Division, EPA Region 2. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Jon M. Capacasa, 

Director, Water Protection Division, EPA 

Region 3. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Gail D. Mitchell, 

Deputy Director, Water Protection Division, 

EPA Region 4. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Timothy C. Henry, 

Deputy Director, Water Division, EPA Region 

5. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

James R. Brown, 

Acting Deputy Director, Water Quality 

Protection Division, EPA Region 6. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Karen Flournoy, 

Director, Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides 

Division, EPA Region 7. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Darcy O’Connor, 

Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, 

Office of Partnerships and Regulatory 

Assistance, EPA Region 8. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Nancy Woo, 

Associate Director, Water Division, EPA 

Region 9. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Daniel Opalski, 

Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, 

EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–21408 Filed 9–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0301; FRL–9915–79] 

Availability of Stipulated Injunction in 

Northwest Center for Alternatives to 

Pesticides v. EPA litigation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces to the 

public the availability of an Order 

(stipulated injunction) issued by the 

U.S. District Court for the Western 

District of Washington that, among other 

things, would reinstitute streamside nospray buffer zones to protect endangered 

or threatened Pacific salmon and 

steelhead in California, Oregon, and 

Washington. The stipulated injunction, 

issued on August 15, 2014, settles 

litigation brought against EPA by the 

Northwest Center for Alternatives to 

Pesticides (NCAP) and others. These 

buffers were originally established by 

the same court in prior litigation 

brought against EPA by the Washington 

Toxics Coalition (WTC) and others. Like 

the original buffer zones, the limitations 

in this stipulated injunction are part of 

a court order but are not to be 

enforceable as labeling requirements 

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The nospray buffer zones will apply to the 

pesticides carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, 

diazinon, malathion, and methomyl. 

These buffers will remain in place until 

EPA implements any necessary 

protections for Pacific salmon and 

steelhead based on reinitiated 

consultations with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS). EPA is 

reevaluating these pesticides in 

connection with its current FIFRA 

registration review process and the 

stipulated injunction reinstitutes the 

buffers in the interim. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Pease, Environmental Fate and 

Effects Division (7507P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (703) 305–7695; 

email address: pease.anita@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you develop, manufacture, 

formulate, sell, and/or apply pesticide 

products, and if you are interested in 

the potential impacts of pesticide use on 

listed species. 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). 

• Other stakeholders who have an 

interested in potential impacts of 

pesticides on listed species. 

However, this action is directed to the 

public in general, and may be of 

particular interest to the parties in the 

NCAP v. EPA litigation, environmental 

organizations, professional and 

recreational fishing interests, other 

public interest groups, state regulatory 

partners, other interested federal 

agencies, pesticide registrants and 

pesticide users. Since other entities may 

also be interested, the Agency has not 

attempted to describe all the specific 

entities that may be affected by this 

action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

C. How can I get copies of this 

document and other related 

information? 

A copy of the stipulated injunction is 

available in the docket under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2014–0301. 

II. Background 

A. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is announcing the availability of 

a stipulated injunction issued on August 

15, 2014, by the U.S. District Court for 

the Western District of Washington that, 

among other things, reinstitutes 

streamside no-spray buffer zones to 

protect endangered and threatened 

Pacific salmon and steelhead in 

California, Oregon, and Washington. 

The stipulated injunction settles 

litigation brought against EPA by NCAP 

and others. Like the original buffer 

zones, the limitations in this injunction 

are part of a court order but are not 

enforceable as labeling requirements 

under FIFRA. To view the interactive 

map displaying the areas where the 

buffer zones apply, go to www.epa.gov/ 

espp/litstatus/wtc/uselimitation.htm. 

The interactive map is expected to be 

updated no later than September 30, 

2014 to include the current list of 

chemicals subject to the restrictions, 

enhanced spatial resolution, and the 

most recent geospatial data depicting 

stream reaches where the buffer zones 

apply. The no-spray buffer zones apply 

to the pesticides carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, 

diazinon, malathion, and methomyl. 

These buffer zones will remain in place 

until EPA implements any necessary 

protections for Pacific salmon and 

steelhead based on reinitiated 

consultations with NMFS. EPA is 

reevaluating these pesticides in 

connection with its current FIFRA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES