Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Notices 35347 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements. 

Filed 06/09/2014 Through 06/13/2014. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air 

Act requires that EPA make public its 

comments on EISs issued by other 

Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters 

on EISs are available at: http://

www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/

eisdata.html. 

EIS No. 20140171, Draft EIS,WAPA, NE, 

Interconnection of the Grande Prairie 

Wind Farm, Comment Period Ends: 

08/04/2014, Contact: Rod O’Sullivan 

720–962–7260. 

EIS No. 20140172, Draft EIS, USACE, 

OR, Double-crested Cormorant 

Management Plan to Reduce 

Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in 

the Columbia River Estuary, Comment 

Period Ends: 08/04/2014, Contact: 

Sondra Ruckwardt 503–808–4510. 

EIS No. 20140173, Final EIS, USFS, OR, 

Wolf Fuels and Vegetation 

Management Project, Review Period 

Ends: 07/28/2014, Contact: Jeff 

Marszal 541–416–6436. 

EIS No. 20140174, Final EIS, USAF, NH, 

Second Main Operating Base KC–46A 

Beddown at Alternative Air National 

Guard Installations, Review Period 

Ends: 07/21/2014, Contact: Kevin 

Marek 240–612–8855. 

EIS No. 20140175, Draft EIS, FERC, TX, 

Corpus Christi LNG Project, Comment 

Period Ends: 08/04/2014, Contact: 

Kandi Barakat 202–502–6365. 

EIS No. 20140176, Final EIS, USACE, 

LA, Calcasieu Lock, Louisiana 

Feasibility Study, Review Period 

Ends: 07/21/2014, Contact: Timothy 

K. George 314–331–8459. 

Amended Notice: 

EIS No. 20140167, Final EIS, USACE, 

HI, Honolulu Seawater Air 

Conditioning Project, Review Period 

Ends: 07/28/2014, Contact: Ryan 

Winn 808–835–4309. 

Revision to the FR Notice Published 

6/13/2014; Correct Review Period from 

7/14/2014 to 07/28/214. 

Dated: June 17, 2014. 

Cliff Rader, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2014–14480 Filed 6–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9912–58–Region 2] 

New York State Prohibition of 

Discharges of Vessel Sewage; Final 

Affirmative Determination 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Determination. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, 

pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 

312(f)(3), the State of New York has 

determined that the protection and 

enhancement of the quality of the New 

York State (NYS or the State) area of 

Lake Erie requires greater environmental 

protection, and has petitioned the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2, for a determination 

that adequate facilities for the safe and 

sanitary removal and treatment of 

sewage from all vessels are reasonably 

available for those waters, so that the 

State may completely prohibit the 

discharge from all vessels of any 

sewage, whether treated or not, into 

such waters. 

NYS has proposed to establish a 

‘‘Vessel Waste No Discharge Zone’’ for 

the NYS area of Lake Erie stretching 

from the Pennsylvania-New York State 

boundary to include the upper Niagara 

River to Niagara Falls. The proposed No 

Discharge Zone encompasses 

approximately 593 square miles and 84 

linear shoreline miles, including the 

navigable portions of the Upper Niagara 

River and numerous other tributaries 

and harbors, embayments of the Lake 

including Barcelona Harbor, Dunkirk 

Harbor and Buffalo Outer Harbor, and 

other formally designated habitats and 

waterways of local, state, and national 

significance. 

On December 6, 2012, the EPA 

completed a review of NYS’s petition 

and issued a tentative affirmative 

determination in the Federal Register 

that adequate facilities for the safe and 

sanitary removal and treatment of 

sewage from all vessels for such waters 

are reasonably available. During the 30- 

day public comment period, the EPA 

received significant comments regarding 

the availability of adequate pumpouts 

for commercial vessels. Specifically, 

two commenters submitted that the 

December 6, 2012 notice did not contain 

adequate information about the 

availability of pumpout facilities for 

large commercial vessels. Subsequently, 

the EPA and New York State collected 

additional information to demonstrate 

the reasonable availability of pumpout 

services for commercial vessels that use 

the New York area of Lake Erie. 

EPA Response to Public Comments on 

the September 27, 2013 Tentative 

Affirmative Determination 

On September 27, 2013, EPA 

published notice of its tentative 

affirmative determination (‘‘TAD’’) that 

adequate facilities for the safe and 

sanitary removal and treatment of 

sewage from all vessels are reasonably 

available within the New York State 

waters of Lake Erie, and its approval of 

New York’s proposal to ban the 

discharge of treated and untreated 

sewage from vessels into those waters 

under Clean Water Act (‘‘CWA’’) 

§ 312(f)(3). (78 FR 59681) Public 

comments were solicited for 30 days 

and the comment period ended on 

October 28, 2013. 

EPA received a total of eight 

comments via letter and email. Six of 

the commenters support EPA’s tentative 

affirmative determination and two 

commenters oppose it. All of the 

relevant comments received have been 

considered, as discussed below, and 

EPA hereby issues a final affirmative 

determination that adequate facilities 

for the safe and sanitary removal and 

treatment of sewage from all vessels are 

reasonably available within the New 

York State waters of Lake Erie. 

Comment 1: Several commenters, 

including boaters, residents, NonGovernmental Organizations (NGOs) 

and community advocates, expressed 

strong support for the establishment of 

a vessel waste no discharge zone 

(‘‘NDZ’’) for the New York waters of 

Lake Erie. Some commenters pointed 

out that this action will reduce 

pathogens and chemicals, improve 

water quality and further protect 

drinking water and restore the Lake. 

Response: The petition was submitted 

under CWA § 312(f)(3), which allows 

New York to establish a vessel sewage 

no discharge zone if the state 

determines that the protection and 

enhancement of the quality of some or 

all of the waters within the state require 

greater environmental protection and if 

EPA determines that adequate facilities 

for the safe and sanitary removal and 

treatment of sewage from all vessels are 

reasonably available within those 

waters. Therefore, while these 

comments are consistent with New 

York’s determination of need, that 

determination is beyond the scope of 

EPA’s review. 

Comment 2: Two commenters stated 

that New York’s petition did not include 

the additional information about 

available commercial pumpout trucks 

that was included in the republication. 

Response: In a letter to EPA dated 

September 6, 2013, prior to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

35348 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Notices 

republication, DEC supplemented its 

petition with the commercial pumpout 

information, and that information was 

subject to public review and comment 

in the pending TAD. 

Comment 3: Two commenters stated 

that the petition did not include the 

information required to be submitted by 

New York State under 40 CFR 140.4(a). 

Response: The commenters did not 

specify what information was allegedly 

missing from New York’s petition, and 

EPA has determined that New York’s 

petition supports a finding that 

adequate facilities for the safe and 

sanitary removal and treatment of 

sewage from commercial vessels are 

reasonably available. Specifically, the 

petition contains information 

demonstrating that four pumpout truck 

companies are available to serve the 

ports of Buffalo and Lackawanna, with 

a total of ten trucks and a total pumpout 

capacity of 33,500 gallons. 

Comment 4: Two commenters stated 

that the public record is inadequate 

because it does not include any 

communications with, or information 

provided by, the vendors to support 

EPA’s determination and because 

several questions suggested by the 

commenters were not asked of the 

vendors. 

Response: EPA is not required to 

publish all of its, or the state’s, factfinding communications, as long as the 

data relied upon by EPA is published 

and subject to public scrutiny and 

comment. The Federal Register notice 

for the pending TAD contained all of the 

data and criteria upon which EPA based 

its tentative determination, including 

two criteria (hose fittings, flexibility and 

length, and head pump pressure) that 

were suggested by the same two 

commenters and incorporated by EPA 

and DEC in their evaluation of the 

adequacy of the commercial pumpout 

companies. Other questions suggested 

by the two commenters were deemed by 

EPA and DEC to be irrelevant to EPA’s 

determination, and therefore were not 

explored. For example, the commenters 

asked that the petition include 

references, insurance coverage, port 

access agreements, spill procedures, 

employee training information, and 

testing and labeling of hoses, none of 

which is required by the law or is 

otherwise necessary for EPA’s 

determination. 

Comment 5: Two commenters stated 

that three of the four commercial 

pumpout companies ‘‘declined to 

service [their] vessels outright (two in 

writing, one orally),’’ and submitted a 

copy of a fax from Macken Services, 

Inc., an email from Ball Toilet and 

Septic Service and an email from 

Western New York Septic Tank 

Cleaning Service purporting to 

demonstrate those declinations. 

Response: The purported declinations 

are responses to a different and more 

elaborate survey that the commenters 

sent to the companies, which contains 

several questions that are irrelevant to 

EPA’s finding of adequacy. Therefore, a 

refusal to answer that survey is not 

equivalent to a refusal to provide the 

pumpout services that the companies 

specifically told EPA and DEC that they 

could provide. Additionally, the 

purported response from Macken 

Services, Inc, is actually consistent with 

EPA’s findings, even if it doesn’t answer 

all of the commenter’s additional 

questions to their satisfaction. Further, 

the responses from Ball Toilet and 

Septic Service and Western New York 

Septic Tank Cleaning Services are not 

specific about which questions they are 

responding to, and therefore, do not 

rebut the answers that the companies 

provided for New York’s petition. 

Finally, there is no evidence of the 

purported oral declination. While it 

might be presumed that the commenters 

are referring to Meyer Septic Service 

(because the comments do not include 

any purported written declination from 

Meyer), there is no evidence or 

description of that alleged oral 

declination. 

Comment 6: Two commenters stated 

that Ball Toilet and Septic Service does 

not meet the minimum criteria because 

it has no spill control plan or sewage 

pumping training, and because it only 

has three trucks, with holding tanks that 

are too small for vessels that hold 

4,000–111,000 gallons, require 3 hours 

advance notice, and cannot guarantee 

their availability. 

Response: A spill control plan is not 

required for EPA to determine that the 

pumpout services are reasonably 

available. Regarding the holding 

capacity of the pumpout trucks, during 

the previous public comment period, 

one of these commenters submitted 

evidence to EPA that their members’ 

vessels typically discharge sewage while 

holding less than 3,000 gallons, and, 

among the four companies that are 

available to provide pumpout truck 

services, there are a total of eight trucks 

with tanks equal to or greater than 3,500 

gallons. Therefore, the pumpout truck 

companies have sufficient capacity to 

meet the needs of the commenters’ 

vessels. Moreover, one commenter states 

that its members’ vessels call on the Port 

of Buffalo 80 times per year (every 4– 

5 days), and another commenter states 

that its members’ vessels each transit 

through the New York portion of Lake 

Erie approximately 30 times per year 

(also see Comment 10, below). These 

numbers are consistent with the 

numbers contained in the petition, and 

with EPA’s determination that the four 

pumpout truck companies are capable 

of serving the waste disposal needs of 

the commenters’ members’ vessels. 

Comment 7: One commenter stated 

that New York’s petition should be 

denied because EPA Region 5 denied a 

petition from Ohio, in 2004, to designate 

the Ohio section of Lake Erie a no 

discharge zone. 

Response: Ohio’s petition submitted 

10 years ago has no bearing on the 

instant determination because EPA must 

evaluate each petition on its own facts 

and merits in determining whether 

adequate facilities for the safe and 

sanitary removal and treatment of 

sewage from all vessels are reasonably 

available. 

Comment 8: Two commenters stated 

that New York’s petition does not 

establish the need for greater 

environmental protection because their 

members’ discharges conform to Coast 

Guard standards for marine sanitation 

devices (‘‘MSDs’’) and Canadian effluent 

limitations for commercial vessels, 

respectively, and therefore pose no 

threat to human health or the marine 

environment. 

Response: Section 312(f) of the CWA 

specifically contemplates the imposition 

of a ban on the discharge of treated or 

untreated sewage, notwithstanding any 

other requirements to control or limit 

pollutants in those discharges. 

Furthermore, EPA’s determination in 

the instant matter is limited to 

evaluating the adequacy of pumpout 

facilities, and does not include a review 

of the adequacy of New York’s 

Certification of Need or the water 

quality impacts of any particular 

pollutant or source. 

Comment 9: One commenter stated 

that the establishment of a NDZ is an 

inadequate solution to water pollution 

in Lake Erie and also argues that its 

members’ vessels should be exempt 

from the ban because the petition does 

not demonstrate that they are a 

significant source of water pollution. 

Response: Section 312(f) of the CWA 

does not require that the NDZ be a total 

solution to all water pollution problems 

in the proposed NDZ, or that the state 

demonstrate that any particular vessels 

are a significant source of pollution. 

Comment 10: One commenter stated 

that EPA understates the vessel traffic in 

the proposed NDZ, and that the number 

is closer to 3,000 transits per year for its 

100 member vessels. 

Response: This number of vessels 

contradicts the commenter’s claim, in 

the same comment letter, that it has 80 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Notices 35349 

member vessels. In any event, as noted 

above, even assuming 3,000 transits for 

100 vessels, each vessel would make, on 

average, 30 transits per year. 

Furthermore, not every vessel will need 

to discharge every time it transits 

through the Lake Erie NDZ. 

Comment 11: Two commenters stated 

that EPA has failed to answer the state’s 

petition within the 90 days required 

under the regulations, and therefore 

lacks authority to make the 

determination. 

Response: EPA extended the public 

comment period and its consideration of 

this petition, including issuing a second 

TAD with additional information, in 

response to the same commenters’ 

request for an extension of time to 

comment on the first TAD and the same 

commenters’ request, which EPA 

granted, for a meeting in order to share 

their concerns about the petition. 

Therefore, those commenters have not 

been harmed by EPA’s extended 

consideration of the petition and have 

no valid objection to the extended 

timeline for which they advocated and 

from which they benefitted. 

Comment 12: One commenter stated 

that the petition should have been 

reviewed under CWA § 312(f)(4)(B), as a 

request to only ban vessel sewage 

discharges in specified drinking water 

intake zones. 

Response: The petition was submitted 

under CWA § 312(f)(3). While New York 

notes in the petition that much of the 

proposed zone could be designated as 

an NDZ under CWA § 312(f)(4)(B), 

which allows for the establishment of 

NDZs in drinking water intake zones, 

the petition goes on to state that, in 

order to designate the entire New York 

State section of Lake Erie as an NDZ, the 

state was submitting the information 

required for a CWA § 312(f)(3) petition, 

namely a Certification of Need, and a 

demonstration of the adequacy of 

pumpout facilities. Significantly, the 

petition contains no information about 

the location or extent of drinking water 

intake zones, nor does it contain any 

request to create NDZs in drinking water 

intake zones. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Moses Chang, (212) 637–3867, email 

address: chang.moses@epa.gov. 

The EPA Region 2 NDZ Web site is: 

http://www.epa.gov/region02/water/

ndz/index.html. A copy of the State’s 

NDZ petition can be found there. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that the State of New York 

has petitioned the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, (EPA) pursuant to section 

312(f)(3) of Public Law 92–500 as 

amended by Public Law 95–217 and 

Public Law 100–4, that adequate 

facilities for the safe and sanitary 

removal and treatment of sewage from 

all vessels are reasonably available for 

the NYS area of Lake Erie. 

New York State’s Certification of Need 

The New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (DEC) 

developed its petition in collaboration 

with the New York State Department of 

State (DOS) and the New York State 

Environmental Facilities Corporation 

(EFC) in order to establish a vessel 

waste No Discharge Zone (NDZ) on the 

open waters, tributaries, harbors and 

embayments of the New York State area 

of Lake Erie, and has submitted a 

Certification of the Need for Greater 

Protection and Enhancement of Lake 

Erie waters. Below is a summary of the 

basis for New York’s certification. 

The Great Lakes are the largest group 

of freshwater lakes on Earth, containing 

95% of the fresh surface water in the 

United States and acting as the largest 

single reservoir on Earth. The glacial 

history and the influence of the Lakes 

themselves create unique conditions 

that support a wealth of biological 

diversity, including over 200 globally 

rare plants and animals and more than 

40 species that are found nowhere else 

in the world. 

Lake Erie is the smallest and 

shallowest of the Great Lakes, with 

depths that range from an approximate 

average of 24 feet in the western basin, 

to 82 feet in the deeper eastern basin. 

Because of its shallowness, it warms 

quickly in the spring and summer and 

cools quickly in the fall. As a result, 

Lake Erie is the most biologically 

productive of the Great Lakes. 

The Lake Erie watershed is also home 

to approximately one-third of the total 

human population of the Great Lakes 

basin—11.6 million people (10 million 

in the U.S. and 1.6 million in Canada), 

including 17 metropolitan areas with 

more than 50,000 residents. The 

majority, 11 million people, receive 

their drinking water from the Lake. Of 

all the Great Lakes, Lake Erie is exposed 

to the greatest stress from urbanization, 

industrialization and agriculture. 

Because the Lake Erie basin supports 

the largest population, it also surpasses 

all the other Great Lakes in the amount 

of effluent discharged from sewage 

treatment plants. 

There are 18 designated Significant 

Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats in the 

two counties that comprise New York’s 

Lake Erie shoreline including: 

Cattaraugus Creek, Dunkirk Harbor, 

Buckhorn Island Wetlands and Grand 

Island Tributaries. These habitats are 

essential to the survival of a large 

portion of lake fish or wildlife 

population and support populations of 

species which are of special concern 

and which have significant commercial, 

recreational, and educational value. 

The New York State shoreline and 

waters of Lake Erie also host a variety 

of swimming, boating and recreational 

activities. These recreational activities 

act as a source of revenue to the regional 

economy by bringing people to the 

shoreline, where they patronize local 

businesses. 

Virtually all of Lake Erie is classified 

by New York State as Class A waters. 

This classification means that the best 

uses of these waters are for drinking, 

culinary or food processing purposes, 

recreation and fishing, and that the 

waters shall be suitable for fish, 

shellfish, and wildlife propagation and 

survival. Also, when the water in the 

Lake is used as a source of drinking 

water, it must comply with the New 

York State Department of Health’s 

(DOH) drinking water safety standards. 

There are currently six New York 

municipal and community water 

supplies, including Buffalo and Erie 

County, that draw water from Lake Erie 

to serve approximately 275,000 people. 

In summary, as one of the nation’s 

premier water bodies, Lake Erie 

supports several important uses, 

including drinking water supplies, 

valuable habitats, commercial shipping, 

recreational boating and other 

recreational activities, and serves as an 

economic engine for the region. The 

protection and enhancement of the open 

waters, tributaries, harbors and 

embayments of the New York State area 

of Lake Erie require greater protection 

than is afforded by applicable federal 

standards. An NDZ designation covering 

the NYS waters of the Lake represents 

one component of a comprehensive 

approach to water quality management, 

which also includes initiatives to 

control point and non-point source 

pollution, including pollution 

associated with municipal discharges, 

combined sewer overflows, and storm 

water runoff. 

Adequacy and Availability of Sewage 

Pumpout Facilities 

Adequate pumpout facilities for 

recreational vessels are defined, under 

the Clean Vessel Act, as one pumpout 

station for every 300–600 boats. See 

Clean Vessel Act: Pumpout Station and 

Dump Station Technical Guidelines 

(Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 47, 

March 10, 1994). Two major sources of 

information were consulted to develop 

a reasonable estimate of recreational 

vessel population. The first was DOS’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

35350 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Notices 

Clean Vessel Act Plan (‘‘Statewide 

Plan’’), released in 1996. Using data 

from the Statewide Plan, the estimated 

number of recreational vessels in each 

of the counties bordering Lake Erie is 

2,029. The second source for the State’s 

estimate of the recreational vessel 

population is boater registrations, 

obtained through the New York State 

Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic 

Preservation’s 2010 Boating Report 

(OPRHP Report) for the counties of Erie 

and Chautauqua (all of which have 

shoreline on Lake Erie). The data in the 

OPRHP Report yields an estimate of 

2,204 vessels with marine sanitation 

devices (MSDs) in the respective 

counties, which are assumed to operate 

in Lake Erie. 

The State provided sufficient 

information about fifteen pumpout 

facilities that are publicly available for 

use by recreational and small 

commercial vessels in the New York 

State area of Lake Erie, and which either 

discharge to a holding tank, to a 

municipal wastewater treatment plant 

or to an on-site septic system. All fifteen 

were created through funding provided 

by the Clean Vessel Act (CVA) Grant 

Program, and are thus required to be 

open to the public. Nine additional 

marinas are located along Lake Erie in 

New York State, including five at which 

CVA funding could support the 

development of future pumpout 

facilities for recreational and small 

commercial vessels. However, only the 

fifteen CVA-funded facilities were 

considered in determining the adequacy 

and availability of pumpout facilities for 

those vessels. Those facilities are 

summarized in Table 1, below. Using 

those fifteen facilities, and the most 

conservative estimate of small vessel 

usage of the NYS area of the Lake, the 

ratio of pumpout facilities to 

recreational vessels is 15:2,204, or 

1:147. This ratio falls well within the 

range recommended in the Clean Vessel 

Act guidance, and therefore 

demonstrates that adequate pumpout 

facilities for the safe and sanitary 

removal and treatment of sewage for 

recreational and small commercial 

vessels are reasonably available for the 

New York State area of Lake Erie. 

Lake Erie is also used by large 

commercial vessels. The commercial 

vessel population was estimated using 

data from the National Ballast 

Information Clearinghouse, which 

records ballast water discharge reports 

for ships arriving, among other places, 

at the commercial ports in Buffalo and 

Lackawanna. In 2010, ballast manifests 

showed 62 vessels arriving at the Port of 

Buffalo and one arriving at the Gateway 

Metroport, in Lackawanna. The majority 

(58) of these vessels were bulkers, with 

two passenger ship arrivals and one 

more listed as ‘‘other.’’ The single 

arrival in Lackawanna was also a bulker. 

Two commenters representing 

commercial vessel operators submitted 

comments stating that more than 62 

large commercial vessels use the New 

York State area of Lake Erie. One 

commenter estimated that the number 

was closer to 80, while the other 

commenter estimated that the number 

was ‘‘over a hundred.’’ 

Although there is no fixed 

commercial vessel pumpout facility at 

either the Port of Buffalo or the Port of 

Lackawanna, information submitted in 

the petition, and by companies that 

provide mobile pumpout services, 

demonstrates that at least four 

companies are available and qualified to 

provide pumpout services to large 

commercial vessels at either port. In 

addition to commenting on the number 

of commercial vessels using the NYS 

area of Lake Erie, the two commenters 

submitted criteria they believe are 

necessary for determining whether a 

pumpout truck is able to service their 

vessels. Those criteria were taken into 

consideration, and were partially 

incorporated into the list of final criteria 

the EPA used to determine the 

reasonable availability of those services. 

In addition, one commenter confirmed 

that, while large commercial vessels can 

hold multiple thousands of gallons of 

wastewater, it is more likely that when 

these vessels discharge sewage, their 

holding tanks contain less than 4,000 

gallons of wastewater. Based on all of 

this information, the EPA had 

determined that four mobile pumpout 

companies, with approximately ten 

pumpout trucks (listed in Table 2, 

below), are able to provide pumpout 

services to large commercial vessels at 

the ports of Buffalo and Lackawanna. 

Assuming, conservatively, that 100 large 

commercial vessels use the NYS area of 

Lake Erie and given that at least four 

companies with as many as ten 

pumpout trucks are able to provide 

pumpout services to these vessels at 

both New York ports, the ratio of 

pumpout facilities to commercial 

vessels is at least 4:100, or 1:25. While 

the Clean Vessel Act guidance applies, 

by its terms, only to recreational vessels, 

the ratio it recommends is instructive 

for purposes of determining the 

reasonable availability of pumpout 

services for large commercial vessels as 

well. In light of the relatively low ratio 

of pumpout companies to large 

commercial vessels (and the even lower 

ratio of pumpout trucks to large 

commercial vessels), adequate pumpout 

facilities for the safe and sanitary 

removal of sewage for large commercial 

vessels are reasonably available for the 

New York State area of Lake Erie. 

TABLE 1—LIST OF SEWAGE PUMPOUT STATIONS IN THE LAKE ERIE NDZ SERVING RECREATIONAL AND SMALL

COMMERCIAL VESSELS

Number Name Location Contact 

information Days and hours of operation 

Water 

depth 

(feet) 

Fee 

1 .......... City of Dunkirk–Municipal 

Dock.

Dunkirk Harbor ..................... 716–366–9882 April 1–November 15, 6 

a.m.–6 p.m..

6′–7′ $5.00 

2 .......... Niagara Frontier Trans. Authority—Small Boat Harbor.Buffalo Harbor and Buffalo 

River.

716–855–7230 May 15–October 15, 7:00 

a.m.–10:30 p.m..

6′–8′ 0.00 

3 .......... RCR Yachts Skyway Marina Buffalo Harbor and Buffalo 

River.

716–856–6314 April 1–November 30, 8:30 

a.m.–5:30 p.m..

12′ 5.00 

4 .......... City of Buffalo—Erie Basin 

Marina.

Buffalo Harbor and Buffalo 

River.

716–851–5389 May 1–October 15, 7:00 

a.m.–7:00 p.m..

10′ 6.50 

5 .......... Rich Marine Sales, Inc. ........ Buffalo Harbor and Buffalo 

River.

716–873–4060 May 1–November 1, 9:00 

a.m.–5:00 p.m..

6′ 5.00 

6 .......... Harbour Place Marine Sales. 

Inc.

Buffalo Harbor and Buffalo 

River.

716–876–5944 April 15–October 31, 24 

Hours.

12′ 5.00 

7 .......... NYSOPRHP—Beaver Island 

State Park Transient Marina.

Grand Island ......................... 716–278–1775 May 15–October 15, 24 

Hours.

10′ 5.00 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Notices 35351 

TABLE 1—LIST OF SEWAGE PUMPOUT STATIONS IN THE LAKE ERIE NDZ SERVING RECREATIONAL AND SMALL

COMMERCIAL VESSELS—Continued 

Number Name Location Contact 

information Days and hours of operation 

Water 

depth 

(feet) 

Fee 

8 .......... Blue Water Marine ................ Grand Island ......................... 716–773–7884 May 1–November 1, 9:00 

a.m.–7:00 p.m..

5′ 0.00 

9 .......... Mid River Marina Inc ............ Tonawanda Creek ................ 716–875–7447 April 1–September 30, 9:00 

a.m.–6:00 p.m..

5′ 5.00 

10 ........ Collins Marine Inc ................. Tonawanda Creek ................ 716–875–6000 April 1–November 1, 24 

Hours.

6′ 5.00 

11 ........ The Shores/Placid Harbor 

Marine—Tonawanda Marine Develop Corp.

Tonawanda Creek ................ 716–625–8235 April 15–October 15, 9:00 

a.m.–9:00 p.m..

12′ 5.00 

12 ........ Niagara River Yacht Club ..... Tonawanda Creek ................ 716–693–2882 May 1–November 1, Dusk– 

Dawn.

NA 3.00 

13 ........ Smith Boys of North Tonawanda—Upgrade.Tonawanda Creek ................ 716–695–3472 April–November, 24 Hours ... 8′ 0.00 

14 ........ East Pier Marine, Inc ............ Tonawanda Creek ................ 716–693–6604 May 1–November 15, 9:00 

a.m.–8:00 p.m..

5′ 5.00 

15 ........ NYSOPRHP—Big Six Mile 

Creek State Marina.

Grand Island ......................... 716–278–1775 May 1–November 1, 24 

Hours.

10′ 5.00 

TABLE 2—LIST OF SEWAGE PUMPOUT SERVICES CAPABLE OF SERVING LARGE COMMERCIAL VESSELS IN THE PROPOSED, 

LAKE ERIE NDZ 

Number Name of company Location & contact 

information 

Number of sewage 

hauler pumpout 

trucks/holding 

capacity 

Days and hours of 

operation 

Hose fittings & 

length 

(feet) 

Head 

pump 

pressure 

to 

reach 

46.5 ft 

Truck 

serve 

the 

port 

area 

Fee/ 

cost 

per 

1,000 

gal 

1 ........... Macken Services, 

Inc.

22 Simme Road, 

Lancaster, NY 

14086, Tel—716 

683 0704.

3 sewage trucks— 

2 4,000 gal and 

1—2,500 gal.

Mon–Fri 7:00 

a.m.–5:00 p.m.; 

or by appointment.

Flexible 100 ft ....... Yes ... Yes ... $230 

2 ........... Meyer Septic Service.7130 Olean Road, 

South Wales, 

NY 14139, Tel— 

716 652 0553.

3 sewage trucks— 

3,500 gal each.

Mon–Fri 8:00 

a.m.–2:00 p.m.; 

or by appointment.

Flexible up to 175 

ft.

Yes ... Yes ... 255 

3 ........... Western New York 

Septic Tank 

Cleaning Service.

3045 Daniels 

Road, Wilson, 

NY 14172, Tel— 

716 751 9611.

2 sewage truck— 

4,000 gal each.

Mon–Fri 7:00 

a.m.–5:00 p.m.; 

or by appointment.

Flexible up to 200 

ft.

Yes ... Yes ... 350 

4 ........... Ball Toilet & Septic 

Service.

3725 Jeffrey Blvd., 

Blasdell, NY 

14219, Tel—716 

823 3606.

2 sewage truck— 

1,000 gal and 

5,000 gal.

Mon–Fri 6:00 

a.m.–4:30 p.m.; 

or by appointment.

Flexible up to 200 

ft.

Yes ... Yes ... 230 

Based on the information above, the 

EPA hereby makes a final affirmative 

determination that adequate facilities 

for the safe and sanitary removal and 

treatment of sewage from all vessels are 

available for the waters of the New York 

State area of Lake Erie. 

Dated: June 4, 2014. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2014–14489 Filed 6–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burden and as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520), the Federal Communications 

Commission invites the general public 

and other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection(s). 

Comments are requested concerning: 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimate; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; ways to minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and ways to 

further reduce the information burden 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES