Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 4289 

Frequency of response: Initially, 

occasionally and semiannually. 

Total estimated burden: 1,390 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $460,000 (per 

year), which includes $320,000 in 

annualized capital/startup and/or 

operation & maintenance costs. 

Changes in the Estimates: The 

increase in burden from the mostrecently approved ICR is due to 

accounting for the assumption that all 

sources will spend one hour annually 

reviewing and understanding the rule 

requirements. Previously, the 

assumption was that only new sources 

would incur this burden. 

There is a small decrease in O&M cost 

in this ICR due to rounding of all 

calculated values to three significant 

digits. In addition, there is an increase 

of two annual responses due to a minor 

correction. The previous ICR did not 

account for notifications of operational 

changes in calculating the number of 

responses. 

Courtney Kerwin, 

Acting-Director, Collection Strategies 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01472 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0499; FRL–9941–35– 

OW] 

Draft National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide 

General Permit for Point Source 

Discharges From the Application of 

Pesticides; Reissuance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of draft permit and 

request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: All ten EPA Regions today are 

proposing for public comment the draft 

2016 National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) pesticide 

general permit (PGP)—the ‘‘draft 2016 

PGP.’’ The draft 2016 PGP covers point 

source discharges from the application 

of pesticides to waters of the United 

States. Once finalized, the draft 2016 

PGP will replace the existing permit that 

will expire at midnight on October 31, 

2016. The draft 2016 PGP has the same 

conditions and requirements as the 2011 

PGP and would authorize certain point 

source discharges from the application 

of pesticides to waters of the United 

States in accordance with the terms and 

conditions described therein. EPA 

proposes to issue this permit for five (5) 

years in all areas of the country where 

EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. 

EPA solicits public comment on all 

aspects of the draft 2016 PGP. This 

Federal Register notice describes the 

draft 2016 PGP in general and also 

includes specific topics about which the 

Agency is particularly seeking 

comment. The fact sheet accompanying 

the permit contains supporting 

documentation. EPA encourages the 

public to read the fact sheet to better 

understand the draft 2016 PGP. 

DATES: Comments on the draft 2016 PGP 

must be received on or before March 11, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2015–0499, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA 

Regional Office listed in Section I.D, or 

Prasad Chumble, EPA Headquarters, 

Office of Water, Office of Wastewater 

Management at tel.: 202–564–0021 or 

email: chumble.prasad@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

section is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Will public hearings be held on this 

action? 

D. Finalizing the Draft 2016 PGP 

E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for 

the Draft 2016 PGP? 

II. Background 

III. Scope and Applicability of the Draft 2016 

PGP 

A. Geographic Coverage 

B. Categories of Facilities Covered 

C. Summary of the Permit Requirements 

and Provisions for Which EPA Is 

Soliciting Comment 

IV. Cost Impacts of the Draft 2016 PGP 

V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

VI. Executive Order 13175 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be affected by this action if 

you apply pesticides, under the use 

patterns in Section III.B., that result in 

a discharge to waters of the United 

States in one of the geographic areas 

identified in Section III.A. Potentially 

affected entities, as categorized in the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS), may include, but are 

not limited to: 

TABLE 1—ENTITIES POTENTIALLY REGULATED BY THE DRAFT 2016 PGP 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4290 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 

TABLE 1—ENTITIES POTENTIALLY REGULATED BY THE DRAFT 2016 PGP—Continued 

Category NAICS Examples of potentially affected entities 

Pesticide parties (includes pesticide manufacturers, other pesticide users/interests, and 

consultants).

325320 Pesticide and Other 

Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing.

Formulation and preparation of agricultural pest control 

chemicals. 

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. 

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? 

The draft 2016 PGP, fact sheet and all 

supporting documents are available at 

www.regulations.gov under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0499. 

Electronic versions of the draft 2016 

PGP and fact sheet are also available on 

EPA’s NPDES Web site at www.epa.gov/ 

npdes/pesticides. 

C. Will public hearings be held on this 

action? 

EPA has not scheduled any public 

hearings to receive public comment 

concerning the draft 2016 PGP. 

However, interested persons may 

request a public hearing pursuant to 40 

CFR 124.12 concerning the draft 2016 

PGP. Requests for a public hearing must 

be sent or delivered in writing to the 

same address as provided above, for 

public comments prior to the close of 

the comment period. Requests for a 

public hearing must state the nature of 

the issues proposed to be raised in the 

hearing. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12, 

EPA shall hold a public hearing if it 

finds, on the basis of requests, a 

significant degree of public interest in a 

public hearing on the draft 2016 PGP. If 

EPA decides to hold a public hearing, a 

public notice of the date, time and place 

of the hearing will be made at least 30 

days prior to the hearing. Any person 

may provide written or oral statements 

and data pertaining to the draft 2016 

PGP at any such public hearing. 

D. Finalizing the Draft 2016 PGP 

EPA intends to issue a final 2016 PGP 

on or prior to October 31, 2016 (the 

expiration date of the 2011 PGP). The 

final 2016 PGP will be issued after all 

public comments received during the 

public comment period have been 

considered and appropriate changes 

made to the draft 2016 PGP. EPA will 

include its response to comments 

received in the docket as part of the 

final permit decision. Once the final 

2016 PGP becomes effective, eligible 

Operators may seek authorization under 

the new PGP as outlined in the permit. 

To ensure uninterrupted permit 

coverage from the 2011 PGP to the new 

permit, Operators, who are required to 

submit a Notice of Intent (NOI), must 

submit their NOI for coverage under the 

new permit prior to discharge as 

outlined in the permit (no later than 10 

or 30 days before discharge). See Part 

1.2.4 of the draft 2016 PGP. 

E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for 

the Draft 2016 PGP? 

For EPA Region 1, contact George 

Papadopoulos at tel.: (617) 918–1579; or 

email at papadopoulos.george@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 2, contact Maureen 

Krudner at tel.: (212) 637–3874; or email 

at krudner.maureen@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 3, contact Mark 

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

at smith.mark@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 4, contact Sam 

Sampath at tel.: (404) 562–9229; or 

email at sampath.sam@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 5, contact Mark 

Ackerman at tel.: (312) 353–4145; or 

email at ackerman.mark@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 6, contact Kilty 

Baskin at tel.: (214) 665–7500 or email 

at baskin.kilty@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 7, contact Kimberly 

Hill at tel.: (913) 551–7841 or email at: 

hill.kimberly@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 8, contact David Rise 

at tel.: (406) 457–5012 or email at: 

rise.david@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 9, contact Pascal 

Mues at tel.: (415) 972–3768 or email at: 

mues.pascal@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 10, contact Dirk 

Helder at tel.: (208) 378–5749 or email 

at: helder.dirk@epa.gov. 

II. Background 

Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) provides that ‘‘the discharge of 

any pollutant by any person shall be 

unlawful’’ unless the discharge is in 

compliance with certain other sections 

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

defines ‘‘discharge of a pollutant’’ as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 4291 

‘‘(A) any addition of any pollutant to 

navigable waters from any point source, 

(B) any addition of any pollutant to the 

waters of the contiguous zone or the 

ocean from any point source other than 

a vessel or other floating craft.’’ 33 

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

‘‘discernible, confined and discrete 

conveyance’’ but does not include 

‘‘agricultural stormwater discharges and 

return flows from irrigated agriculture.’’ 

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

The term ‘‘pollutant’’ includes, among 

other things, ‘‘garbage . . . chemical 

wastes, biological materials . . . and 

industrial, municipal, and agricultural 

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

1362(6). 

A person may discharge a pollutant 

without violating the section 301 

prohibition by obtaining authorization 

to discharge (referred to herein as 

‘‘coverage’’) under a section 402 NPDES 

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

402(a), EPA may ‘‘issue a permit for the 

discharge of any pollutant, or 

combination of pollutants, 

notwithstanding section 1311(a)’’ upon 

certain conditions required by the Act. 

EPA issued the first Pesticide General 

Permit (PGP) on October 31, 2011 in 

response to a United States Sixth Circuit 

Court of Appeals ruling vacating EPA’s 

2006 Final Rule on Aquatic Pesticides. 

National Cotton Council of America. v. 

EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009). EPA 

developed the PGP to control point 

source discharges of biological 

pesticides, and chemical pesticides that 

leave a residue, into waters of the 

United States. 

Implementation of the 2011 PGP has 

been successful during its first four 

years. EPA is not aware of any lawsuits 

brought against Operators discharging 

under EPA’s PGP. The regulated 

community has raised very few 

implementation issues, and EPA 

resolved those issues. The provisions in 

the permit for pesticide applications 

during emergencies have been 

effectively implemented. Finally, 

Operators have generally submitted the 

NOIs and Annual Reports on time to the 

Agency. However, in an effort to pursue 

continuous improvement to protect 

water quality, EPA seeks comment on 

the draft 2016 PGP, in general, and on 

specific topics as described in Section 

III.C, below. 

III. Scope and Applicability of the Draft 

2016 PGP 

A. Geographic Coverage 

EPA would provide permit coverage 

for classes of discharges where EPA is 

the NPDES permitting authority. The 

geographic coverage of today’s draft 

2016 PGP is listed below. Where the 

permit covers activities on Indian 

Country lands, those areas are as listed 

below within the borders of that state: 

EPA Region 1 

• Massachusetts, including Indian 

Country lands within Massachusetts 

• Indian Country lands within 

Connecticut 

• New Hampshire 

• Indian Country lands within Rhode 

Island 

• Federal Facilities within Vermont 

EPA Region 2 

• Indian Country lands within New 

York State 

• Puerto Rico 

EPA Region 3 

• The District of Columbia 

• Federal Facilities within Delaware 

EPA Region 4 

• Indian Country lands within Alabama 

• Indian Country lands within Florida 

• Indian Country lands within 

Mississippi 

• Indian Country lands within North 

Carolina 

EPA Region 5 

• Indian Country lands within 

Michigan 

• Indian Country lands within 

Minnesota 

• Indian Country lands within 

Wisconsin 

EPA Region 6 

• Indian Country lands within 

Louisiana 

• New Mexico, including Indian 

Country lands within New Mexico, 

except Navajo Reservation Lands (see 

Region 9) and Ute Mountain 

Reservation Lands (see Region 8) 

• Indian Country lands within 

Oklahoma 

• Discharges in Texas that are not under 

the authority of the Texas 

Commission on Environmental 

Quality (formerly TNRCC), including 

activities associated with the 

exploration, development, or 

production of oil or gas or geothermal 

resources, including transportation of 

crude oil or natural gas by pipeline, 

including Indian Country lands 

EPA Region 7 

• Indian Country lands within Iowa 

• Indian Country lands within Kansas 

• Indian Country lands within 

Nebraska, except Pine Ridge 

Reservation lands (see Region 8) 

EPA Region 8 

• Federal Facilities in Colorado, 

including those on Indian Country 

lands within Colorado as well as the 

portion of the Ute Mountain 

Reservation located in New Mexico 

• Indian Country lands within Montana 

• Indian Country lands within North 

Dakota 

• Indian Country lands within South 

Dakota, as well as the portion of the 

Pine Ridge Reservation located in 

Nebraska (see Region 7) 

• Indian Country lands within Utah, 

except Goshute and Navajo 

Reservation lands (see Region 9) 

• Indian Country lands within 

Wyoming 

EPA Region 9 

• The Island of American Samoa 

• Indian Country lands within Arizona 

as well as Navajo Reservation lands in 

New Mexico (see Region 6) and Utah 

(see Region 8) 

• Indian Country lands within 

California 

• The Island of Guam 

• The Johnston Atoll 

• Midway Island, Wake Island, and 

other unincorporated U.S. possessions 

• The Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands 

• Indian Country lands within the State 

of Nevada, as well as the Duck Valley 

Reservation in Idaho, the Fort 

McDermitt Reservation in Oregon (see 

Region 10) and the Goshute 

Reservation in Utah (see Region 8) 

EPA Region 10 

• Indian Country lands within Alaska 

• Idaho, including Indian Country lands 

within Idaho, except Duck Valley 

Reservation lands (see Region 9) 

• Indian Country lands within Oregon, 

except Fort McDermitt Reservation 

lands (see Region 9) 

• Federal Facilities in Washington, 

including those located on Indian 

Country lands within Washington. 

B. Categories of Facilities Covered 

The draft 2016 PGP has the same 

requirements and conditions as EPA’s 

2011 PGP and regulates the same 

discharges to waters of the United States 

from the application of (1) biological 

pesticides, and (2) chemical pesticides 

that leave a residue. These apply to the 

following pesticide use patterns: 

• Mosquito and Other Flying Insect 

Pest Control—to control public health/ 

nuisance and other flying insect pests 

that develop or are present during a 

portion of their life cycle in or above 

standing or flowing water. Public 

health/nuisance and other flying insect 

pests in this use category include 

mosquitoes and black flies. 

• Weed and Algae Pest Control—to 

control weeds, algae, and pathogens that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4292 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 

are pests in water and at water’s edge, 

including ditches and/or canals. 

• Animal Pest Control—to control 

animal pests in water and at water’s 

edge. Animal pests in this use category 

include fish, lampreys, insects, 

mollusks, and pathogens. 

• Forest Canopy Pest Control— 

application of a pesticide to a forest 

canopy to control the population of a 

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

where, to target the pests effectively, a 

portion of the pesticide unavoidably 

will be applied over and deposited to 

water. 

The scope of activities encompassed 

by these pesticide use patterns is 

described in greater detail in Part III.1.1 

of the Fact Sheet for the draft 2016 PGP. 

C. Summary of the Permit Requirements 

and Provisions for Which EPA Is 

Soliciting Comment 

Once issued, the final 2016 PGP will 

replace the 2011 PGP, which was issued 

for a five-year term on October 31, 2011 

(see 76 FR 68750). The draft 2016 PGP 

has the same conditions and 

requirements as the existing 2011 PGP, 

and is structured in the same nine parts: 

(1) Coverage under the permit, (2) 

technology-based effluent limitations, 

(3) water quality-based effluent 

limitations, (4) monitoring, (5) pesticide 

discharge management plan, (6) 

corrective action, (7) recordkeeping and 

Annual Reporting, (8) EPA contact 

information and mailing addresses, and 

(9) permit conditions applicable to 

specific states, Indian country lands or 

territories. Additionally, as with the 

2011 PGP, the draft 2016 PGP includes 

nine appendices with additional 

conditions and guidance for permittees: 

(A) Definitions, abbreviations, and 

acronyms, (B) standard permit 

conditions, (C) areas covered, (D) Notice 

of Intent (NOI) form, (E) Notice of 

Termination (NOT) form, (F) Pesticide 

Discharge Evaluation worksheet 

(PDEW), (G) Annual Reporting template, 

(H) Adverse Incident template, and (I) 

endangered species procedures. 

The following is a summary of the 

draft 2016 PGP’s requirements: 

• The draft 2016 PGP defines 

‘‘Operator’’ (i.e., the entity required to 

obtain NPDES permit coverage for 

discharges) to include any (a) 

Applicator who performs the 

application of pesticides or has day-today control of the application of 

pesticides that results in a discharge to 

waters of the United States, or (b) 

Decision-maker who controls any 

decision to apply pesticides that results 

in a discharge to waters of the United 

States. There may be instances when a 

single entity acts as both an Applicator 

and a Decision-maker. 

• All Applicators are required to 

minimize pesticide discharges by using 

only the amount of pesticide and 

frequency of pesticide application 

necessary to control the target pest, 

maintain pesticide application 

equipment in proper operating 

condition, control discharges as 

necessary to meet applicable water 

quality standards, and monitor for and 

report any adverse incidents. 

• All Decision-makers are required, to 

the extent not determined by the 

Applicator, to minimize pesticide 

discharges by using only the amount of 

pesticide and frequency of pesticide 

application necessary to control the 

target pest. All Decision-makers are also 

required to control discharges as 

necessary to meet applicable water 

quality standards and monitor for and 

report any adverse incidents. 

• Certain Decision-makers [i.e., any 

agency for which pest management for 

land resource stewardship is an integral 

part of the organization’s operations, 

entities with a specific responsibility to 

control pests (e.g., mosquito and weed 

control districts), local governments or 

other entities that apply pesticides in 

excess of specified annual treatment 

area thresholds, and entities that 

discharge pesticides to Tier 3 waters or 

to waters of the United States containing 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern] 

are required to also submit an NOI to 

obtain authorization to discharge and 

implement pest management options to 

reduce the discharge of pesticides to 

waters of the United States. Of this 

group, certain large Decision-makers 

must also develop a Pesticide Discharge 

Management Plan (PDMP), submit 

annual reports, and maintain detailed 

records. Certain small Decision-makers 

are required to complete a pesticide 

discharge evaluation worksheet for each 

pesticide application (in lieu of the 

more comprehensive PDMP), an annual 

report, and detailed recordkeeping. 

While EPA encourages the public to 

review and comment on all aspects and 

provisions in the draft 2016 PGP, EPA 

specifically solicits comments on the 

following as part of this reissuance: 

(1) Notice of Intent. As with the 2011 

PGP, the draft 2016 PGP requires only 

certain Decision-makers, as discussed 

above, to submit NOIs. If an NOI is 

required, it must contain either a map 

or narrative description of the area and 

the potentially affected waters of the 

United States, and the pesticide use 

patterns for which permit coverage is 

being requested for the duration of the 

permit. Operators can identify specific 

waters or request coverage for all waters 

within the area for which they are 

requesting permit coverage. EPA is 

interested in feedback on whether the 

NOI data requirements capture adequate 

information on the pesticide application 

areas and associated waters of the 

United States for which permit coverage 

is being requested. For example, in the 

NOI submissions for the 2011 PGP, EPA 

received a variety of submissions for the 

Pest Management Areas ranging from 

maps of large waterbodies to specific 

subsections of streams. NOIs submitted 

under the 2011 PGP are available online 

at (http://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/aps/

f?p=PGP_2011:HOME::::::), and a 

summary of the data is available in the 

docket EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0257. EPA 

requests comments on whether 

different, or more specific and 

consistent, information should be 

required to better determine the 

locations of pesticides applications. 

As mentioned above, the draft 2016 

PGP requires Decision-makers to 

include in their NOIs a description of 

the areas where pesticides are applied 

(or treatment areas) within the broader 

designated Pest Management Area. 

Within the Pest Management Area, 

Operators are required to determine if 

they are applying to impaired or Tier 3 

waters; however, Operators are not 

required to determine whether their 

application will impact the water 

quality of drinking water supplies. EPA 

seeks feedback on how best to collect 

information to determine if pesticides 

activities covered under this permit 

could impact drinking water source 

protection areas. One possible approach 

would be to require a determination of 

whether a portion of the Pest 

Management Area is within a public 

drinking water supply source protection 

area. If EPA adopted this approach, EPA 

would add a ‘‘Yes/No’’ indicator to the 

eNOI form (Appendix D) to indicate 

whether a portion of the Pest 

Management Area is within a public 

water supply source water protection 

area. EPA solicits comment on this 

approach. 

(2) Annual Reporting. As with the 

2011 PGP, the draft 2016 PGP requires 

any Decision-maker who is required to 

submit an NOI and is a large entity, and 

any Decision-maker with discharges to 

waters of the United States containing 

NMFS Listed Resources of Concern 

including small entities, to submit an 

annual report to EPA that contains, 

among other things, a previous calendar 

year’s compilation of pesticide products 

applied, total annual quantities applied, 

locations where pesticide applications 

were made, and information on any 

adverse incidents or corrective actions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 4293 

1http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_

cy.control?p_report_type=T. 

resulting from discharges covered under 

the draft 2016 PGP. See Appendix G of 

the draft 2016 PGP, Annual Report 

template. Due to the potential burden of 

accounting and submitting information 

on each and every location of 

application, type, and amount of 

pesticides, EPA asked for a compilation 

of that information for the previous year 

of application. However, as with the 

information requested in the NOI, EPA 

received a variety of descriptions for the 

Pest Management Areas and treatment 

areas in the Annual Reports. The 

Agency is interested in comments on 

the utility and value of the information 

collected by the reports. EPA would also 

like feedback on whether less, more, or 

different information would provide a 

more accurate accounting of the 

amount, type, and location of pesticide 

discharges. Annual Reports submitted 

under the 2011 PGP are available online 

at (http://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/aps/

f?p=PGP_2011:HOME::::::). In addition, 

to ensure consistency and prevent 

confusion among the pesticides user 

community, EPA seeks comment on 

whether the terminology is clear and 

easily understandable. For example, 

many state pesticide regulations require 

Applicators to report pesticides in 

‘‘amount used,’’ unlike the 2011 PGP, 

which requires that pesticides be 

reported in ‘‘quantity applied.’’ See Part 

III.7 of the Fact Sheet for further 

discussion on Annual Reporting 

requirements. 

(3) Water Quality-Based Effluent 

Limitations (WQBEL). The 2011 PGP 

contained several provisions to protect 

water quality and the draft 2016 PGP 

includes those same provisions. It 

includes a narrative WQBEL requiring 

that discharges be controlled as 

necessary to meet applicable water 

quality standards. Failure to control 

discharges in a manner that meets 

applicable water quality standards is a 

violation of the permit. 

In addition to the narrative WQBEL, 

the draft 2016 PGP contains related 

provisions which act together to further 

protect water quality. These provisions 

were also included in the 2011 PGP. For 

example, the draft 2016 PGP requires 

the Operator to implement control 

measures and to take corrective action 

in response to any excursion of 

applicable water quality standards. 

Additionally, EPA expects that, as with 

the 2011 PGP, the Agency will receive 

CWA Section 401 certifications for the 

final 2016 PGP. Some of those 

certifications will include additional 

conditions that are required by the state, 

territory, or tribe, that are necessary to 

assure compliance with the applicable 

provisions of the CWA, including water 

quality standards, in specific geographic 

areas where the permit is available. The 

CWA Section 401 certifications 

submitted by states, territories and 

tribes for the 2011 PGP are included in 

the docket at EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 

0257–1267. 

The draft 2016 PGP retains the same 

eligibility provisions from the 2011 PGP 

which provides additional water quality 

protection. For instance, the draft 2016 

PGP makes clear that Operators must 

comply with all applicable statutes, 

regulations, and other requirements 

including, but not limited to, 

requirements contained in the labeling 

of pesticide products approved under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), known as 

‘‘FIFRA labeling.’’ If Operators are 

found to have applied a pesticide in a 

manner inconsistent with any relevant 

water quality-related FIFRA labeling 

requirements, EPA will presume that 

the effluent limitation to minimize 

pesticides entering the waters of the 

United States has been violated under 

the NPDES permit. Many provisions of 

FIFRA labeling—such as those relating 

to application sites, rates, frequency, 

and methods, as well as provisions 

concerning proper storage and disposal 

of pesticide wastes and containers—are 

requirements that protect water quality. 

Also, it is important to note that 

biological pesticides do not cause water 

quality toxicity because they do not 

work through a toxic mode of action, 

and the discharges of chemical 

pesticides that would be covered by the 

draft 2016 PGP are residues of 

pesticides after they have performed 

their intended purpose. Thus, residue 

concentrations will be no higher than 

the concentration of the pesticide as 

applied. 

To provide further protection, the 

draft 2016 PGP also includes the 

provision from the 2011 PGP which 

excludes from coverage any discharges 

of pesticides to waters listed as 

impaired, including waters with Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), where 

the waterbody is impaired for the active 

ingredient in that pesticide or its 

degradates. For geographic areas 

covered under the draft 2016 PGP, the 

303(d) list of impairments 1 indicates 

that of the 17 pesticide active 

ingredients identified on the 

impairment list, seven are for legacy 

pollutants that have had their FIFRA 

registrations cancelled and are no longer 

authorized for use. Furthermore, for the 

remaining pesticides, analysis of the 

2011 PGP annual reports data indicate 

that none of the reported pesticides are 

on the 303(d) list of impairments in 

geographic areas where the PGP is 

authorized. See document titled, 

‘‘Comparison of 303(d) Pesticides 

Impairment Data with 2011 PGP Annual 

Reports Data’’ in the docket. 

In addition, as identified in Part 1.2.3 

of the 2011 PGP and the draft 2016 PGP, 

for eligible discharges (e.g., discharges 

to waters that are impaired for 

pollutants other than the pesticide 

product or degradates of that product), 

EPA may determine that additional 

TBELs or WQBELs are necessary, or 

may deny coverage under the PGP and 

require submission of an application for 

an individual permit. 

Prior to reissuing permits, EPA 

evaluates opportunities for improving 

permit requirements to protect water 

quality. Although EPA finds that the 

conditions and requirements of the draft 

2016 PGP are protective of water 

quality, EPA is aware that some states, 

tribes, and territories include additional 

WQBELs in their states-issued permits 

or included additional conditions in 

their 401 certifications for the draft 2011 

PGP. EPA has examined these 

additional BMPs and permit conditions 

and seeks feedback on whether some of 

these additional measures or others 

should be added to the draft 2016 PGP 

WQBELs to further protect water 

quality. EPA has included examples of 

some permit requirements from NPDES 

authorized state WQBELs in the docket. 

See document titled, ‘‘Examples of State 

PGP Provisions that Address WQBELs/

WQ Monitoring.’’ Additionally, 

examples of some BMPs from pesticides 

labels are available in the docket as 

well. See document titled, ‘‘Examples of 

BMPs in Pesticides Product FIFRA 

Labels to Address Water Quality.’’ 

IV. Cost Impacts of the PGP 

EPA performed a cost impact analysis 

on Operators covered by the 2011 PGP 

for the purpose of examining the 

economic achievability of complying 

with the technology-based effluent 

limitations and the administrative 

requirements embodied in the permit. 

EPA performs this type of analysis 

where a general permit is developed in 

the absence of existing applicable 

national effluent limitations. Based on 

the 2011 PGP analysis and the updated 

cost analysis for the draft 2016 PGP, 

EPA expects that there will be minimal 

burden on entities, including small 

businesses, covered under the draft 

2016 PGP. EPA finds the limitations to 

be economically achievable. A copy of 

EPA’s cost analysis, titled, ‘‘Cost Impact 

Analysis for the Draft 2016 Pesticide 

General Permit (PGP),’’ is available in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4294 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 

the docket. EPA solicits additional 

information during the public notice of 

the draft 2016 PGP that will allow for a 

more accurate cost analysis, and will 

update the cost impact analysis as 

appropriate, for the final permit. 

V. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

The draft 2016 PGP is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

VI. Executive Order 13175: 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in E.O. 13175. 

It will neither impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on federally 

recognized tribal governments, nor 

preempt tribal law. EPA directly 

implements the NPDES Program, 

including the proposed 2016 PGP, in 

Indian Country; therefore, in 

compliance with the EPA Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with tribal 

officials early in the process to permit 

tribes to have meaningful and timely 

input into the renewal of the 2016 PGP. 

To gain an understanding of, and where 

necessary, to address tribal implications 

of the draft 2016 PGP, EPA conducted 

the following activities: 

• October 28, 2015—EPA mailed 

notification letters to tribal leaders 

initiating consultation and coordination 

on the renewal of the PGP. The 

initiation letter was posted on the tribal 

portal Web site at http://tcots.epa.gov. 

• November 19, 2015—EPA held an 

informational teleconference open to all 

tribal representatives, and reserved the 

last part of the teleconference for official 

consultation comments. Seven tribal 

officials participated. EPA also invited 

tribes to submit written comments on 

the draft 2016 PGP. The presentation 

was posted on the tribal portal Web site 

at http://tcots.epa.gov. 

Although EPA did not receive any 

comments during the formal 

consultation period, EPA encourages 

tribes to participate in the public review 

process by submitting comments 

through regulations.gov. EPA will 

consider the comments and address 

them in the final action. 

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

et seq. 

Dated: January 14, 2016. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

Dated: January 14, 2016. 

Joan Leary Matthews, 

Director, Clean Water Division, EPA Region 

2. 

Dated: January 14, 2016. 

Jose C. Font, 

Division Director, Caribbean Environmental 

Protection Division, EPA Region 2. 

Dated: January 13, 2016. 

Jon M. Capacasa, 

Director, Water Protection Division, EPA 

Region 3. 

Dated: January 13, 2016. 

James D. Giattina, 

Director, Water Protection Division, EPA 

Region 4. 

Dated: January 13, 2016. 

Tinka G. Hyde, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5. 

Dated: January 14, 2016. 

William K. Honker, P.E., 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 6. 

Dated: January 14, 2016. 

Karen A. Flournoy, 

Director, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides 

Division, EPA Region 7. 

Dated: January 14, 2016. 

Darcy O’Connor, 

Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, 

Office of Partnerships and Regulatory 

Assistance, EPA Region 8. 

Dated: January 13, 2016. 

Tomas Torres, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9. 

Dated: January 14, 2016. 

Daniel D. Opalski, 

Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, 

EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01564 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9941–73–ORD] 

Office of Research and Development; 

Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and 

Equivalent Methods: Designation of a 

New Equivalent Method 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of the designation of a 

new equivalent method for monitoring 

ambient air quality. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) has designated, in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 53, one new reference 

method for measuring concentrations of 

PM10 in the ambient air. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Vanderpool, Exposure Methods 

and Measurement Division (MD–D205– 

03), National Exposure Research 

Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711. Email: 

Vanderpool.Robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with regulations at 40 CFR 

part 53, the EPA evaluates various 

methods for monitoring the 

concentrations of those ambient air 

pollutants for which EPA has 

established National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQSs) as set 

forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring 

methods that are determined to meet 

specific requirements for adequacy are 

designated by the EPA as either 

reference or equivalent methods (as 

applicable), thereby permitting their use 

under 40 CFR part 58 by States and 

other agencies for determining 

compliance with the NAAQSs. A list of 

all reference or equivalent methods that 

have been previously designated by EPA 

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

ttn/amtic/criteria.html. 

The EPA hereby announces the 

designation of one new reference 

method for measuring concentrations of 

a new equivalent method for measuring 

pollutant concentrations of PM10 in the 

ambient air. These designations are 

made under the provisions of 40 CFR 

part 53, as amended on August 31, 2011 

(76 FR 54326–54341). 

The new equivalent method for PM10

is an automated monitoring method 

utilizing a measurement principle based 

on sample collection by filtration and 

analysis by beta-ray attenuation and is 

identified as follows: 

EQPM–1215–226, ‘‘Met One 

Instruments, Inc. E–BAM + Beta 

Attenuation Mass Monitor ¥ PM10 FEM 

Configuration,’’ configured for 24 1-hour 

average measurements of PM10 by beta 

attenuation, using a glass fiber filter tape 

roll (460130 or 460180), a sample flow 

rate of 16.67 liters/min, with the 

standard (BX–802) EPA PM10 inlet 

(meeting 40 CFR 50 Appendix L 

specifications) and equipped with 9250 

ambient temperature sensor. Instrument 

must be operated in accordance with the 

E–BAM + Particulate Monitor operation 

manual, revision 1 or later. This 

designation applies to PM10

measurements only. 

The application for equivalent 

method determination for the PM10

method was received by the Office of 

Research and Development on 

November 19, 2015. This monitor is 

commercially available from the 

applicant, Met One Instruments, Inc., 

1600 Washington Blvd., Grants Pass, OR 

97526. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES