76716 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Notices 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9502–3; EPA–HQ–OW–2011–0141 and 

EPA–HQ–2011–0150] 

Draft National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) General 

Permits for Discharges Incidental to 

the Normal Operation of a Vessel 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of draft permit issuances 

and notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 9, and 10 are publishing for 

comment a draft NPDES Vessel General 

Permit (VGP) that would authorize 

discharges incidental to the normal 

operation of non-military and nonrecreational vessels greater than or equal 

to 79 feet in length. If finalized, this 

draft VGP would replace the current 

VGP, which was issued in December 

2008 and expires on December 19, 2013. 

EPA is also proposing a draft 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 proposing the 

sVGP to authorize discharges from 

vessels less than 79 feet in length, 

because the P.L. 110–299 moratorium 

(subsequently extended by P.L. 111– 

215) expires on December 18, 2013. 

These laws generally provide that no 

NPDES permits shall be required for 

incidental discharges (except discharges 

of ballast water) from vessels less than 

79 feet and commercial fishing vessels. 

EPA is soliciting comment on today’s 

draft VGP and draft sVGP. Comments on 

any aspect of the permit, including the 

fact sheet discussions and economic 

analyses supporting the Agency’s 

tentative decisions, are welcome. Note 

that in many places, EPA requests 

comments on specific aspects of today’s 

draft permits; these specific solicitations 

are meant to highlight for commenters 

areas on which they may wish to focus, 

most often because these areas involve 

provisions not contained in the 2008 

VGP. The requests for comment on 

specific aspects of the permit should not 

be interpreted as discouraging comment 

on other provisions or aspects of the 

draft permits. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before February 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2011–0141 for the VGP or Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2011–0150 for the 

sVGP, by one of the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ow-docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Original and three copies to: 

Water Docket, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code: 4101T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington DC 

20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA 

West Building, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on the VGP, 

including how to obtain copies of the 

draft general permit and fact sheet, 

contact Ryan Albert at EPA 

Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of 

Wastewater Management, Mail Code 

4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington DC 20460; or at tel.: (202) 

564–0763; or email at vgp@epa.gov. For 

further information on the sVGP, 

including how to obtain copies of the 

draft general permit and fact sheet, 

contact Robin Danesi at EPA 

Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of 

Wastewater Management, mail code 

4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., 

Washington DC 20460; or at tel.: (202) 

564–1846; or e-mail at svgp@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. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

D. How and to whom do I submit 

comments? 

E. Public Hearing 

F. Public Meeting 

G. Webcast 

H. Finalizing the Permits 

I. Who are the EPA regional contacts for 

these draft permits? 

II. Background of Permits 

A. Statutory and Regulatory History 

B. The 2008 VGP 

C. National Research Council and Science 

Advisory Board Ballast Water Studies 

III. Summary of Today’s Permits 

A. Summary of Significant Proposed 

Changes to the 2008 VGP 

B. Summary of the Draft sVGP 

C. Draft Permit Provisions on Which EPA 

Is Specifically Soliciting Comment 

D. Analysis of Economic Impacts of Draft 

VGP and Draft sVGP 

E. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action applies to vessels 

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 section 502(25) and vessels of 

the Armed Forces as defined in Clean 

Water Act section 312(a)(14). Affected 

vessels are henceforth referred to as 

non-military, non-recreational vessels. 

Unless otherwise excluded from 

coverage by Part 6 of the VGP and Part 

5 of the sVGP, waters subject to this 

permit means waters of the U.S. as 

defined in 40 CFR section 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 (CWA) 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 section CFR section 

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. Similarly situated vessels less than 

79 feet in length may be covered under 

the VGP, or may instead opt for 

coverage under the sVGP (unless those 

vessels have 8 or more cubic meters of 

ballast water capacity, in which case, 

they must seek coverage under the 

VGP). 

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– 

0141 for the VGP and Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW– 2011–0150 for the sVGP. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Notices 76717 

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/. 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 to 

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. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

Please follow these guidelines as you 

prepare your comments so that EPA can 

better address them in a timely manner. 

1. Identify the permit by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Explain why you agree or disagree 

with any proposed provisions; suggest 

alternatives and substitute language for 

your requested changes. 

3. Describe any assumptions, and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

4. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

5. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

6. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

7. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline. EPA is not obligated to accept 

or consider late comments. 

D. How and to whom do I submit 

comments? 

The opportunity to raise issues and 

provide information on the general 

permits is during the public comment 

period (see 40 CFR 124.13 for more 

information). You may submit 

comments electronically, by mail, or 

through hand delivery/courier. To 

ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify 

the appropriate docket identification 

number in the subject line on the first 

page of your comment. To ensure that 

EPA can read, understand, and therefore 

properly respond to comments, the 

Agency would prefer that commenters 

cite, where possible, the paragraph(s) or 

section in the fact sheet or part of the 

permit to which each comment refers. 

Please ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to 

consider these late comments (see, 

however, Section 3.15 of the fact sheet, 

where EPA expresses an intent to 

consider late comments with specific, 

narrow issue). 

For additional information about 

EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. A reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. The Public Reading Room is 

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

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Water Docket is (202) 566–1744. 

Comments may be submitted to EPA 

in the following ways: 

EPA Dockets. Use of EPA’s electronic 

public docket to submit comments to 

EPA electronically is EPA’s preferred 

method for receiving comments. Go 

directly to www.regulations.gov and 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘search’’ and then Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 2011–0141 for 

the VGP and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW– 2011–0150 for the sVGP. The 

system is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity, email address, or 

other contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

E-mail. Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (email) to owdocket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW– 2011–0141 for the 

VGP and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2011–0150 for the sVGP. In contrast to 

EPA’s electronic public docket, EPA’s 

email system is not an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system. If you send an email 

comment directly to the Docket without 

going through EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s email system 

automatically captures your email 

address. Email addresses that are 

automatically captured by EPA’s email 

system are included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the official 

public docket, and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

Disk or CD–ROM. You may submit 

comments on a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the mailing address 

identified below. These electronic 

submissions will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or ASCII file format. If 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. Avoid 

the use of special characters and any 

form of encryption. 

By Mail. Send the original and three 

copies of your comments to: Water 

Docket, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2011–0150. 

By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Public Reading 

Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2011–0141 

for the VGP and Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OW–2011–0150 for the sVGP. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

E. Public Hearing 

Because EPA anticipates a significant 

degree of public interest in the draft 

VGP and the draft sVGP, EPA will hold 

a public hearing on Wednesday January 

11, 2012 to receive public comment and 

answer questions concerning the draft 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

76718 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Notices 

VGP and draft sVGP, and will present 

the proposed requirements of the draft 

VGP and the draft sVGP and the basis 

for those requirements. The hearing will 

be held at EPA East Room 1153, 1201 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington DC 

20460, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (EST) or 

until all comments have been heard. 

Any person may provide written or oral 

statements and data pertaining to the 

draft permits at the public hearing. 

Depending on the number of people 

who desire to make an oral statement, 

EPA may impose limits on the time 

allowed for oral statements, which may 

result in the full statement not being 

heard. Therefore, EPA recommends that 

all those planning to present oral 

statements also submit written 

statements. Any person not making an 

oral statement may also submit a written 

statement. Please note that the public 

hearing may close early if all business 

is finished. 

F. Public Meeting 

The focus of the public meeting is to 

present the proposed requirements of 

the draft VGP and draft sVGP and the 

basis for those requirements, as well as 

to answer questions concerning the draft 

permits. At this meeting, any person 

may provide written or oral statements 

and data pertaining to the draft permits. 

The date, time, and location of the 

public meeting is as follows: 

Monday January 23, 2012, 10 a.m. to 

5 p.m. CST or until all comments have 

been heard, Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal 

Building, Room 331, 77 West Jackson 

Blvd., Chicago IL 60604. 

Depending on public interest, EPA 

may host at least one additional public 

meeting. Please see EPA’s Web page at 

www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels, which will 

announce any additional public 

meetings. EPA will announce the public 

meeting on its Web page at least four 

weeks before it is scheduled to occur. 

EPA encourages interested and 

potentially affected stakeholders to 

attend one of the scheduled public 

meetings or hearings and provide oral or 

written comments. These meetings are 

open to the public. Please note that the 

public meeting may end early if all 

business is finished. Oral or written 

comments received at the public 

meeting will be entered into the Docket. 

If you are unable to attend, you may 

submit comments to the EPA Water 

Docket at the address listed under 

Section D. 

G. Webcast 

EPA is scheduling a webcast to 

provide information on the draft permits 

and to answer questions for interested 

parties that are unable to attend the 

public meetings or public hearing. For 

information on the time, how to register, 

and how to attend the webcast, see 

EPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

npdes/vessels. EPA plans to schedule 

this webcast in the latter half of January 

and will announce it on its Web page at 

least four weeks before it is scheduled 

to occur. EPA also plans to make a 

recording of this webcast available on 

its Web page for future playback. 

H. Finalizing the Permits 

After the close of public comment 

period, EPA will issue final permit 

decisions. These decisions will not be 

made until after all public comments 

have been considered and appropriate 

changes are made to the permits, fact 

sheet, and other supporting documents. 

EPA’s response to comments received 

will be included in the docket as part of 

the final permit decisions. EPA plans to 

take final action on the draft VGP and 

sVGP by November 30, 2012. Note that 

EPA plans to take final action on the 

permit a year prior to expiration of the 

current VGP. EPA believes this 

approach makes sense, as it will give the 

regulated community substantial time to 

prepare for the application of new 

requirements. 

I. Who are the EPA regional contacts for 

these draft permits? 

For EPA Region 1, contact John Nagle 

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; or 

at tel.: (617) 918–1054; or email at 

nagle.john@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 2, contact Sara 

Sorenson at US EPA, Region 2, 290 

Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866; or at tel.: (212) 637–3877; 

or email at sorenson.sara@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 3, contact Mark 

Smith at US EPA, Region 3, 1650 Arch 

St., Mail Code: 3WP41, Philadelphia, 

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

3105; or email at smith.mark@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 4, contact Marshall 

Hyatt at US EPA, Region 4/Water 

Permits Division, Atlanta Federal 

Center, 61 Forsyth St. SW., Atlanta, GA 

30303–3104; or at tel.: (404) 562–9304; 

or email at hyatt.marshall@2epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 5, contact Sean 

Ramach at US EPA, Region 5, 77 W. 

Jackson Blvd., Mail Code: WN16J, 

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

886–5284; or email at 

ramach.sean@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 6, contact Josh 

Waldmeier at U.S. EPA, Region 6, 1445 

Ross Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 

75202–2733; or at tel.: (214) 665–8064; 

or email at waldmeier.joshua@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 7, contact Alex 

Owutaka at US EPA, Region 7, 901 N. 

5th St., Kansas City, KS 66101; or at tel.: 

(913) 551–7584; or email at 

owutaka.alex@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 8, contact Lisa 

Luebke at US EPA, Region 8, 1595 

Wynkoop St., Mail Code: 8P–W–WW, 

Denver, CO 80202; or at tel.: (303) 312– 

6256; or email at luebke.lisa@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene 

Bromley at US EPA, Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901; or at tel.: (415) 972–3510; 

or email at bromley.eugene@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 10, contact Cindi 

Godsey at US EPA, Region 10, 222 W. 

7th Ave., Box 19, Anchorage, AK 99513; 

or at tel.: (907) 271–6561; or email at 

godsey.cindi@epa.gov. 

II. Background Information 

A. 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 USC 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 USC 

1362(12). A ‘‘point source’’ is a 

‘‘discernible, confined and discrete 

conveyance’’ and includes a ‘‘vessel or 

other floating craft.’’ 33 USC 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 USC 

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 USC 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. 

EPA issued the original Vessel 

General Permit in response to a District 

Court ruling which vacated a 

longstanding regulatory exemption for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Notices 76719 

discharges incidental to the normal 

operation of vessels at 40 CFR 122.3(a). 

Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. 

United States EPA, 2006 U.S. Dist. 

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

developed the VGP to regulate 

incidental discharges from vessels 

operating in a capacity as a means of 

transportation. That permit was issued 

on December 18, 2008, with an effective 

date of December 19, 2008. 73 FR 79,473 

(Dec. 29, 2008). Subsequently, the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District 

of California issued an order providing 

that ‘‘the exemption for discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of a 

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

vacated as of February 6, 2009.’’ 

Northwest Environmental Advocates et 

al. v. United States EPA, No. C 03– 

05760–SI (December 17, 2008). 

Therefore, the date when the regulated 

community was required to comply 

with the VGP was February 6, 2009. 

In 2010, Congress enacted Public Law 

111–215 which extended the 

moratorium (Pub. L. 110–299) 

prohibiting NPDES permitting for 

discharges incidental to the normal 

operation of commercial fishing vessels 

(regardless of size) and those other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in 

length until December 2013. That 

moratorium does not include ballast 

water discharges. That moratorium also 

does not apply to other incidental 

discharges, which on case-by-case basis, 

EPA or the State, as appropriate, 

determines contribute to a violation of 

water quality standards or pose an 

unacceptable risk to human health or 

the environment. The original 

legislation called for a two-year 

moratorium on permitting until July 31, 

2010, 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, and it can be viewed at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/ 

background.cfm. 

B. The 2008 VGP 

The 2008 VGP addresses 26 potential 

vessel discharge streams by establishing 

effluent limits, including Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), to 

control the discharges of waste streams 

and constituents found in those waste 

streams. For these discharges, the 

permit establishes effluent limits 

pertaining to the constituents found in 

the effluent and BMPs designed to 

decrease the amount of constituents 

entering the waste stream. A vessel 

might not produce all of these 

discharges, but a vessel owner or 

operator is responsible for meeting the 

applicable effluent limits and 

complying with all the effluent limits 

for every listed discharge that the vessel 

produces. 

To obtain authorization, the owner or 

operator of a vessel that is either 300 or 

more gross registered tons or has the 

capacity to hold or discharge more than 

8 cubic meters (2113 gallons) of ballast 

water is required to submit a Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to receive permit coverage, 

beginning six months after the permit’s 

issuance date, but no later than nine 

months after the permit’s issuance date. 

Owners or operators of vessels that meet 

the applicable eligibility requirements 

for permit coverage but are not required 

to submit an NOI, including vessels less 

than 300 gross registered tons with no 

more than 8 cubic meters of ballast 

water capacity are automatically 

authorized by the permit to discharge 

according to the permit requirements. 

The VGP requires owners or operators 

of vessels to conduct routine selfinspections and monitoring of all areas 

of the vessel that the permit addresses. 

The routine self-inspections are 

required to be documented in the ship’s 

logbook. Analytical monitoring of 

certain discharges is required for certain 

types of vessels. The VGP also requires 

owners or operators of vessels to 

conduct comprehensive annual vessel 

inspections, to ensure even the hard-toreach areas of the vessel are inspected 

for permit compliance. If the vessel is 

placed in dry dock while covered under 

the permit, a dry dock inspection and 

report is required to be completed. 

Additional monitoring requirements are 

imposed on owners or operators of 

certain classes of vessels, based on their 

unique characteristics. 

For additional information on the 

VGP, please go to www.epa.gov/npdes 

or see Docket ID. No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2008–0055 at www.regulations.gov. 

C. National Research Council and 

Science Advisory Board Ballast Water 

Studies 

As part of its strategy for improving 

the Agency’s understanding of ballast 

water discharges, EPA, in partnership 

with the United States Coast Guard, 

commissioned two ballast water studies 

from highly respected, independent 

scientific entities. EPA commissioned 

these studies in order to produce the 

best possible scientific compendium of 

ballast water information relevant to the 

development of today’s VGP. EPA 

commissioned these studies believing 

that they would help inform the 

Agency’s decisions about what effluent 

limits to set for ballast water discharges. 

The first study was led by the 

National Research Council (which 

functions under the auspices of the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 

the National Academy of Engineering, 

and the Institute of Medicine) and 

addressed how to assess risk to water 

quality associated with ballast water 

discharges (NAS, 2011). EPA designed 

this study to inform the Agency’s 

development of water quality-based 

effluent limits for ballast water and 

related provisions for today’s draft VGP. 

The NAS panel consisted of nine 

experts with extensive knowledge of 

issues surrounding invasive species. 

That panel found that they could not 

evaluate the risk associated with a 

variety of regulatory discharge limits 

because of ‘‘a profound lack of data and 

information to develop and validate 

models’’ and ‘‘it was not possible with 

any certainty to determine the risk of 

nonindigenous species establishment 

under existing discharge limits’’ (NAS 

2011, pp. 3). The NAS report noted that 

setting a concentration based, ballast 

water discharge standard that is 

consistent with the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO) D–2 

standard (the standard expressed in the 

2004 International Convention for the 

Control and Management of Ships 

Ballast Water and Sediments) is ‘‘clearly 

a first step forward’’ (103), and that it 

‘‘represents a significant reduction in 

concentrations beyond ballast water 

exchange’’ (98). Furthermore, the report 

stated that the IMO D–2 standard ‘‘now 

provides a manageable baseline for 

developing scientific models that can be 

used to quantitatively determine ballast 

water discharge standards’’ (101). Of 

further note, the report proposed a 

coordinated, large scale research 

program, consisting of two major parts: 

the first involving ‘‘[a] well-designed 

ship discharge sampling program to 

measure propagule supply’’ and the 

second involving an experimental, 

mesocosm based approach to calibrate 

models which should yield results in ‘‘a 

three to five year time horizon’’ (111). 

The NAS panel estimated that different 

elements of this research program 

would take between 3–10 years to 

complete. For a copy of the NAS report, 

please go to: http://www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=13184. 

The second study was led by EPA’s 

autonomous Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) and evaluated the status of ballast 

water treatment technologies. EPA 

designed the SAB study to inform EPA’s 

understanding of appropriate 

technology-based limits for ballast water 

provisions for today’s draft VGP. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

76720 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Notices 

SAB panel was made up of 22 scientists 

and engineers, a significant number of 

which are recognized as experts in 

evaluating ballast water treatment 

systems. The SAB found, among other 

things, that at least five types of ballast 

water treatments systems are available 

which treat to the limits found in the 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) Ballast Water Convention and 

proposed in today’s permit. For a copy 

of the SAB report, please see: http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

fedrgstr_activites/BW%20discharge

!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.3#2 

III. Summary of Today’s Permits 

A. Summary of Significant Proposed 

Changes to the 2008 VGP 

For purposes of highlighting 

significant proposed changes to the 

2008 VGP, EPA is organizing this 

discussion into 3 sections: changes to 

ballast water requirements; changes to 

other incidental discharge effluent 

requirements; and changes to 

administrative requirements. 

1. Ballast Water. In today’s draft 

permit, EPA is proposing new, more 

stringent numeric technology-based 

effluent limitations that are applicable 

to vessels with ballast water tanks and 

will largely replace the non-numeric 

effluent limitations for ballast water in 

the 2008 VGP. These limitations will 

achieve significant reductions in the 

number of living organisms discharged 

via ballast water into waters subject to 

this permit. Ballast water discharges are 

widely recognized as one of the primary 

sources (or vectors) for the spread of 

aquatic invasive species, also known as 

aquatic nuisance species (ANS). When 

species in ballast tanks are transported 

between waterbodies and discharged, 

they have potential for establishing new, 

non-indigenous populations that can 

cause severe economic and ecological 

impacts. EPA has expressed the numeric 

effluent limit for ballast water 

discharges as numbers of living 

organisms per cubic meter (i.e. as a 

maximum acceptable concentration) 

because reducing the concentration of 

living organisms will reduce inoculum 

densities of potential invasive species 

discharged in a vessel’s ballast water, 

i.e., thereby reducing the risk posed by 

the discharge. EPA has proposed a 

staggered implementation schedule for 

certain existing vessels for achieving the 

numeric limitation by the first 

drydocking after January 1, 2014 or 

January 1, 2016 (depending upon vessel 

size), which may extend beyond the 

permit term for some vessels. Vessels 

newly constructed after January 1, 2012 

that are subject to the numeric 

limitation must meet those limits upon 

entering U.S. waters upon the effective 

date of the permit. EPA notes that this 

time schedule is consistent with the 

timelines in the standards set forth in 

regulation D–2 of the International 

Ballast Water Convention established by 

the IMO. Also as part of today’s draft 

permit, EPA has proposed maximum 

discharge limitations for certain 

biocides and residuals to limit the 

impact of these pollutants to waters 

subject to this permit. The draft permit 

would also allow for most vessels which 

meet the treatment requirements to no 

longer perform ballast water exchange. 

Under the draft VGP, vessel owner/ 

operators subject to the concentrationbased numeric discharge limitations 

would be able to meet their obligations 

in one of four ways: discharge ballast 

water meeting the applicable numeric 

limits of the VGP; transfer the ship’s 

ballast water to a third party treatment 

at an NPDES permitted facility; use 

treated municipal/potable water as 

ballast water; or not discharge ballast 

water. As in the 2008 VGP, vessels 

enrolled in, and meeting the 

requirements of the US Coast Guard’s 

Shipboard Technology Evaluation 

Program (STEP) would be deemed to be 

in compliance with the numeric 

limitations. 

In today’s draft permit, the numeric 

concentration-based treatment limits for 

ballast water discharges would not 

apply to some vessels. Special 

requirements would apply to the 

following vessel classes: vessels 

operating exclusively within a limited 

area on short voyages; unmanned, 

unpowered barges; and existing bulk 

carrier vessels (commonly known as 

‘‘Lakers’’) built before January 1, 2009 

that operate exclusively in the Great 

Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal 

(referred to as existing ‘‘confined 

Lakers’’). See discussion below 

regarding specific draft requirements for 

Lakers. 

Due to the challenges of installing 

ballast water treatment systems 

currently available on the existing 

confined Lakers, and the lack of 

currently available ballast water 

treatment systems appropriate for these 

vessels, alternative technologies are 

being researched. If these issues can be 

appropriately addressed, e.g., if an 

active substance and disinfection regime 

is identified, such technology might be 

a potentially useful treatment 

technology for the confined Lakers. EPA 

is specifically seeking comment as to 

whether the numeric ballast water 

treatment limits should be applicable to 

existing confined Lakers. All confined 

Lakers built after January 1, 2009, 

however, would be required to meet 

ballast water treatment numeric 

technology-based effluent limits found 

in the VGP. 

EPA has determined that Best 

Available Technology Economically 

Achievable (BAT) over time will be a 

function of a vessel’s construction date, 

size, and class. For certain existing 

vessels, EPA has proposed a staggered 

implementation schedule that requires 

the vessel to meet the numeric effluent 

limitations by the first drydocking after 

January 1, 2014 or January 1, 2016 

depending on vessel size, which may 

extend beyond the permit term for 

certain vessels. 

The draft VGP would impose several 

best management practices (BMPs) for 

vessels until they are required to meet 

the numeric ballast water limits that 

EPA has found to be available, 

practicable and economically 

achievable. These interim requirements 

are substantially similar to those in the 

2008 VGP. 

One of the interim management 

measures is that all vessels that are 

equipped to carry ballast water and 

enter the Great Lakes via the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway System must conduct 

saltwater flushing of ballast water tanks 

200 nautical miles from any shore 

before entering either the U.S. or 

Canadian waters of the Seaway System. 

Additionally, vessels entering the Great 

Lakes utilizing a ballast water treatment 

system would also be required to 

conduct ballast water exchange or 

saltwater flushing (as applicable) in 

addition to meeting the numeric limits 

for ballast water once they apply if they 

meet the following requirements: (1) 

The vessel operates outside the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and 

more than 200 nm from any shore and 

then enters the Great Lakes, and (2) the 

vessel has taken on ballast water that 

has a salinity of less than 18 ppt from 

a coastal, estuarine, or freshwater 

ecosystem within the previous month. If 

a vessel affected by these draft 

conditions has not taken on ballast 

water with a salinity of less than 18 ppt 

in the previous month, the master of the 

vessel would be required to certify to 

this effect as part of the ballast water 

recordkeeping requirements before 

entering the Great Lakes. 

EPA has included in today’s draft 

VGP three management measures 

specific to existing confined Lakers. 

EPA believes these requirements are 

economically practicable and 

achievable, and represent common 

sense approaches to managing ballast 

water discharges for vessels when they 

have not installed ballast water 

treatment systems. If existing confined 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Notices 76721 

Lakers are retrofitted to meet the 

numeric effluent limits in the draft VGP, 

these vessels would no longer be 

required to perform these management 

measures. 

As in the 2008 VGP, EPA has 

included certain mandatory 

requirements for all vessels. These 

requirements are consistent with EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board’s 

recommendations to reduce risks at 

multiple points in the ballast’s 

operations (See EPA SAB 2011, 

available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ 

sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/ 

6FFF1BFB6F4E09FD852578CB006

E0149/$File/EPA–SAB–11–009- 

unsigned.pdf). Some of the mandatory 

requirements for all vessels equipped 

with ballast water tanks that operate in 

waters of the U.S. would be to: avoid the 

discharge of ballast water into waters 

subject to this permit that are within or 

that may directly affect marine 

sanctuaries, marine preserves, marine 

parks, shellfish beds, or coral reefs; 

minimize or avoid uptake of ballast 

water in the listed areas and situations; 

clean ballast tanks regularly to remove 

sediments in mid-ocean or under 

controlled arrangements in port, or at 

dry dock; when the vessel is equipped 

with high and low suction, utilize the 

high suction for ballast tank discharge to 

minimize the discharge of entrained 

sediment; and minimize the discharge 

of ballast water essential for vessel 

operations while in the waters subject to 

this permit. EPA estimated the cost and 

burden of the ballast water requirements 

in its economic analysis for the permit. 

2. Non-Ballast Water. Today’s 

proposed VGP would impose more 

stringent technology-based effluent 

limits in the form of Best Management 

Practices for discharges of oil to sea 

interfaces. The draft VGP would require 

that all powered new build vessels 

(those constructed after December 19, 

2013) must use ‘‘environmentally 

acceptable lubricants’’ in their oil-to-sea 

interfaces. Additionally, the draft VGP 

would authorize the discharge of fish 

hold effluent and establish appropriate 

Best Management Practices for this 

discharge type. EPA has also included 

numeric limits for exhaust gas scrubber 

effluent that are consistent with those 

established by International Maritime 

Organization guidelines for this 

discharge type. EPA is also specifically 

seeking input as to whether to include 

more stringent numeric limits for 

bilgewater for certain vessels, which 

would decrease the amount of oil (and 

potentially other pollutants) discharged 

into U.S. waters. 

The proposed VGP contains 

monitoring requirements for certain 

larger vessels for ballast water, 

graywater, and exhaust gas scrubber 

effluent if they discharge into waters 

subject to the permit. EPA has included 

this monitoring requirement to assure 

treatment systems are performing as 

required (when applicable) and to 

generate additional information for 

EPA’s future analyses. EPA estimated 

the cost and burden of these 

requirements in its economic analysis 

for the permit. 

3. Administrative Improvements. EPA 

has made several efficiency 

improvements in the draft permit, 

including clarifying that electronic 

recordkeeping is allowed under the 

permit, eliminating duplicative 

reporting, and allowing consolidated 

reporting for certain vessels. 

Under this draft VGP, permittees not 

required to submit a NOI would be 

required to complete and keep a Permit 

Authorization and Record of Inspection 

(PARI) Form onboard their vessel at all 

times. EPA is proposing the PARI form 

requirement because the Agency 

believes it is an efficient way for the 

owner/operator to certify that they have 

read and agreed to comply with the 

terms of the permit, and demonstrate 

basic understanding of the permit’s 

terms and conditions. In addition, the 

form will provide EPA (or its authorized 

representative) with a standardized 

foundation for conducting inspections. 

Under the draft VGP, EPA would 

consolidate the one-time report and 

annual noncompliance report into one 

annual report. As discussed in the fact 

sheet for today’s permit, EPA found that 

the 2008 VGP reporting requirements 

resulted in confusion among some 

permittees. EPA believes that having a 

single annual report that permittees 

must file, which can include all of the 

permittee’s analytical monitoring results 

(as applicable) for the previous year, 

would reduce this confusion and result 

in better information for the Agency. 

Additionally, the draft VGP would 

authorize a combined annual report for 

unmanned, unpowered barges if they 

meet specified criteria to maximize 

efficiency and reduce burden on a 

significant portion of the regulated 

universe. EPA believes that many of 

these barges are fundamentally similar 

and have a limited number of 

discharges. Furthermore, vessel owner/ 

operators may have several thousand 

barges with these similar characteristics. 

Hence, EPA identified this provision as 

an efficient way to gather information 

by the agency without sacrificing data 

quality. 

EPA is specifically seeking comment 

on the administrative improvements in 

today’s draft VGP, and soliciting 

suggestions for other efficiency 

improvements. 

B. Summary of the Draft sVGP 

EPA is today proposing the Small 

Vessel General Permit (sVGP) for vessels 

less than 79 feet and all commercial 

fishing vessels. EPA is proposing the 

sVGP to provide coverage for vessels 

less than 79 feet in length because the 

Public Law 110–299 moratorium 

(subsequently extended by Pub. L. 111– 

215) expires on December 18, 2013. EPA 

recognizes that small commercial 

vessels are different in operation than 

larger commercial vessels, they 

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 

draft sVGP is structured differently for 

this class of permittees. 

The draft sVGP would not require the 

vessel owner or operator to submit an 

NOI to receive permit coverage. 

However, as with vessels not required to 

submit an NOI under the VGP, sVGP 

permittees would be required to 

complete and keep a Permit 

Authorization and Record of Inspection 

(PARI) form onboard their vessel at all 

times. EPA also notes that vessel owner/ 

operators of vessels less than 79 feet that 

have less than 8 cubic meters of ballast 

water may choose whether they wish to 

seek coverage under the sVGP or the 

VGP. The PARI form would document 

under which permit the owner/operator 

has sought coverage. 

The discharges covered in the draft 

sVGP are categorized into several broad 

categories listed in the permit. The 

management categories regulated under 

the draft sVGP are divided into general 

requirements, 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 management, fish hold 

effluent management, and ballast water 

management. Additionally, vessel 

owner/operators would be required to 

comply with practices to reduce 

pollutant concentrations in their 

discharges. 

The draft sVGP includes non-numeric 

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. In addition to required 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

76722 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Notices 

BMPs, the permit includes a section of 

encouraged BMPs. EPA believes that for 

most small vessel discharges, 

minimization of pollutants in those 

discharges can be achieved without 

using highly engineered, complex 

treatment systems. 

C. Draft Permit Provisions on Which 

EPA Is Specifically Soliciting Comment 

While EPA encourages the public to 

review and comment on all aspects and 

provisions of the draft permits, EPA has 

included in the body of the draft VGP 

and sVGP several specific requests for 

comment on draft conditions. Note that 

in many places in this notice and the 

fact sheet for the draft permit, EPA 

requests comments on specific aspects 

of today’s draft permit; these specific 

solicitations are meant to highlight for 

commenters areas on which they may 

wish to focus, most often because they 

involve provisions not contained in the 

2008 VGP. They should not be 

interpreted as discouraging comment on 

other provisions of the draft permit. The 

following list summarizes many of these 

conditions and the nature of the 

Agency’s specific request for comment, 

and indicates where they are included 

in the proposed permit: 

1. A four year permit term for the 

VGP, specifically, what are the merits of 

a four year permit term instead of the 

standard five year permit term? See 

Section 2.4 of the VGP fact sheet. 

2. The approach of not requiring 

vessels that are smaller than 300 gross 

tons, and do not have the capacity to 

carry more than 8 cubic meters (2113 

gallons) of ballast water to submit an 

NOI. See Part 1.5.1.1 of the VGP and 

Section 3.7.1 of the VGP fact sheet. 

3. The requirement that vessel owner/ 

operators that are not required to submit 

NOIs must complete, sign and maintain 

onboard the VGP PARI Form contained 

in Appendix K of the permit. See Part 

1.5.1.2 of the VGP and Section 3.7.2.2 of 

the VGP fact sheet. 

4. The inclusion of revised language 

in the proposed VGP regarding what 

may constitute new information with 

respect to ballast water discharges for 

the purposes of potentially modifying 

the permit during its term (the 

‘‘reopener’’ provision). See Part 1.9.1 of 

the VGP and Section 3.11 of the VGP 

fact sheet. 

5. Whether the controls in this permit 

represent the BPT, BCT and BAT levels 

of control. If commenters believe that 

the proposed controls do not, or that 

other controls would better represent 

the BPT, BCT or BAT levels of control, 

explicitly provide data and information 

about the applicability of such controls 

to all types of commercial vessels in all 

weather/operating situations, and the 

costs and non-water quality 

environmental impacts, including 

energy impacts, of such options. See 

Part 2.1 of the VGP and Section 4.2. of 

the VGP fact sheet. 

6. The requirement that vessel owner/ 

operators must outline their training 

plans in their recordkeeping 

documentation to show they have made 

good faith efforts to assure their crews 

can adequately maintain and use 

pollution prevention equipment and 

otherwise meet the terms of this permit. 

See Part 4.2 of the VGP and Section 

4.3.1.6 of the VGP fact sheet. 

7. Whether to include more stringent 

bilgewater requirements for new build 

vessels and whether to provide existing 

vessels with additional bilgewater 

management options in the final VGP. 

See Part 2.2.2 of the VGP and Section 

4.4.2.2 of the VGP fact sheet. 

8. Whether ballast water management 

plans should be made available to the 

public, considering any benefits that 

might accrue from making the plans 

available to the public and any increases 

in administrative burdens on both 

permittees and the Agency that might 

result from such a requirement. See Part 

2.2.3.2 of the VGP and Section 4.4.3.2 of 

the VGP fact sheet. 

9. Whether additional management 

measures which reduce risks at various 

stages of ballasting are appropriate to 

include in the final VGP. Specifically, 

what additional management measures 

the VGP should include, costs 

associated with those measures, and 

how well those measures reduce the risk 

from ballast water discharges. Also, any 

additional measures discussed by the 

NAS (2011) or SAB (2011) reports that 

EPA should consider incorporating in 

this permit. Please submit any data or 

other information supporting your 

recommendations. See Part 2.2.3.3 of 

the VGP and Section 4.4.3.3 of the VGP 

fact sheet. 

10. The appropriateness of the biocide 

discharge limits, in particular, whether 

the limit for peracetic acid is adequately 

protective of coldwater environments. 

See Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1 of the VGP and 

Section 4.4.3.5.1.1.4 of the VGP fact 

sheet. 

11. The approach of requiring owner/ 

operators of ballast water treatment 

systems which use a biocide or biocide 

derivative that is not specifically 

authorized by the VGP to notify EPA at 

least 120 days in advance of its use, and 

the option of conducting whole effluent 

toxicity testing for those biocides or 

biocide derivatives that are not 

specifically authorized in the VGP in 

lieu of notification. See Part 

2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1 of the VGP and Section 

4.4.3.5.1.1.6 of the VGP fact sheet. 

12. Whether the use of potable water 

generated by shipboard treatment 

systems on vessels which use small 

quantities of ballast water, for example 

utilizing potable water ballast to offset 

fuel consumption on research vessels, is 

an appropriate approach to meeting the 

numeric technology-based effluent 

limits of the 2013 VGP. See Part 

2.2.3.5.1.3 of the VGP and Section 

4.4.3.5.3 of the VGP fact sheet. 

13. New definition of ‘‘short distance 

voyage.’’ Are these the appropriate 

definitions of such a voyage? Are these 

definitions workable for vessel 

operators? Are there alternative 

suggestions? For instance, is there an 

existing approach to defining 

geographic boundaries based upon 

ecological criteria which would be 

appropriate? If so, why are these 

appropriate? Please provide any 

supporting data and rationale with your 

comments. See Part 2.2.3.5.3.1 of the 

VGP and Section 4.4.3.5.6.1 of the VGP 

fact sheet. 

14. Whether unmanned, unpowered 

barges have technologies available to 

meet numeric ballast water treatment 

limits. Also, any information about how 

these vessels utilize ballast water, and 

whether the Agency’s understanding of 

their ballasting patterns is correct. See 

Part 2.2.3.5.3.2 of the VGP and Section 

4.4.3.5.6.2 of the VGP fact sheet. 

15. Whether ‘‘existing confined 

Lakers’’ built before January 1, 2009 that 

operate exclusively in the Great Lakes 

upstream of the Welland Canal should 

be required to use a ballast water 

treatment system to meet the ballast 

water discharge standards found in this 

permit under the implementation 

schedule. The applicability and 

availability of ballast water treatment 

systems for existing confined Lakers 

built before January 1, 2009. Given the 

constraints noted by the SAB, can the 

confined Lakers implement the 

technologies evaluated by the SAB? Are 

there unique technologies that are 

available or that would potentially be 

available during the permit term for the 

confined Lakers? Are there other 

treatment technologies and/or methods 

that can be implemented by confined 

Lakers that can reliably treat ballast 

water to reduce the concentration of 

living organisms upon discharge? Please 

provide appropriate supporting 

documentation, including applicable 

data and sources for your information. 

See Part 2.2.3.4 and 2.2.3.5.3.3 of the 

VGP and Section 4.4.3.5.6.3 of the VGP 

fact sheet. 

16. The appropriateness of the 

technology-based ballast water controls 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Notices 76723 

proposed in this VGP, and whether 

there are data sources which indicate 

that certain ballast water treatment 

systems reliably exceed the limits 

established in this permit. Whether the 

numeric discharge limits can be applied 

to those vessel classes to which, under 

the proposed VGP, such limits would 

not apply. See Part 2.2.3.5 and 2.2.3.5.3 

of the VGP and Sections 4.4.3.5.6 and 

4.4.3.5.7 of the VGP fact sheet. 

17. The appropriateness of including 

alternative treatment limits used by 

other regulatory agencies, specifically 

limits promulgated by the State of 

California and whether the numeric 

limits for ballast water discharges from 

the Performance Standards for the 

Discharge of Ballast Water For Vessels 

Operating in California Waters, 

California Code of Regulations Title 2, 

Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.7 

sections 2293–2294 as codified as of 

March 4, 2011, should be included in 

the final VGP. As discussed in VGP fact 

sheet in Section 4.4.3.5.8, those limits 

are: 

(a) No detectable living organisms that 

are greater than 50 micrometers in 

minimum dimension; 

(b) Less than 0.01 living organisms 

per milliliter that are less than 50 

micrometers in minimum dimension 

and more than 10 micrometers in 

minimum dimension; 

(c) For living organisms that are less 

than 10 micrometers in minimum 

dimension: 

(1) Less than 1,000 bacteria per 100 

milliliter; 

(2) Less than 10,000 viruses per 100 

milliliter; 

(3) Concentrations of microbes that 

are less than: 

(A) 126 colony forming units per 100 

milliliters of Escherichia coli; 

(B) 33 colony forming units per 100 

milliliters of Intestinal enterococci; and 

(C) 1 colony forming unit per 100 

milliliters or 1 colony forming unit per 

gram of wet weight of zoological 

samples of Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae 

(serotypes O1 and O139). 

See Section 4.4.3.5.7 of the VGP fact 

sheet. 

18. The requirement for vessels 

entering the Great Lakes from freshwater 

and brackish ecosystems to conduct 

ballast water exchange or saltwater 

flushing in addition to treatment with a 

ballast water treatment system. Also, 

whether BWE should be required for all 

vessels entering the Great Lakes that are 

subject to the numeric TBEL, regardless 

of origin, whether this requirement 

should be considered for other 

freshwater destinations in U.S. waters, 

and/or whether this requirement should 

be considered for other destinations in 

U.S. waters, regardless of whether those 

vessels took on ballast water from 

saltwater or freshwater ports. See Part 

2.2.3.7 of the VGP and Section 

4.4.3.9.4.2 of the VGP fact sheet. 

19. EPA’s determination, including 

the detailed explanation, that water 

quality-based effluent limits for ballast 

water discharges are infeasible to 

calculate at this time. See Section 

4.4.3.9.4.1 of the VGP fact sheet. 

20. Inclusion of factors associated 

with electronic recordkeeping to ensure 

that records created and/or maintained 

in such systems are readable and legally 

dependable with no less evidentiary 

value than their paper equivalent and 

the implementation guidance provided 

in the fact sheet. See Part 4.2.1 of the 

VGP and Section 6.3.1 of the VGP fact 

sheet. 

21. The authorization to combine the 

annual report for unmanned, 

unpowered barges because many of 

these vessels are fundamentally similar 

and have a limited number of 

discharges. Specifically, EPA is seeking 

comment on whether there are any other 

categories of vessels for which owner/ 

operators should be allowed to submit 

a combined annual report instead of the 

annual report for each of their vessels. 

Please submit specific information as to 

why such an approach is appropriate for 

certain vessel types. See Part 4.4.2 and 

Section 6.4.2 of the VGP fact sheet. 

22. Several new definitions, including 

‘‘biodegradable,’’ ‘‘environmental 

acceptable lubricants,’’ and ‘‘voyage.’’ 

See Appendix A of the VGP and Section 

9 of the VGP fact sheet. 

23. The approach that allows vessels 

which have 8 or more cubic meters of 

ballast water capacity, but which do not 

discharge ballast water, to maintain 

coverage under the sVGP. Additionally, 

EPA is seeking comment on whether 

larger or smaller volumes of ballast 

water discharge should be regulated 

under the sVGP and whether additional 

best management practices should be 

required for these small volumes of 

ballast water from sVGP vessels. Please 

submit any supporting information, data 

sources, and rationale. See Part 2.9 of 

the sVGP and Section 4.9 of the sVGP 

fact sheet. 

24. Definition section as a whole in 

the sVGP and the specific definitions 

contained therein. See Part 6 of the 

sVGP and Section 8 of the sVGP fact 

sheet. 

D. Analysis of Economic Impacts of the 

Draft VGP and the Draft sVGP 

EPA performed an economic analysis 

for both the draft VGP and draft sVGP 

to evaluate the incremental costs of 

requirements in each permit. Both of 

these analyses are available in the 

docket for today’s permits. A summary 

of each follows. 

1. Analysis of draft VGP costs. EPA 

estimates that approximately 60,000 

domestic flag and 12,400 foreign flag 

vessels would be covered under the 

draft VGP, but only a subset of these 

vessels would incur incremental costs 

as a result of the revised VGP 

requirements. To estimate the effect of 

revised permit requirements on an 

industry as a whole, EPA’s VGP analysis 

takes into account previous conditions 

and determines how the industry would 

act in the future in the absence of 

revised Permit requirements. The 

baseline for this analysis is full industry 

compliance with existing federal and 

state regulations, including the 2008 

VGP in the case of vessels currently 

covered by the permit; and current 

industry practices or standards that 

exceed current regulations to the extent 

that they can be empirically observed. 

In addition, a number of laws and 

associated regulations (including the 

National Invasive Species Act; the Act 

to Prevent Pollution from Ships; the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act; the Organotin Anti-fouling Paint 

Control Act; and others) already cover 

certain discharges that would be subject 

to the new permitting regime. The 

overlap between revised permit 

requirements and existing regulations 

and practices is discussed at greater 

length in the economic analysis. 

EPA estimated compliance costs to 

commercial vessels associated with each 

of the permit’s practices and discharge 

categories identified and the paperwork 

burden costs. Incremental costs are 

understood to result from the inclusion 

of all commercial fishing vessels 79 feet 

or larger under the VGP As noted above, 

the moratorium on coverage for 

commercial fishing vessels and vessels 

less than 79 feet expires on December 

18, 2013. Commercial fishing vessels 79 

feet or larger will be covered by this 

permit, and most non-recreational 

vessels less than 79 feet, including 

commercial fishing vessels, are expected 

to be covered by the Small Vessel 

General Permit, and from revised, more 

stringent requirements for certain 

discharge categories and practices. 

Changes in compliance costs also result 

from streamlining selected 

requirements, which is expected to 

reduce compliance costs for owners of 

certain vessels. Overall, EPA finds that 

revisions in the VGP requirements could 

result in aggregate annual incremental 

costs for domestic vessels ranging 

between $6.5 and $20.9 million (2010). 

This includes the paperwork burden 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

76724 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Notices 

costs and the sum of all practices for 

applicable discharge categories for all 

vessels estimated to be covered by the 

revised VGP. The ballast water 

provisions of this permit for 

domestically flagged vessels are 

expected to cost between $1.1 and $2.5 

million annually (excluding the cost of 

purchasing and maintaining a ballast 

water treatment system: see Section 

4.4.3 of this fact sheet and part 4.2.3 of 

the economic and benefits analysis 

prepared for this permit for additional 

discussion). The average per vessel cost 

ranges from $26 to $3,933. There is 

considerable uncertainty in the 

assumptions used for several practices 

and discharge categories and these 

estimates therefore provide illustrative 

ranges of the costs potentially associated 

with the 2013 rather than incremental 

costs incurred by any given vessel 

owner. 

To evaluate economic impacts of 

revised VGP requirements on the water 

transportation, fishing, and mining 

industries, EPA performed a firm-level 

analysis. The firm-level analysis 

examines the impact of any incremental 

cost per vessel to comply with the 

revised VGP requirements on model 

firms that represent the financial 

conditions of ‘‘typical’’ businesses in 

each of the examined industry sectors. 

More than ninety percent of the firms in 

the water transportation and fishing 

industries, and in the drilling oil and 

gas wells segment of the mining 

industry, are small, and EPA believes it 

is unlikely that firm-level impacts 

would be significant among large firms 

in this industry. Therefore, a firm-level 

analysis focuses on assessment of 

impacts on small businesses. To 

evaluate the potential impact of the 

Vessel General Permit 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. 

EPA applied a cost-to-revenue test 

which calculates annualized pre-tax 

compliance cost as a percentage of total 

revenues and used a threshold of 1 and 

3% to identify entities that would be 

significantly impacted as a result of this 

Permit. The total number of entities 

expected to exceed a 1% cost ratio 

ranges from 52 under low cost 

assumptions to 360 under high cost 

assumptions. Of this universe, the total 

number of entities expected to exceed a 

3% cost ratio ranges from 0 under low 

cost assumptions to 11 under high cost 

assumptions. This is based out of 5,480 

total small firms. Accordingly, EPA 

concludes that this permit will not, if 

issued result in a significant economic 

impact on any businesses, and in 

particular, small businesses. 

2. Analysis of draft sVGP costs. EPA 

estimates that between 115,000 and 

138,000 vessels are potentially affected 

by the draft 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 $7.0 million 

and $12.1 million (2010$), in the 

aggregate. This includes the paperwork 

burden costs and the sum of all 

practices for applicable discharge 

categories. Per vessel incremental 

compliance costs average between $17 

and $98 per year, depending on the 

number of applicable discharge 

categories and baseline practices. As 

with the VGP economic analysis, EPA 

evaluated economic impacts of sVGP 

requirements on the affected industries, 

and performed a firm-level analysis. 

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. As with the VGP, to evaluate 

the potential impact of the sVGP on 

small entities, EPA used a cost-torevenue 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. Based on this firmlevel analysis, EPA concludes that the 

sVGP will not, if issued, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

based on information showing that few 

firms have revenue below those where 

the compliance costs would exceed the 

one percent cost-to-revenue threshold 

under high end cost assumptions. 

3. Benefits of the draft VGP and draft 

sVGP. Although EPA was unable to 

evaluate the expected benefits of the 

permits 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. 

E. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Under Executive Order (EO) 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, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

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

et seq. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Notices 76725 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

1. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

John Filippelli, 

Acting Division Director, Division of 

Environmental Planning and Protection, EPA 

Region 2. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Jose ́ C. Font, 

Acting Director, Caribbean Environmental 

Protection Division, EPA Region 2. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Jon M. Capacasa, 

Director, Water Protection Division, EPA 

Region 3. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Douglas F. Mundrick, 

Deputy Director, Water Protection Division, 

EPA Region 4. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Timothy C. Henry, 

Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 

5. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Troy C. Hill, 

Acting Director, Water Quality Protection 

Division, EPA Region 6. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Karen Flournoy, 

Director, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides 

Division, EPA Region 7. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Stephen S. Tuber, 

Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of 

Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, EPA 

Region 8. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Director Water Division, EPA Region 9. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Michael A. Bussell, 

Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, 

EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31576 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9502–7] 

Notification of a Public Meeting of the 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee (CASAC); Ozone Review 

Panel 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a 

public meeting of the CASAC Ozone 

Review Panel to conduct a peer review 

of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment 

for Ozone and Related Photochemical 

Oxidants (Second External Review 

Draft—September 2011). 

DATES: The CASAC Ozone Review Panel 

meeting will be held on Monday 

January 9, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 

p.m. (Eastern Time) and on Tuesday 

January 10, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 

p.m. (Eastern Time). 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the Marriott at Research Triangle 

Park hotel, 4700 Guardian Drive, 

Durham, North Carolina 27703 (919) 

941–6200. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any 

member of the public who wants further 

information concerning the public 

meeting may contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, 

Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via 

telephone at (202) 564–2050 or email at 

yeow.aaron@epa.gov. General 

information concerning the CASAC can 

be found on the EPA Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/casac. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

CASAC was established pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 

1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409D(d)(2), 

to provide advice, information, and 

recommendations to the Administrator 

on the scientific and technical aspects of 

issues related to the criteria for air 

quality standards, research related to air 

quality, sources of air pollution, and the 

strategies to attain and maintain air 

quality standards and to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality. 

The CASAC is a Federal Advisory 

Committee chartered under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 

U.S.C., App. 2. Pursuant to FACA and 

EPA policy, notice is hereby given that 

the CASAC Ozone Review Panel will 

hold a public meeting to peer review 

EPA’s second external review draft of 

the Integrated Science Assessment for 

Ozone and Related Photochemical 

Oxidants (September 2011). This is 

being prepared as part of the review of 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. The 

CASAC Ozone Review Panel and the 

CASAC will comply with the provisions 

of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff 

Office procedural policies. 

Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires 

that the Agency periodically review and 

revise, as appropriate, the air quality 

criteria and the NAAQS for the six 

‘‘criteria’’ air pollutants, including 

ozone. EPA is currently reviewing the 

primary (health-based) and secondary 

(welfare-based) NAAQS for ozone. The 

CASAC Ozone Review Panel previously 

reviewed EPA’s first external review 

draft of the Integrated Science 

Assessment for Ozone and Related 

Photochemical Oxidants (March 2011) 

as reported in a letter to the EPA 

Administrator, dated August 10, 2011 

(EPA–CASAC–11–009). 

Technical Contacts: Any technical 

questions concerning the Integrated 

Science Assessment for Ozone and 

Related Photochemical Oxidants 

(Second External Review Draft— 

September 2011) should be directed to 

Dr. James Brown 

(brown.james@epa.gov). 

Availability of Meeting Materials: 

Prior to the meeting, the review 

documents, agenda and other materials 

will be accessible through the calendar 

link on the blue navigation bar at 

http://www.epa.gov/casac/. 

Procedures for Providing Public Input: 

Public comment for consideration by 

EPA’s federal advisory committees and 

panels has a different purpose from 

public comment provided to EPA 

program offices. Therefore, the process 

for submitting comments to a federal 

advisory committee is different from the 

process used to submit comments to an 

EPA program office. 

Federal advisory committees and 

panels, including scientific advisory 

committees, provide independent 

advice to EPA. Members of the public 

can submit relevant comments for a 

federal advisory committee to consider 

pertaining to EPA’s charge to the panel 

or meeting materials. Input from the 

public to the CASAC will have the most 

impact if it provides specific scientific 

or technical information or analysis for 

CASAC panels to consider or if it relates 

to the clarity or accuracy of the 

technical information. Members of the 

public wishing to provide comment 

should contact the Designated Federal 

Officer directly. Oral Statements: In 

general, individuals or groups 

requesting an oral presentation at a 

public meeting will be limited to five 

minutes. Interested parties should 

contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in 

writing (preferably via email) at the 

contact information noted above by 

January 3, 2012, to be placed on the list 

of public speakers for the meeting. 

Written Statements: Written statements 

should be supplied to the DFO via email 

at the contact information noted above 

by January 3, 2012 for the meeting so 

that the information may be made 

available to the Panel members for their 

consideration. Written statements 

should be supplied in one of the 

following electronic formats: Adobe 

Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS 

PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM– 

PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format. It is 

the SAB Staff Office general policy to 

post written comments on the Web page 

for the advisory meeting or 

teleconference. Submitters are requested 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES