Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices 40355 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20110149, Draft EIS, USFS, MT, 

Troy Mine Revised Reclamation Plan, 

Proposed Revision is to Return Lands 

Disturbed by Mining to a Condition 

Appropriate for Subsequent Use of the 

Area, Kootenai National Forest, MT, 

Comment Period Ends: 08/05/2011, 

Contact: Bobbie Loaklen 406–283– 

7681. 

Revision to FR Notice Published 05/ 

20/2011: Extending Comment Period 

from 07/05/2011 to 08/05/2011. 

Dated: July 5, 2011. 

Aimee S. Hessert, 

Deputy Director, NEPA Compliance Division, 

Office of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17199 Filed 7–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9431–7] 

Science Advisory Board Staff Office; 

Notification of a Public Meeting of the 

Science Advisory Board Panel for the 

Review of Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative Action Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) Science 

Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office 

announces a change in meeting location 

for a public face-to-face meeting of the 

SAB panel to review the interagency 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) 

Action Plan (FY 2010–FY 2014) that 

describes restoration priorities, goals, 

objectives, measurable ecological 

targets, and specific actions for the Great 

Lakes. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on July 

12, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and 

July 13, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

(Central Time). 

ADDRESSES: The Panel meeting will be 

held at the EPA Region 5 Offices, The 

Lake Michigan Room in the Ralph H. 

Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any 

member of the public wishing further 

information regarding this meeting may 

contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, 

Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB 

Staff Office, by telephone/voice mail at 

(202) 564–4885; by fax at (202) 565– 

2098 or via e-mail at 

carpenter.thomas@epa.gov. General 

information concerning the EPA Science 

Advisory Board can be found at the EPA 

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

sab. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The SAB Staff Office 

requested public nominations of experts 

to serve on a review panel to advise the 

Agency on scientific and technical 

issues related to the GRLI Action Plan 

(75 FR 185 58383–58385). EPA 

subsequently announced on June 15, 

2011 a public meeting of the panel for 

July 12 and 13, 2011. That notice 

provided instructions to submit written 

comments or provide oral statements 

and accommodations for individuals 

with disabilities (76 FR 115 34977– 

34978). This notice announces a change 

in the location of the public meeting. 

Dated: July 1, 2011. 

Vanessa T. Vu, 

Director, EPA Science Advisory Staff Office. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17258 Filed 7–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9431–1; EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0238] 

Modification to 2008 National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) General Permit for 

Stormwater Discharges Associated 

With Construction Activities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 

8, 9, and 10 are modifying the 2008 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) general 

permits for stormwater discharges 

associated with construction activity in 

order to extend until February 15, 2012 

the expiration date of the permit. 

Hereinafter, these NPDES general 

permits will be referred to as ‘‘permit’’ 

or ‘‘2008 construction general permit’’ 

or ‘‘2008 CGP.’’ This modification will 

extend the three-year permit so that it 

expires on February 15, 2012 instead of 

June 30, 2011. Prior to this extension, 

EPA modified the 2008 CGP in January 

2010 to extend the permit by one year, 

thus making it a three-year permit. By 

Federal law, no NPDES permit may be 

issued for a period that exceeds five 

years. 

DATES: EPA is finalizing a modification 

to its 2008 CGP that extends the permit 

until February 15, 2012. The 2008 CGP 

will now expire on midnight, February 

15, 2012, instead of June 30, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Schaner, Water Permits Division, Office 

of Wastewater Management (Mail Code: 

4203M), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., EPA East, Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 564–0721; fax 

number: (202) 564–6431; e-mail address: 

schaner.greg@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

If a discharger chooses to apply for 

coverage under the 2008 CGP, the 

permit provides specific requirements 

for preventing contamination of 

waterbodies from stormwater discharges 

from the following construction 

activities: 

Category Examples of affected entities 

North American 

Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) Code 

Industry .................................................... Construction site operators disturbing 1 or more acres of land, or less than 1 acre but part of a larger 

common plan of development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb 1 acre or more, 

and performing the following activities: 

Building, Developing and General Contracting ....................................................... 236 

Heavy Construction ................................................................................................. 237 

EPA does not intend the preceding 

table to be exhaustive, but provides it as 

a guide for readers regarding entities 

likely to be regulated by this action. 

This table lists the types of activities 

that EPA is now aware of that could 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

40356 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices 

potentially be affected by this action. 

Other types of entities not listed in the 

table could also be affected. To 

determine whether your facility is 

affected by this action, you should 

carefully examine the definition of 

‘‘construction activity’’ and ‘‘small 

construction activity’’ in existing EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) 

and 122.26(b)(15), respectively. If you 

have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed for technical information in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Eligibility for coverage under the 2008 

CGP is limited to operators of ‘‘new 

projects’’ or ‘‘unpermitted ongoing 

projects.’’ A ‘‘new project’’ is one that 

commences after the effective date of 

the 2008 CGP. An ‘‘unpermitted ongoing 

project’’ is one that commenced prior to 

the effective date of the 2008 CGP, yet 

never received authorization to 

discharge under the 2003 CGP or any 

other NPDES permit covering its 

construction-related stormwater 

discharges. Construction sites that 

originally obtained permit coverage 

under the 2003 CGP will continue to be 

covered under that permit. The 2008 

CGP is effective only in those areas 

where EPA is the permitting authority. 

A list of eligible areas is included in 

Appendix B of the 2008 CGP. 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2008–0238. The official public docket is 

the collection of materials that is 

available for public viewing at the Water 

Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/ 

DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Although all documents in 

the docket are listed in an index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Docket Center Public 

Reading Room, open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744 and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is (202) 

566–2426. 

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/. Electronic 

versions of the final permit and fact 

sheet are available at EPA’s stormwater 

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

stormwater. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

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

fdmspublic/component/main to view 

public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘search’’, then key in the 

appropriate docket identification 

number. 

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 Section I.B.1. 

C. Who are the EPA regional contacts 

for this permit? 

For EPA Region 1, contact Jessica 

Hing at tel.: (617) 918–1560 or e-mail at 

hing.jessica@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 2, contact Stephen 

Venezia at tel.: (212) 637–3856 or e-mail 

at venezia.stephen@epa.gov, or for 

Puerto Rico, contact Sergio Bosques at 

tel.: (787) 977–5838 or e-mail at 

bosques.sergio@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 3, contact Chuck 

Schadel at tel.: (215) 814–5761 or e-mail 

at schadel.chuck@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 5, contact Brian Bell 

at tel.: (312) 886–0981 or e-mail at 

bell.brianc@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 6, contact Suzanna 

Perea at tel.: (214) 665–7217 or e-mail 

at: perea.suzanna@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 7, contact Tanya Nix 

at tel.: (913) 551–7170 or e-mail at: 

nix.tanya@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 8, contact Amy Clark 

at tel.: (303) 312–7014 or e-mail at: 

clark.amy@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene 

Bromley at tel.: (415) 972–3510 or 

e-mail at bromley.eugene@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 10, contact Misha 

Vakoc at tel.: (206) 553–6650 or e-mail 

at vakoc.misha@epa.gov. 

II. Background of Permit 

A. Statutory and Regulatory History 

Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) directs EPA to develop a phased 

approach to regulate stormwater 

discharges under the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

program. 33 U.S.C. 1342(p). EPA 

published two regulations, on 

November 16, 1990 (the ‘‘Phase I rule’’, 

see 55 FR 47990) and on December 8, 

1999 (the ‘‘Phase II rule’’, see 64 FR 

68722), which resulted in requiring 

NPDES permits for discharges from 

construction sites disturbing at least one 

acre, including sites that are less than 

one acre but are part of a larger common 

plan of development or sale that will 

ultimately disturb at least one acre. See 

40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) and 

122.26(b)(15)(i). 

B. The Relevance of EPA’s ‘‘C&D Rule’’ 

to the 2008 CGP 

NPDES permits issued for 

construction stormwater discharges are 

required under Section 402(a)(1) of the 

CWA to include conditions for meeting 

technology-based effluent limits 

established under Section 301 and, 

where applicable, Section 306 of the 

CWA. Once an effluent limitations 

guideline or new source performance 

standard is promulgated in accordance 

with these sections, NPDES permits 

issued by the NPDES permitting 

authorities must incorporate 

requirements based on such limitations 

and standards. See 40 CFR 122.44(a)(1). 

Prior to the promulgation of national 

effluent limitations guidelines or new 

source performance standards, 

permitting authorities incorporate 

technology-based effluent limitations on 

a best professional judgment basis. CWA 

section 402(a)(1)(B); 40 CFR 

125.3(a)(2)(ii)(B). 

On December 1, 2009, EPA published 

final regulations establishing 

technology-based Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines (ELGs) and New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) for the 

Construction & Development (C&D) 

point source category. See 40 CFR Part 

450, and 74 FR 62996 (December 1, 

2009). The Construction & Development 

Rule, or ‘‘C&D rule’’, became effective 

on February 1, 2010; therefore, all 

NPDES construction permits issued by 

EPA or states after this date must 

incorporate the C&D rule requirements. 

Because EPA issued the 2008 CGP 

prior to the effective date of the C&D 

rule, the Agency is not required by the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices 40357 

CWA and 40 CFR 122.44(a)(1) to 

incorporate the C&D rule requirements 

into the current permit. However, EPA 

is required to incorporate the C&D rule 

requirements into the next, reissued 

CGP, which the Agency expects to issue 

by February 15, 2012. EPA published for 

public comment on April 25, 2011 a 

draft of the new CGP, which includes 

new requirements implementing the 

C&D rule. For more information, see 76 

FR 22882. 

C. Stay of the C&D Rule Numeric Limit 

The C&D rule included non-numeric 

requirements for erosion and sediment 

control, stabilization, and pollution 

prevention (see 40 CFR 450.21(a) thru 

(f)), and, for the first time, a numeric 

limitation on the discharge of turbidity 

from active construction sites (see 40 

CFR 450.22). Since its promulgation, 

EPA discovered that the data used to 

calculate the numeric limit for turbidity 

were misinterpreted, and that it was 

necessary to recalculate the numeric 

limit. 

On August 12, 2010, EPA filed a 

motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Seventh Circuit, requesting that 

the court issue an order vacating and 

remanding to the Agency limited 

portions of the final C&D rule. On 

August 24, 2010, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

remanded the matter to EPA but did not 

vacate the numeric limit. On September 

9, 2010, the National Association of 

Home Builders (NAHB) filed a motion 

for clarification (which EPA did not 

oppose) asking the court to (1) vacate 

the limit and (2) hold the case in 

abeyance until February 15, 2012 

instead of remanding the matter to EPA. 

On September 20, 2010, the court 

granted the motion in part by ruling to 

hold the matter in abeyance pending 

EPA consideration of the numeric limit 

and the other remand issues, but the 

court did not vacate the numeric limit. 

Instead, the court stated that ‘‘EPA may 

make any changes to the limit it deems 

appropriate, as authorized by law.’’ 

EPA issued a direct final rule staying 

the numeric limit and a companion 

proposed rule proposing a stay, and the 

stay took effect on January 4, 2011, 

resulting in an indefinite postponement 

of the implementation of the 280 NTU 

limit. The Agency is currently 

developing a proposed rule proposing 

the recalculated limit. If the numeric 

limit becomes effective prior to the 

issuance of the final CGP, EPA must by 

law incorporate the applicable numeric 

limit into the final CGP. 

D. Summary of 2008 CGP 

EPA announced the issuance of the 

2008 CGP on July 14, 2008. See 73 FR 

40338. Construction operators choosing 

to be covered by the 2008 CGP must 

certify in their notice of intent (NOI) 

that they meet the requisite eligibility 

requirements described in Part 1.3 of the 

permit. If eligible, operators are 

authorized to discharge under this 

permit in accordance with Part 2. 

Permittees must install and implement 

control measures to meet the effluent 

limits applicable to all dischargers in 

Part 3, and must inspect such 

stormwater controls and repair or 

modify them in accordance with Part 4. 

The permit in Part 5 requires all 

construction operators to prepare a 

stormwater pollution prevention plan 

(SWPPP) that identifies all sources of 

pollution, and describes control 

measures used to minimize pollutants 

discharged from the construction site. 

Part 6 details the requirements for 

terminating coverage under the permit. 

The 2008 CGP permit provides 

coverage for discharges from 

construction sites in areas where EPA is 

the permitting authority. The geographic 

coverage and scope of the 2008 CGP is 

listed in Appendix B of the permit. 

III. Extension of 2008 CGP Expiration 

Date 

A. What Is EPA’s rationale for the 

modification of the 2008 CGP for an 

extension of the expiration date? 

As stated above, EPA is modifying the 

2008 CGP by extending to February 15, 

2012, the expiration date of the permit. 

This extension is necessary in order to 

provide sufficient time to finalize the 

new CGP, which will incorporate for the 

first time new effluent limitations 

guidelines and new source performance 

standards, which EPA promulgated in 

December 2009. Additional time beyond 

the previous June 30, 2011 expiration 

date of the 2008 CGP is necessary in 

order to make up for a delay of several 

months in the permit issuance process 

caused by the initial uncertainty 

surrounding the error in calculating the 

280 NTU limit and the appropriate way 

for EPA to address it. This delay made 

it a near certainty that, given even the 

most optimistic timeframe for finalizing 

the new CGP, EPA would not have been 

able to finalize the new CGP by the June 

30, 2011 expiration date of the 2008 

CGP. 

EPA was unaware of the need to 

extend the expiration date of the 2008 

CGP when it first modified the 2008 

CGP’s expiration date in January 2010 

by one year to June 30, 2011. At that 

time, EPA was under the impression 

that the June 30, 2011 date provided 

sufficient time to finalize a new permit 

incorporating all of the new C&D rule 

requirements. However, with the 

setback of time related to the stay of the 

280 NTU limit, EPA now needs 

additional time to complete the permit 

issuance process as explained above. 

EPA believes that the proposed 

extension of the current permit to 

February 15, 2012 will provide the 

Agency with sufficient time to finalize 

the new CGP. 

EPA believes it is imperative that EPA 

has sufficient time to incorporate the 

C&D rule requirements into the new 

CGP and issue the new CGP prior to the 

existing permit’s expiration date. If EPA 

does not issue the new CGP before 

expiration of the existing permit, no 

new construction projects may be 

permitted under the CGP, leaving 

individual NPDES permits as the only 

available option for permitting new 

projects. The sole reliance on individual 

permits would mean that discharge 

authorizations would almost certainly 

be delayed due to the greater amount of 

time and Agency resources that are 

required for developing and issuing 

individual permits. In turn, construction 

projects that need to begin construction 

activity on or after midnight June 30, 

2011 would be delayed for an uncertain 

amount of time until EPA could review 

their individual permit applications and 

issue the necessary permits. Rather than 

risk detrimental delays to new 

construction projects, EPA has decided 

that it is advisable to instead propose a 

modification to the 2008 CGP to extend 

the expiration date until February 15, 

2012. 

In addition, EPA notes that the 

February 15, 2012 expiration date is a 

modification from the proposal to 

extend the date to January 31, 2012. See 

79 FR 22891 (April 25, 2011). As 

discussed below in Section III.C, 

commenters pointed out that EPA had 

earlier requested that the Seventh 

Circuit Court of Appeals hold in 

abeyance until February 15, 2012 any 

further court proceedings in the 

challenge to the C&D rule’s numeric 

turbidity limit. Changing the expiration 

date of the 2008 CGP to February 15, 

2012 date is consistent with its motion 

to the court. 

B. EPA’s Authority to Modify NPDES 

Permits 

EPA regulations establish when the 

permitting authority may make 

modifications to existing NPDES 

permits. In relevant part, EPA 

regulations state that ‘‘[w]hen the 

Director receives any information * * * 

he or she may determine whether or not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

40358 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices 

one or more of the causes listed in 

paragraph (a) * * * of this section for 

modification * * * exist. If cause exists, 

the Director may modify * * * the 

permit accordingly, subject to the 

limitations of 40 CFR 124.5(c).’’ 40 CFR 

122.62. For the purposes of this Federal 

Register notice, the relevant cause for 

modification is at 40 CFR 122.62(a)(2), 

which states that a permit may be 

modified when ‘‘[t]he Director has 

received new information’’ and that 

information ‘‘was not available at the 

time of permit issuance * * * and 

would have justified the application of 

different permit conditions at the time 

of issuance.’’ Pursuant to EPA 

regulations, ‘‘[w]hen a permit is 

modified, only the conditions subject to 

the modification are reopened.’’ 40 CFR 

122.62. 

In the case of the 2008 CGP, a permit 

modification is justified based on the 

new information EPA received since it 

issued the 2008 CGP, and more 

specifically, since it modified the 2008 

CGP in January 2010, in terms of the 

delay to the permit process associated 

with the discovery of the error in the 

numeric turbidity limit and the 

Agency’s decision to stay to the numeric 

turbidity limit. If this information was 

available at the time of issuance of the 

2008 CGP, and more specifically in 

January 2010 when EPA extended the 

expiration date to June 30, 2011, it 

would have supported establishing an 

expiration date for the 2008 CGP that 

was later than June 30, 2011. As a result, 

cause exists under EPA regulations to 

justify modification of the 2008 CGP to 

extend the expiration date of the permit 

from midnight June 30, 2011 to 

midnight February 15, 2012. 

EPA notes that, by law, NPDES 

permits cannot be extended beyond 5 

years. 40 CFR 122.46. The proposed 

extension of the 2008 CGP complies 

with this restriction. The 2008 CGP was 

first issued on June 30, 2008. With the 

new expiration date set as February 15, 

2012, the permit will still have been in 

effect for less than the 5-year limit. 

C. Response to Comments 

EPA received 4 comments in response 

to the proposed extension of the 2008 

CGP expiration date. All of the 

commenters were supportive of an 

extension to the expiration date of the 

2008 CGP, however, each comment 

stated that the proposed extension 

period was inadequate. Several of the 

commenters recommended extending 

the permit to June 30, 2013, making it 

a full 5-year permit. The following is a 

summary of the concerns raised by the 

commenters and EPA’s responses: 

• EPA requires additional time to 

streamline the permitting process. 

According to one commenter, EPA 

should take the period of time 

remaining in the 5-year permit term to 

focus on ways to streamline the existing 

permitting process under the CGP. This 

commenter specifically recommended 

that the Agency consider the 

development of a ‘‘Single Lot Permit’’ 

for small residential construction 

projects, with streamlined authorization 

procedures and best management 

practice (BMP) requirements, either 

within the new CGP or as a stand-alone 

permit. The commenter also urged EPA 

to modify the draft CGP to incorporate 

‘‘Qualified Local Program’’ (QLP) 

provisions. 

EPA appreciates the suggestion by the 

commenter that the Agency take the 

time to adequately consider ways to 

streamline the permitting process so 

that it better accommodates small-scale, 

single lot construction projects. EPA 

invites the commenter and other 

members of the public to provide more 

specific suggestions in their comments 

on the draft new CGP as to how the 

permit can be streamlined to better 

address the types of requirements that 

are appropriate for single-lot residential 

construction sites. At the same time, 

however, EPA does not agree that 

additional time beyond February 15, 

2012 is needed to address this issue, 

and is confident that it can consider 

such streamlining recommendations 

within this timeframe. 

Similarly, EPA does not agree that 

additional time is needed to incorporate 

QLP provisions into the permit. For 

background, the NPDES regulations at 

40 CFR 122.44(s) enable EPA to 

incorporate by reference qualifying 

State, Tribal, or local program 

requirements applicable to small 

construction sites so that these 

requirements replace corresponding 

provisions in the CGP. To effectuate 

QLP requirements in the CGP, EPA 

would need to propose the addition of 

the QLP provisions for public comment. 

To date, EPA has not been approached 

by a State, Tribe, or local program to 

include any such requirements in the 

CGP, despite previous encouragement 

by the Agency to do so. For that reason, 

EPA does not find it necessary to further 

delay the issuance of the new CGP to 

address the inclusion of QLP 

requirements. Having said this, EPA 

notes that it will consider any request 

by affected states, Tribes, or local 

governments to include QLP 

requirements in the CGP. 

• The proposed extension does not 

account for the amount of time needed 

to complete the rulemaking process to 

correct the numeric turbidity limit. 

Some commenters questioned how EPA 

could issue a new permit by the 

proposed January 31, 2012 expiration 

date incorporating both the (future) 

numeric and non-numeric requirements 

of the C&D rule given the realistic 

amount of time that is needed to 

complete the rulemaking for correcting 

the C&D rule’s numeric turbidity limit. 

These commenters noted that since EPA 

has not yet proposed a correction to the 

numeric limit, and because the Agency 

will need to allow for an adequate 

public comment period and sufficient 

time to review and respond to 

comments it receives, it appears 

unlikely that the correction rule will be 

completed prior to the proposed 

expiration date of the 2008 CGP. The 

commenters also noted that the public 

should be given an opportunity to 

review the draft CGP’s sampling 

protocols with the final turbidity limit 

in mind. In addition, a few of the 

commenters remarked that the proposed 

January 31, 2012 date is out of step with 

the Agency’s own request to the Seventh 

Circuit Court of Appeals to hold the 

lawsuit challenging the validity of the 

numeric turbidity limit in abeyance 

until February 15, 2012. For these 

reasons, these commenters requested 

that EPA modify the proposed extension 

so that the 2008 CGP would instead 

expire on June 30, 2013, making it a full 

5-year permit. 

The commenters are correct that EPA 

asked the Seventh Circuit Court of 

Appeals to hold the litigation 

challenging the numeric turbidity limit 

(Wisconsin Builders Association et. al. 

v. U.S. EPA, No. 09–4113) in abeyance 

until February 15, 2012. See EPA’s 

Unopposed Motion for Partial Vacature 

of the Final Rule, Remand of the Record, 

To Vacate Briefing Schedule, and to 

Hold Case in Abeyance, No. 09–4113 

(consolidated with Nos. 10–1247 and 

10–1876) (August 12, 2010). EPA agrees 

that, in retrospect, the use of February 

15, 2012 would have been an 

appropriate date for the expiration of 

the current permit since it is consistent 

with the timeframe that was presented 

to the court. For this reason, EPA has 

decided to further extend the 2008 CGP 

so that it expires on February 15, 2012 

instead of January 31, 2012. 

EPA does not agree with the 

commenter that a longer extension of 

the 2008 CGP is needed or appropriate. 

If the final numeric effluent limit is 

completed prior to the February 15, 

2012 expiration date of the 2008 CGP, 

EPA intends to include the final, 

corrected turbidity limit in the new 

permit. As the commenters noted, the 

Agency proposed in the draft permit a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices 40359 

placeholder for the final turbidity limit 

along with a draft set of sampling 

requirements (see Part 3.3 of the draft 

CGP), so that if the numeric limit is 

finalized by February 15, 2012, the 

numeric limit and the final sampling 

requirements would be included in the 

final permit. EPA believes that 

providing a draft permit with all of the 

provisions necessary to implement the 

final limit, even though the final 

numeric limit is not yet known, 

provides the public with an adequate 

opportunity to review and provide 

comment on sampling requirements that 

the Agency believes are appropriate for 

implementing a numeric turbidity limit. 

EPA also does not agree with the 

commenter’s suggestion that additional 

time is needed so that the public may 

review the draft CGP’s sampling 

requirements with the specific turbidity 

limit in mind. The specific turbidity 

limit value will undergo a separate 

Agency rulemaking effort, including a 

public notice and comment process 

dedicated to that rulemaking, which is 

the proper venue for conducting public 

review of that limit. As stated 

previously, EPA would be required to 

incorporate the final numeric limit in its 

new permit if it is finalized before EPA’s 

new CGP is issued. See 40 CFR 

122.44(a)(1). EPA anticipates that the 

final value of the turbidity limit can be 

directly inserted into the CGP without 

the need to translate the limit further, 

thus making it unnecessary to have a 

specific public review of the use of the 

limit in the permit. 

Furthermore, in developing the new 

CGP’s draft sampling requirements, EPA 

put forward for comment provisions for 

conducting turbidity monitoring that the 

Agency views as workable regardless of 

the value of the final numeric turbidity 

limit. The sampling requirements in the 

draft permit reflect EPA’s research into 

the types of requirements that will 

likely result in measurements that are 

‘‘representative of the monitored 

activity’’ (see 40 CFR 122.41(j)), are 

reflective of the types of requirements 

imposed in other similar permits, and 

were envisioned by EPA in the C&D 

rule. See III.XIX.A of the preamble to 

the C&D rule, 74 FR 63047 (December 1, 

2009). Although the draft requirements 

are still undergoing public review, it is 

important to note that it was EPA’s 

judgment when it issued the draft 

permit that the draft sampling 

provisions are appropriate regardless of 

the final effluent limit. Through the 

public comment process, EPA will 

revisit these sampling requirements, as 

well as the Agency’s initial assumptions 

discussed above, based on comments 

received. However, at this time, EPA 

does not believe that additional time is 

necessary for the public to review the 

draft sampling requirements based on 

the as yet unknown final value of the 

numeric turbidity limit. 

• The 2008 CGP should be extended 

further to allow for the Seventh Circuit 

litigation to play out in full prior to 

implementing the C&D rule in the new 

permit. A few of the commenters 

suggested that EPA provide for an 

extension of the 2008 CGP to June 30, 

2013 in order to allow for the litigation 

to come to a final outcome so that the 

new CGP would presumably reflect any 

final decision regarding the C&D rule. 

EPA does not agree that it is necessary 

or appropriate to extend the 2008 CGP 

further to account for the timeline of 

litigation on the C&D rule. It is difficult 

to anticipate with any degree of 

certainty how long this litigation will 

take, and what the outcome will be, and 

EPA does not agree that it is appropriate 

to base its permitting timeline on such 

a process. EPA believes it is important 

to issue the new CGP as quickly as 

possible independent of any litigation 

schedule. Among other reasons, EPA is 

interested in issuing the permit in a 

timely manner so that regulated 

construction sites, state permitting 

authorities, and the general public are 

given the opportunity to see in the near 

term how the Agency intends to 

implement its own rule. In EPA’s 

judgment, the February 15, 2012 date for 

the expiration of the 2008 CGP provides 

EPA with a sufficient window of time 

within which to issue the new permit 

and accomplish this objective. 

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

1251 et seq. 

Dated: June 28, 2011. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

Dated: June 29, 2011. 

Kevin Bricke, 

Acting Director, Division of Environmental 

Planning & Protection, EPA Region 2. 

Dated: June 28, 2011. 

Carl-Axel P. Soderberg, 

Division Director, Caribbean Environmental 

Protection Division, EPA Region 2. 

Dated: June 28, 2011. 

Jon M. Capacasa, 

Director, Water Protection Division, EPA 

Region 3. 

Dated: June 28, 2011. 

Tinka G. Hyde, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5. 

Dated: June 28, 2011. 

Miguel I. Flores, 

Director, Water Quality Protection Division, 

EPA Region 6. 

Dated: June 27, 2011. 

Karen Flournoy, 

Acting Director, Water, Wetlands and 

Pesticides Division, EPA Region 7. 

Dated: June 28, 2011. 

Stephen S. Tuber, 

Assistant Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 8. 

Dated: June 27, 2011. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9. 

Dated: June 28, 2011. 

Christine Psyk, 

Associate Director, Office of Water and 

Watersheds, EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17244 Filed 7–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–1017; FRL–8878–7] 

Product Cancellation Order for Certain 

Pesticide Registrations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA’s 

order for the cancellations, voluntarily 

requested by the registrants and 

accepted by the Agency, of the products 

listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Unit II., 

pursuant to section 6(f)(1) of the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA), as amended. This 

cancellation order follows a May 4, 2011 

Federal Register Notice of Receipt of 

Requests from the registrants listed in 

Table 4 of Unit II. to voluntarily cancel 

these product registrations. In the May 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES