56572 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

been addressed in this second external 

review draft document. The draft 

‘‘Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur— 

Environmental Criteria; Second External 

Review Draft’’ and the draft ‘‘Risk and 

Exposure Assessment for the Review of 

the Secondary National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Oxides of 

Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur’’ will be 

discussed by CASAC at a public peer 

review meeting on October 1–2, 2008; 

public comments that have been 

received prior to the public meeting will 

be provided to the CASAC review panel. 

II. How To Submit Technical Comments 

to the Docket at www.regulations.gov 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. Docket ID EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2007–1145 by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–9744. 

• Mail: Office of Environmental 

Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 

2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. The phone 

number is 202–566–1752. 

• Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is 

located in the EPA Headquarters Docket 

Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center 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 

Public Reading Room is 202–566–1744. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

If you provide comments by mail or 

hand delivery, please submit one 

unbound original with pages numbered 

consecutively, and three copies of the 

comments. For attachments, provide an 

index, number pages consecutively with 

the comments, and submit an unbound 

original and three copies. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

1145. Please ensure that your comments 

are submitted within the specified 

comment period. Comments received 

after the closing date will be marked 

‘‘late’’, and may only be considered if 

time permits. It is EPA’s policy to 

include all comments it receives in the 

public docket without change and to 

make the comments available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless a comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hardcopy at 

the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters 

Docket Center. 

Dated: September 23, 2008. 

Rebecca Clark, 

Acting Director, National Center for 

Environmental Assessment. 

[FR Doc. E8–22798 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8720–7; EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0007] 

Final National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) General 

Permit for Stormwater Discharges 

From Industrial Activities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 

and 10 today are finalizing EPA’s 

NPDES general permit for stormwater 

discharges from industrial activity, also 

referred to as the Multi-Sector General 

Permit (MSGP). The MSGP consists of 

thirty four (34) separate Regional EPA 

permits that may vary from each other 

based on State or Tribal water qualitybased requirements. This permit 

replaces the existing permits that 

expired on October 30, 2005. As with 

the earlier permits, this permit 

authorizes the discharge of stormwater 

associated with industrial activities in 

accordance with the terms and 

conditions described therein. Industrial 

dischargers have the choice to seek 

coverage under an individual permit. 

An individual permit may be necessary 

if the discharger cannot meet the terms 

and conditions or eligibility 

requirements in the permit. 

DATES: This permit is effective today, 

September 29, 2008. This effective date 

is necessary to provide dischargers with 

the immediate opportunity to comply 

with Clean Water Act requirements in 

light of the expiration of the MSGP 2000 

on October 30, 2005. In accordance with 

40 CFR Part 23, this permit shall be 

considered issued for the purpose of 

judicial review on October 13, 2008. 

Under section 509(b) of the Clean Water 

Act, judicial review of this general 

permit can be had by filing a petition for 

review in the United States Court of 

Appeals within 120 days after the 

permit is considered issued for purposes 

of judicial review. Under section 

509(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, the 

requirements in this permit may not be 

challenged later in civil or criminal 

proceedings to enforce these 

requirements. In addition, this permit 

may not be challenged in other agency 

proceedings. Deadlines for submittal of 

notices of intent are provided in Part 1.4 

of the MSGP. This permit also provides 

additional dates for compliance with the 

terms of these permits. 

EPA will host a Web cast presentation 

on Wednesday, November 5 from 12 

noon to 2 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) 

to explain the new permit requirements. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56573 

Registration information will be 

available on http://www.epa.gov/npdes/ 

training two weeks before the Web cast. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on this final NPDES 

general permit, contact the appropriate 

EPA Regional Office listed in section 

I.D, contact Greg Schaner, EPA 

Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of 

Wastewater Management at tel.: 202– 

564–0721, or send questions via e-mail 

to EPA’s stormwater permit mailbox: 

SWpermit@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Final Permit Apply To Me? 

If a discharger chooses to seek 

coverage under this MSGP to be 

authorized to discharge stormwater from 

industrial activities, the MSGP provides 

specific requirements for preventing 

contamination of stormwater discharges 

from industrial facilities listed in the 

sectors shown below: 

Sector A—Timber Products. 

Sector B—Paper and Allied Products 

Manufacturing. 

Sector C—Chemical and Allied Products 

Manufacturing. 

Sector D—Asphalt Paving and Roofing 

Materials Manufactures and Lubrican 

Manufacturers. 

Sector E—Glass, Clay, Cement, 

Concrete, and Gypsum Product 

Manufacturing. 

Sector F—Primary Metals. 

Sector G—Metal Mining (Ore Mining 

and Dressing). 

Sector H—Coal Mines and Coal MiningRelated Facilities. 

Sector I—Oil and Gas Extraction and 

Refining. 

Sector J—Mineral Mining and Dressing. 

Sector K—Hazardous Waste Treatment 

Storage or Disposal. 

Sector L—Landfills and Land 

Application Sites. 

Sector M—Automobile Salvage Yards. 

Sector N—Scrap Recycling Facilities. 

Sector O—Steam Electric Generating 

Facilities. 

Sector P—Land Transportation. 

Sector Q—Water Transportation. 

Sector R—Ship and Boat Building or 

Repairing Yards. 

Sector S—Air Transportation Facilities. 

Sector T—Treatment Works. 

Sector U—Food and Kindred Products. 

Sector V—Textile Mills, Apparel, and 

other Fabric Products Manufacturing. 

Sector W—Furniture and Fixtures. 

Sector X—Printing and Publishing. 

Sector Y—Rubber, Miscellaneous Plastic 

Products, and Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing Industries. 

Sector Z—Leather Tanning and 

Finishing. 

Sector AA—Fabricated Metal Products. 

Sector AB—Transportation Equipment, 

Industrial or Commercial Machinery. 

Sector AC—Electronic, Electrical, 

Photographic and Optical Goods. 

Sector AD—Reserved for Facilities Not 

Covered Under Other Sectors and 

Designated by the Director. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. OW–2005–0007. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Water Docket in the EPA 

Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center 

Public Reading Room, open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Water 

Docket is (202) 566–2426. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the Federal Register listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. 

Electronic versions of the final permit 

and fact sheet are available at EPA’s 

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

stormwater/msgp. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

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

fdmspublic/component/main view 

public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once in the 

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

appropriate docket identification 

number. 

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA Dockets. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA 

policy is that copyrighted material will 

not be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the docket facility 

identified in section I.B.1. 

Response to public comments. EPA 

received 92 comments on the proposed 

permit from industry (52), government 

(20), and the public (20). EPA has 

responded to all significant comments 

received and has included these 

responses in a separate document in the 

public docket for this permit. See the 

document titled Proposed MSGP: EPA’s 

Response to Public Comments. 

C. Public Meeting 

EPA held an informal public meeting 

at EPA headquarters in Washington, DC, 

on December 20, 2005. The public 

meeting was attended by a wide variety 

of stakeholders including 

representatives from industry, 

government agencies, and 

environmental organizations. The 

public meeting included a presentation 

covering the major provisions of the 

proposed permit and a question and 

answer session. The presentation can be 

found in the public docket for this 

permit. 

D. Who Are the EPA Regional Contacts 

for This Permit? 

For EPA Region 1, contact Thelma 

Murphy at tel.: (617) 918–1615 or email at murphy.thelma@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 2, contact Stephen 

Venezia at tel.: (212) 637–3856 or email at venezia.stephen@epa.gov or 

for Puerto Rico, Sergio Bosques at tel.: 

(787) 977–5838 or e-mail at 

bosques.sergio@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 3, contact Garrison 

Miller at tel.: (215) 814–5745 or e-mail 

at miller.garrison@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 5, contact Brian Bell at 

tel.: (312) 886–0981 or e-mail at 

bell.brianc@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 6, contact Brent Larsen 

at tel.: (214) 665–7523 or e-mail at: 

larsen.brent@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene 

Bromley at tel.: (415) 972–3510 or email at bromley.eugene@epa.gov. 

For EPA Region 10, contact Misha 

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

at vakoc.misha@epa.gov. 

II. Background 

Section 405 of the Water Quality Act 

of 1987 (WQA) added section 402(p) of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA), which 

directed the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to develop a phased 

approach to regulate stormwater 

discharges under the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

program. EPA published a final 

regulation on the first phase on this 

program on November 16, 1990, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

56574 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

establishing permit application 

requirements for ‘‘stormwater 

discharges associated with industrial 

activity.’’ See 55 FR 48063. EPA defined 

the term ‘‘stormwater discharge 

associated with industrial activity’’ in a 

comprehensive manner to cover a wide 

variety of facilities. See 40 CFR 

122.26(b)(14). EPA is issuing the MSGP 

under this statutory and regulatory 

authority. 

Dischargers choosing to be covered by 

the MSGP must certify in their notice of 

intent (NOI) that they meet the requisite 

eligibility requirements, described in 

Part 1 of the permit. In addition, 

dischargers must install and implement 

control measures to meet the effluent 

limits required in Part 2 and develop a 

stormwater pollution prevention plan 

(SWPPP) consistent with Part 5 

describing their control measures used 

to achieve the effluent limits. Under the 

MSGP, a facility is required to take 

corrective action (Part 3) to modify or 

replace control measures in order to 

eliminate certain unauthorized releases, 

or conditions giving rise to violations of 

effluent limits or exceedances above 

applicable water quality standards. 

Facilities are also required to conduct 

quarterly site inspections (Part 4.1), 

quarterly visual assessments of the 

stormwater discharge (Part 4.2), and 

annual comprehensive site inspections 

(Part 4.3). Permitted facilities are 

required to submit to EPA quarterly 

benchmark monitoring results (Part 

6.2.1), and, where applicable, 

stormwater effluent data relating to 

impaired waters (Part 6.2.4) and 

compliance with numeric effluent 

limitations guidelines (Part 6.2.2). EPA 

notes that Part 6.2.1 emphasizes that the 

benchmark thresholds used for 

monitoring are not effluent limits, but 

rather information that is primarily for 

the use of the industrial facility to 

determine the overall effectiveness of 

the control measures and to assist in 

understanding when corrective action(s) 

may be necessary. In addition, 

permittees are required to submit an 

annual report that includes the findings 

of the facility’s comprehensive site 

inspection and a summary of any 

corrective actions required during the 

past year. 

III. Scope and Applicability of the 

Multi-Sector General Permit 

The MSGP 2000 expired at midnight, 

October 30, 2005. Dischargers that were 

previously covered by the MSGP 2000 

have been covered by an administrative 

continuance in the interim period until 

they are authorized for coverage under 

this permit. 

A. Geographic Coverage 

This permit provides coverage for 

sectors of industrial point source 

discharges that occur in areas not 

covered by an approved State NPDES 

program. The geographic coverage of 

this permit is listed in Appendix C of 

this permit. EPA notes that unlike the 

MSGP 2000, facilities located in Regions 

4 and 8 will not be covered by this 

permit because they are issuing their 

own NPDES general permit. EPA also 

notes that because certifications 

required by section 401 of the Clean 

Water Act were not received in time, 

coverage under this permit is not yet 

available in the following areas: 

• The State of Alaska, except Indian 

Country lands; 

• The State of Idaho, except Indian 

Country lands; 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Idaho, except Duck Valley 

Reservation lands; 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Oregon, except Fort McDermitt 

Reservation lands; 

• Indian Country lands within the 

State of Washington; and 

• Federal facilities in the State of 

Washington, except those located on 

Indian Country lands. 

EPA will announce the availability of 

coverage under the MSGP for these 

areas in a separate Federal Register 

notice as soon as possible after the 

certifications are completed. 

B. Categories of Facilities Covered 

This permit regulates stormwater 

discharges from industrial facilities in 

29 sectors, as shown above in section 

I.A., in the five states and other areas 

(e.g., federal facilities, Indian Country 

lands, and U.S. territories) where EPA 

remains the permitting authority. See 

Appendix D of the final MSGP and the 

MSGP fact sheet for more complete 

information. 

C. Summary of Significant Changes 

from 2000 Multi-Sector General Permit 

This permit replaces the MSGP 2000 

that was issued for a five-year term on 

October 30, 2000 (65 FR 64746). The 

MSGP 2000 was subsequently corrected 

on January 9, 2001 (66 FR 1675–1678) 

and March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16233– 

16237). On April 16, 2001 (66 FR 

19483–19485), EPA re-issued the 

permit, as corrected, for facilities in 

certain areas of Regions 8 and 10. 

This permit is structured in nine 

parts: General requirements that apply 

to all facilities (e.g., eligibility of 

discharges, effluent limitations, storm 

water pollution prevention plan 

(SWPPP) requirements, monitoring and 

reporting requirements (Parts 1–7)), 

industrial sector-specific conditions 

(Part 8), and specific requirements 

applicable to facilities within individual 

States or on Indian Country lands (Part 

9). Additionally, the appendices provide 

forms for the Notice of Intent (NOI), the 

Notice of Termination, the Conditional 

No Exposure Exclusion, and the annual 

report, as well as step-by-step 

procedures for determining eligibility 

with respect to protecting historic 

properties and endangered species, and 

for calculating site-specific, hardnessdependent benchmarks. 

EPA made a number of changes to the 

permit from the MSGP 2000. These 

changes are summarized below and are 

discussed in more detail in the MSGP 

fact sheet. 

Distinction Between Effluent Limits and 

SWPPP Requirements 

The permit clearly distinguishes 

between the effluent limitations (or 

effluent limits) from the requirements 

relating to the development of the 

SWPPP. Effluent limits (in Part 2, and 

for select industrial sectors, in Part 8) 

are qualitative and quantitative control 

requirements to which all permittees are 

subject, while the SWPPP is a planning 

document that must be prepared by all 

facility operators that describes the site 

and the pollutants potentially 

discharged in stormwater, and 

documents the control measures 

selected, designed, installed, and 

implemented to meet the effluent 

limitations. Additionally, the SWPPP 

requirements were modified to separate 

the provisions required for the initial 

document developed prior to NOI 

submittal and the requirements for the 

additional documentation of actions 

taken (e.g., inspections, training, 

correction actions, etc.) during the 

permit term. Finally, the effluent limits 

themselves were reorganized to more 

clearly distinguish those that are 

technology-based from those that are 

water quality-based. 

Discharge Authorization Time Frame 

The waiting period for operators who 

have correctly completed and submitted 

their NOIs is 30 days (or, in some cases, 

60 days) to provide for sufficient review 

by the Fish & Wildlife Service and/or 

the National Marine Fisheries Service to 

determine if the permit’s authorization 

to a particular discharger raises any 

significant concerns with respect to any 

federally-listed species or critical 

habitat. During this period, the public 

may review this information as well. 

The waiting period begins after EPA 

posts the operator’s NOI on the eNOI 

Web site. The duration of the waiting 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56575 

period depends on when the operator 

commenced or proposes to commence 

discharging. 

Electronic Systems for Submittal of 

Notices of Intent (NOIs), Water Locator 

Tool, and Reporting of Monitoring Data 

EPA is launching an updated 

electronic system for submitting NOIs. 

This ‘‘eNOI’’ system is available to all 

operators, and can be accessed at 

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

system helps industrial operators fill in 

answers quickly and correctly, and 

should better facilitate an operator’s 

coverage under the permit. EPA 

encourages all operators to use this 

system. Authorized permittees will be 

notified by email of their authorization 

and their specific monitoring 

requirements. 

EPA has added a new web-based tool, 

the Water Locator, that will help 

operators determine their latitude and 

longitude, their receiving water, 

relevant total maximum daily loads 

(TMDLs), and pollutants of particular 

concern (i.e., those for which there is a 

specific criterion in the receiving water, 

and those for which a receiving water is 

impaired). The Water Locator can be 

accessed at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/ 

stormwater/msgp. 

In addition, operators will now be 

able to report all monitoring data 

electronically through the eNOI system. 

This system for electronic reporting will 

be available in the next 6 months. All 

electronic reporting will be through 

EPA’s on-line eNOI system, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/eNOI. EPA 

has delayed implementation of required 

monitoring for 6 months to ensure that 

the electronic reporting system is ready 

when monitoring begins. 

Information Required for Notices of 

Intent (NOIs) 

This permit specifies the information 

that is required to be provided in NOIs 

so that EPA can determine whether any 

further water quality-based 

requirements are necessary and to 

enable the eNOI system to automatically 

inform the operator of its specific 

monitoring requirements. Operators are 

required to provide more specific 

information regarding their receiving 

waterbody, including whether the 

waterbody is impaired, and, if so, for 

which pollutant it is impaired and 

whether there is an approved or 

established TMDL for the waterbody, 

and whether the waterbody is 

designated by a State or Tribal 

Authority as Tier 2 or 2.5 for 

antidegradation purposes. The operator 

also needs to identify if it is a new 

discharger, the size of its property, and 

which effluent guidelines it is subject to 

(if any). In addition, to enhance 

protection of endangered species, if the 

operator is certifying eligibility under 

Criterion E of Appendix E, then he/she 

will need to provide additional 

information supporting this 

certification. In addition, the operator is 

asked to specify if its facility will be 

inactive and unstaffed during the permit 

term, and, if so, for how long. 

Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits 

The permit contains water qualitybased effluent limits (WQBELs) to 

ensure that discharges are controlled as 

necessary to meet water quality 

standards in receiving waters. 

• Discharges to Impaired Waters— 

The permit contains different 

requirements for new and existing 

dischargers and for those that are 

discharging to impaired waters with a 

completed total maximum daily load 

(TMDL) as compared to those without a 

TMDL. New dischargers are only 

eligible for discharge authorization if 

they document that either there is no 

exposure to stormwater of the pollutant 

for which the water is impaired at the 

site, or the impairment pollutant is not 

present at the operator’s site, or that the 

discharge is not expected to cause or 

contribute to a water quality standards 

exceedance. For existing discharges to 

impaired waters with a completed 

TMDL, EPA will inform the operator of 

any additional effluent limits or controls 

that are necessary for the discharge to be 

consistent with the assumptions of any 

available wasteload allocation in the 

TMDL. The permittee is also required to 

monitor its discharge for any 

pollutant(s) for which the waterbody is 

impaired. For existing discharges to 

impaired waters without a completed 

TMDL, the permittee is required to 

control its discharge as necessary to 

meet water quality standards and to 

monitor for the pollutant(s) causing the 

impairment. 

• Antidegradation Requirements— 

EPA has clarified how operators can 

meet antidegradation requirements in 

order to be authorized to discharge. If an 

NOI indicates that an operator is seeking 

coverage for a new discharge to a Tier 

2 water (or a water considered to be a 

Tier 2.5 water), EPA will then determine 

if additional requirements are necessary 

to be consistent with the applicable 

antidegradation requirements, or if an 

individual permit application is 

necessary. Furthermore, operators are 

not eligible for coverage under this 

permit if they are discharging to waters 

designated by a State or Tribe as Tier 3 

for antidegradation purposes. 

Protection of Endangered Species 

During EPA’s consultation with the 

Fish & Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service (‘‘the 

Services’’) pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

modifications have been made to the 

directions provided to operators in 

Appendix E regarding steps that must be 

followed to properly certify eligibility 

under Part 1.1.4.5 (Endangered and 

Threatened Species and Critical Habitat 

Protection). In addition, certain 

benchmarks have been revised to 

provide greater protection to listed 

species. EPA revised the ammonia 

benchmark from 19 mg/L to 2.14 mg/L 

to provide a better indicator of the 

adverse impact to endangered mussel 

species. EPA selected this benchmark 

based on a level that is considered 

protective of mussel species in waters 

up to pH 8; it will also be protective of 

other species in waters with a pH up to 

8.5. 

Also, EPA adjusted the benchmarks 

for six hardness-dependent metals (i.e., 

silver, cadmium, lead, nickel, copper, 

and zinc) so that the benchmark 

concentrations are site-specific 

depending on the hardness levels in the 

receiving water. This change affects 12 

sectors. Where a permittee is required to 

monitor for a hardness-dependent 

metal, he/she must first determine the 

hardness value of the receiving water. 

The benchmark concentration is then 

determined by comparing the table of 

hardness ranges (see Appendix J) to the 

actual, measured value for hardness in 

the receiving water. This change will 

provide better protection to some listed 

species and will further ensure that 

discharges do not cause or contribute to 

exceedances of water quality standards 

with numeric criteria expressed as 

hardness-dependent values. 

Corrective Actions 

This permit specifies corrective 

actions required of permittees. The 

provisions in Part 3 specify the types of 

conditions at the site that trigger 

corrective action requirements, what 

must be done to address such 

conditions and ensure that the permittee 

remains in compliance with the permit, 

or promptly returns to compliance in 

the case of violations, and the deadlines 

for completing corrective action. The 

permit also clarifies that not conducting 

required corrective action is a permit 

violation in and of itself, in addition to 

any underlying violation that may have 

triggered the requirement for corrective 

action. A summary of all corrective 

actions initiated and/or completed each 

year must be reported to EPA in the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

56576 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

annual comprehensive site inspection 

report. 

Monitoring 

Several of the changes made in this 

permit to the monitoring requirements 

of the MSGP 2000 are listed below. 

• Inactive and unstaffed sites may 

exercise a waiver for benchmark 

monitoring and quarterly visual 

assessments as long as there are no 

industrial materials or activities 

exposed to stormwater at the sites. 

Because of the difficulty of accessing 

remote sites, operators of mining 

operations that are inactive and 

unstaffed may continue to exercise this 

waiver without demonstrating that its 

industrial materials or activities are not 

exposed to stormwater, but EPA may 

impose alternate, site-specific 

requirements where necessary for the 

protection of water quality standards. 

• Unless subject to a waiver, or an 

alternative schedule for climates with 

irregular stormwater runoff, permittees 

must monitor quarterly during year 1 for 

benchmarks. Following 4 quarters of 

benchmark monitoring, if the average of 

the 4 monitoring values does not exceed 

the benchmark for that specific 

parameter, the permittee has fulfilled 

his/her benchmark monitoring 

requirements for that parameter for the 

permit term. If the average of the 4 

quarters of monitoring values exceeds 

the benchmark, the permittee is 

required to perform corrective action 

and conduct an additional 4 quarters of 

monitoring, unless, the permittee 

determines (and documents in the 

SWPPP) that no further pollutant 

reductions are technologically available 

and economically practicable and 

achievable in light of best industry 

practice to meet the effluent limits in 

Part 2 of the permit. If such a 

determination is made, the permittee 

may reduce monitoring for that 

pollutant to once-per-year for the 

duration of the permit term. At any time 

prior to completion of the first 4 

quarters of monitoring, if the permittee 

determines that it is mathematically 

certain that his/her average after 4 

quarters will exceed the benchmark 

(e.g., the sum of results to date exceeds 

4 times the benchmark), the permittee 

must review its control measures and 

perform any required corrective action 

immediately (or document why no 

corrective action is required), without 

waiting for the full 4 quarters of 

monitoring data. If after the permittee 

has modified his/her control measures 

and conducted 4 additional quarters of 

monitoring, the average still exceeds the 

benchmark (or if an exceedance of the 

benchmark by the four quarter average 

is mathematically certain prior to 

conducting the full 4 additional quarters 

of monitoring), the permittee must again 

review his/her control measures and 

either resample an additional 4 times or 

document that no further pollutant 

reductions are technologically available 

and economically practicable and 

achievable in light of best industry 

practice to meet the effluent limits in 

Part 2 of the permit. 

• A permittee who discharges a 

pollutant causing an impairment to an 

impaired waterbody must monitor onceper-year for that pollutant during a 

stormwater event if there is no TMDL 

for the waterbody. Monitoring may be 

waived after one year if the pollutant 

was not detected in the sample and the 

permittee documents that the pollutant 

is not exposed to stormwater at the site. 

Monitoring may also be waived if the 

permittee documents that the presence 

of a pollutant of concern in its discharge 

is attributable to natural background 

pollutant levels in stormwater runoff, 

and not to the activities of the permittee. 

If the discharge is to a waterbody for 

which a TMDL has established a WLA 

applicable to the facility, EPA will 

inform the permittee of specific 

monitoring instructions, including the 

pollutant(s) for which monitoring is to 

be conducted and the required 

frequency. 

• Follow-up monitoring requirements 

have been added when results indicate 

a permittee’s discharge exceeds a 

numeric effluent limitation to verify that 

control measures have been modified to 

control the discharge as necessary to 

meet the effluent limit. If the follow-up 

monitoring also exceeds the limit, the 

permittee must submit an exceedance 

report to EPA within 30 days of 

receiving the analytical data, 

documenting the reason for the 

exceedance and the corrective action 

taken to eliminate it, including a 

corrective action schedule where 

applicable. 

• EPA has added provisions enabling 

dischargers to avoid corrective action 

and subsequent monitoring 

requirements if the exceedance of a 

benchmark is attributable solely to 

natural background levels of that 

pollutant in stormwater runoff. In order 

to use this provision, the discharger 

must: (1) Have benchmark results that 

show pollutant levels are less than or 

equal to the concentration of that 

pollutant in the natural background; (2) 

document the supporting rationale for 

concluding that benchmark exceedances 

are attributable solely to natural 

background pollutant levels; and (3) 

notify EPA in the fourth benchmark 

monitoring report that benchmark 

exceedances are attributable solely to 

natural background pollutant levels. 

Annual Report 

Permittees are now required to submit 

to EPA an annual report that includes 

the findings from their annual 

comprehensive site inspection report 

and a summary of corrective actions 

required and taken during the reporting 

period. EPA has provided a 

recommended form for each permittee 

to use in filing its annual report. See 

Appendix I. 

Industry Sector-Specific Requirements 

The following key elements of the 

permit are included in Part 8, which 

describes requirements specific to 

particular industry sectors: 

• For many sectors, general 

requirements to address pollutant 

discharges from materials handling 

areas, fueling areas, etc. were 

consolidated in the technology-based 

effluent limits in Part 2.1 that are 

applicable to all sectors. 

• Mining Sectors G, H, and J—The 

permit now specifically includes 

coverage for construction and 

exploration activities under this permit, 

where in the past those activities were 

required to be covered separately under 

the Construction General Permit (CGP). 

To facilitate such coverage, additional 

requirements have been added regarding 

site map preparation; management, 

inspection, maintenance, and cessation 

of clearing, grading, and excavation 

activities; monitoring frequency; and 

temporary and final stabilization. These 

new requirements largely mirror those 

in the CGP for these activities. The 

scope of coverage has also been 

clarified, and an exception provided to 

the requirement that inactive and 

unstaffed sites have no industrial 

materials or activities exposed to 

stormwater in order to exercise 

applicable monitoring and inspection 

waivers. 

• Sector P—Text has been added to 

include illicit plumbing connections 

among the potential pollutant sources 

addressed, and a requirement has been 

added to document specific good 

housekeeping control measures used in 

each of the facility areas. 

• Sector S—Requirements have been 

added emphasizing control measures, 

facility inspections, good housekeeping, 

vehicle and equipment washwater, and 

monitoring during the deicing season 

and for implementing controls to collect 

or contain contaminated melt water 

from collection areas used for disposal 

of contaminated snow. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56577 

1EPA’s current guidance, entitled Final Guidance 

for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as 

Amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Continued 

• Sector AC—Electrical and 

electronic equipment and components 

has been added as a new subsector. 

D. Permit Appeal Procedures 

In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, 

this permit shall be considered issued 

for the purpose of judicial review on 

October 13, 2008. Under section 509(b) 

of the Clean Water Act, judicial review 

of this general permit can be had by 

filing a petition for review in the United 

States Court of Appeals with 120 days 

after the permit is considered issued for 

purposes of judicial review. Under 

section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, 

the requirements in this permit may not 

be challenged later in civil or criminal 

proceedings to enforce these 

requirements. In addition, this permit 

may not be challenged in other agency 

proceedings. In addition, rather than 

submitting an NOI to be covered under 

this permit, persons may apply for an 

individual permit as specified at 40 CFR 

122.21 (and authorized at 40 CFR 

122.28), and then petition the 

Environmental Appeals Board to review 

any conditions of the individual permit 

(40 CFR 124.19 as modified on May 15, 

2000, 65 FR 30886). 

IV. Compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act for General Permits 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

The legal question of whether a 

general permit (as opposed to an 

individual permit) qualifies as a ‘‘rule’’ 

or as an ‘‘adjudication’’ under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

has been the subject of periodic 

litigation. In a recent case, the court 

held that the CWA section 404 

Nationwide general permit before the 

court did qualify as a ‘‘rule’’ and 

therefore that the issuance of the general 

permit needed to comply with the 

applicable legal requirements for the 

issuance of a ‘‘rule.’’ National Ass’n of 

Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 417 F.3d 1272, 1284–85 (DC 

Cir. 2005) (Army Corps general permits 

under section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act are rules under the APA and the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act; ‘‘Each NWP 

[nationwide permit] easily fits within 

the APA’s definition of a ‘rule.’* * * As 

such, each NWP constitutes a rule 

* * *’’). 

As EPA stated in 1998, ‘‘the Agency 

recognizes that the question of the 

applicability of the APA, and thus the 

RFA, to the issuance of a general permit 

is a difficult one, given the fact that a 

large number of dischargers may choose 

to use the general permit.’’ 63 FR 36489, 

36497 (July 6, 1998). At that time, EPA 

‘‘reviewed its previous NPDES general 

permitting actions and related 

statements in the Federal Register or 

elsewhere,’’ and stated that ‘‘[t]his 

review suggests that the Agency has 

generally treated NPDES general permits 

effectively as rules, though at times it 

has given contrary indications as to 

whether these actions are rules or 

permits.’’ Id. at 36496. Based on EPA’s 

further legal analysis of the issue, the 

Agency ‘‘concluded, as set forth in the 

proposal, that NPDES general permits 

are permits [i.e., adjudications] under 

the APA and thus not subject to APA 

rulemaking requirements or the RFA.’’ 

Id. Accordingly, the Agency stated that 

‘‘the APA’s rulemaking requirements are 

inapplicable to issuance of such 

permits,’’ and thus ‘‘NPDES permitting 

is not subject to the requirement to 

publish a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking under the APA or any other 

law * * * [and] it is not subject to the 

RFA.’’ Id. at 36497. 

However, the Agency went on to 

explain that, even though EPA had 

concluded that it was not legally 

required to do so, the Agency would 

voluntarily perform the RFA’s smallentity impact analysis. Id. EPA 

explained the strong public interest in 

the Agency following the RFA’s 

requirements on a voluntary basis: 

‘‘[The notice and comment] process also 

provides an opportunity for EPA to 

consider the potential impact of general 

permit terms on small entities and how 

to craft the permit to avoid any undue 

burden on small entities.’’ Id. 

Accordingly, with respect to the NPDES 

permit that EPA was addressing in that 

Federal Register notice, EPA stated that 

‘‘the Agency has considered and 

addressed the potential impact of the 

general permit on small entities in a 

manner that would meet the 

requirements of the RFA if it applied.’’ 

Id. 

Subsequent to EPA’s conclusion in 

1998 that general permits are 

adjudications, rather than rules, as 

noted above, the DC Circuit recently 

held that Nationwide general permits 

under section 404 are ‘‘rules’’ rather 

than ‘‘adjudications.’’ Thus, this legal 

question remains ‘‘a difficult one’’ 

(supra). However, EPA continues to 

believe that there is a strong public 

policy interest in EPA applying the 

RFA’s framework and requirements to 

the Agency’s evaluation and 

consideration of the nature and extent of 

any economic impacts that a CWA 

general permit could have on small 

entities (e.g., small businesses). In this 

regard, EPA believes that the Agency’s 

evaluation of the potential economic 

impact that a general permit would have 

on small entities, consistent with the 

RFA framework discussed below, is 

relevant to, and an essential component 

of, the Agency’s assessment of whether 

a CWA general permit would place 

requirements on dischargers that are 

appropriate and reasonable. 

Furthermore, EPA believes that the 

RFA’s framework and requirements 

provide the Agency with the best 

approach for the Agency’s evaluation of 

the economic impact of general permits 

on small entities. While using the RFA 

framework to inform its assessment of 

whether permit requirements are 

appropriate and reasonable, EPA will 

also continue to ensure that all permits 

satisfy the requirements of the Clean 

Water Act. 

Accordingly, EPA hereby commits 

that the Agency will operate in 

accordance with the RFA’s framework 

and requirements during the Agency’s 

issuance of CWA general permits (in 

other words, the Agency commits that it 

will apply the RFA in its issuance of 

general permits as if those permits do 

qualify as ‘‘rules’’ that are subject to the 

RFA). In satisfaction of this 

commitment, during the course of this 

MSGP permitting proceeding, the 

Agency conducted the analysis and 

made the appropriate determinations 

that are called for by the RFA. In 

addition, and in satisfaction of the 

Agency’s commitment, EPA will apply 

the RFA’s framework and requirements 

in any future MSGP proceeding as well 

as in the Agency’s issuance of other 

NPDES general permits. EPA anticipates 

that for most general permits the Agency 

will be able to conclude that there is not 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

such cases, the requirements of the RFA 

framework are fulfilled by including a 

statement to this effect in the permit fact 

sheet, along with a statement providing 

the factual basis for the conclusion. A 

quantitative analysis of impacts would 

only be required for permits that may 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities, consistent with EPA guidance 

regarding RFA certification 1. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

56578 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

Enforcement and Fairness Act, was issued in 

November 2006 and is available on EPA’s Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/

rfafinalguidance06.pdf. After considering the 

Guidance and the purpose of CWA general permits, 

EPA concludes that general permits affecting less 

than 100 small entities do not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

V. Quantitative Analysis of Economic 

Impacts of the MSGP 

EPA has determined, in consideration 

of the discussion in section IV above, 

that the issuance of the MSGP 

potentially could affect a substantial 

number of small entities. Therefore, to 

determine what, if any, economic 

impact this permit may have on small 

businesses, EPA conducted an economic 

assessment of this general permit. Based 

on this assessment, EPA concludes that 

this permit will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of businesses, including small 

businesses. The estimated increased 

compliance cost per permittee ranges 

from a low of $8.37 per year to a high 

of $28.27 per year. All cost estimates are 

presented in 2005 dollars. As a 

percentage of annual sales, the expected 

incremental burden of these estimated 

costs is small. The cost-to-sales ratios 

are small across all MSGP sectors, with 

the largest impacts observed in Sectors 

I (0.003 percent) and P (0.003 percent). 

These cost estimates reflect the 

incremental monitoring, documentation 

and reporting costs imposed by this 

permit, relative to the comparable costs 

for compliance with MSGP 2000. They 

do not include the costs of additional 

control measures that may be required 

as a result of more rigorous 

documentation and reporting 

requirements (e.g., for corrective action). 

EPA recognizes that these costs may be 

significant for some facilities, but 

believes that relatively few facilities will 

have significantly increased costs 

relative to MSGP 2000 because in most 

cases the underlying standards of 

control have not changed. EPA was 

unable to quantify these costs because 

EPA is not able to predict what sitespecific additional control measures 

may be necessary in these limited cases. 

Based on EPA’s analysis, the Agency 

concludes that this permit will not 

result in a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

businesses. The factual basis for this 

conclusion is included in the economic 

analysis for the permit, available as part 

of the docket for this permit, and 

summarized above. 

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

1251 et seq. 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

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

1251 et seq. 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Carl-Axel P. Soderberg, 

Division Director, Caribbean Environmental 

Protection Division, EPA Region 2. 

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

1251 et seq. 

Dated: September 16, 2008. 

Jon M. Capacasa, 

Director, Water Protection Division, EPA 

Region 3. 

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

1251 et seq. 

Dated: September 16, 2008. 

Timothy C. Henry, 

Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 

5. 

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

1251 et seq. 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Miguel I. Flores, 

Director, Water Quality Protection Division, 

EPA Region 6. 

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

1251 et seq. 

Dated: September 16, 2008. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9. 

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

1251 et seq. 

Dated: September 16, 2008. 

Christine Psyk, 

Deputy Director, Office of Water and 

Watersheds, EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. E8–22555 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8722–6] 

Science Advisory Board Staff Office; 

Notification of a Public Teleconference 

of the Homeland Security Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) Science 

Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office 

announces a public teleconference for 

the Agency and its federal partners to 

brief the Homeland Security Advisory 

Committee (HSAC) on their progress in 

developing the Environmental Response 

Technical Assistance Document for 

Bacillus anthracis Terrorism Incidents 

(ERTAD). 

DATES: The public teleconference will 

be held on Wednesday, October 15, 

2008, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. (Eastern 

time). 

Location: The public teleconference 

will be conducted by telephone only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Members of the public who wish to 

obtain further information regarding this 

public teleconference meeting should 

contact Ms. Vivian Turner, Designated 

Federal Officer, by telephone: (202) 

343–9697 or e-mail at 

turner.vivian@epa.gov. The SAB mailing 

address is U.S. EPA Science Advisory 

Board (1400F), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

General information about the SAB as 

well as any updates concerning this 

request for nominations may be found 

on the SAB Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/sab. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB 

was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to 

provide independent scientific and 

technical advice to the EPA 

Administrator on the technical basis for 

Agency policies and regulations. The 

SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee 

chartered under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 

U.S.C., App. The SAB will comply with 

the provisions of FACA and all 

appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural 

policies. The SAB HSAC provides 

scientific and technical advice to the 

EPA Administrator through the 

chartered SAB on scientific matters 

pertaining to EPA’s mission in 

protecting against the environmental 

and health consequences of terrorism. 

EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response (OSWER) is 

charged with preserving and restoring 

the land by using innovative waste 

management practices and cleaning up 

contaminated properties to reduce risks 

posed by harmful substances. EPA has 

a major role in reducing the risk to 

human health and the environment 

posed by accidental or intentional 

releases of harmful substances. For 

emergency preparedness, response and 

homeland security, EPA works closely 

with sixteen other federal agencies on 

the Federal Government National 

Response Team (NRT). The NRT has 

asked OSWER to request consultative 

advice from the SAB HSAC on the 

Environmental Response Technical 

Assistance Document for Bacillus 

anthracis Terrorism Incidents (ERTAD) 

(Formerly known as the Draft Federal 

Inter-Agency Anthrax Technical 

Assistance Document (TAD)). The TAD 

was initially an interim technical 

resource document developed in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES