[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 249 (Monday, December 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79473-79481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30816]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8757-3, EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055]
Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a
Vessel
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are finalizing
an NPDES Vessel General Permit (VGP) to cover discharges incidental to
the normal operation of vessels. This action is in response to a
District Court ruling that vacates, as of December 19, 2008, a long-
standing EPA regulation that excludes discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel from the need to obtain an NPDES permit.
As of December 19, 2008, discharges incidental to the normal operation
of a vessel that had formerly been exempted from NPDES permitting by
the regulation will be subject to the prohibition in CWA Section 301(a)
against the discharge of pollutants without a permit.
EPA solicited information and data on discharges incidental to
normal vessel operations to assist in developing two NPDES general
permits in a Federal Register Notice published June 21, 2007 (72 FR
32421). The majority of information and data in response to that notice
came from seven different groups: Individual citizens, commercial
fishing representatives, commercial shipping groups, environmental or
outdoor recreation groups, the oil and gas industry, recreational
boating-related businesses, and state governments. EPA considered all
the information and data received along with other publicly available
information in developing two proposed vessel permits.
EPA published the two proposed permits and accompanying fact sheets
for public comment on June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34296). As proposed, the VGP
would have covered all commercial and non-recreational vessels and
those recreational vessels longer or equal to 79 feet, and the proposed
RGP would have covered recreational vessels less than 79 feet in
length. However, after the permits were proposed, Congress enacted two
new laws that impact the universe of vessels covered under today's
permit. On July 29, 2008, Senate bill S. 2766 (``the Clean Boating Act
of 2008'') was signed into law (Pub. L. 110-288). This law provides
that recreational vessels shall not be subject to the requirement to
obtain an NPDES permit to authorize discharges incidental to their
normal operation. As a result of this legislation, EPA is not
finalizing the proposed recreational vessel NPDES permit and has also
modified the VGP, which included those recreational vessel over 79
feet, to eliminate that coverage. On July 31, 2008, Senate bill S. 3298
was signed into law (Pub. L. 110-299). This law generally imposes a
two-year moratorium during which time neither EPA nor states can
require NPDES permits for discharges (except ballast
[[Page 79474]]
water discharges) incidental to the normal operation of vessels of less
than 79 feet and commercial fishing vessels of any length. EPA is not
taking final action on the proposed permit as it would apply to these
vessels and has revised the final VGP to reflect the new law.
DATES: This permit is effective December 19, 2008. This effective date
is necessary to provide affected vessels the necessary permit coverage
under the Clean Water Act in light of the vacatur of the 40 CFR
122.3(a) NPDES permitting exemption. EPA notes that on December 18,
2008, a motion was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California seeking a delay of vacatur of the 40 CFR
122.3(a) exclusion from NPDES permitting until February 6, 2009. As of
the time today's notice was ready for signature, the Court had not
taken action on that motion; thus, EPA could not adjust the effective
date of the permit to coincide with a new vacatur date. EPA advises
that should the court grant the motion to delay the vacatur date, the
effective date of today's permit will not change. In addition,
compliance dates for those permit provisions that require compliance at
some explicit amount of time after the effective date will not be
extended, regardless of whether the Court delays vacatur of the
exclusion. However, because permit authorization is not required until
vacatur of the 40 CFR 122.3(a) permitting exclusion occurs, the
regulated community need not comply with the terms of today's permit
until the date of vacatur ordered by the Court.
In accordance with 40 CFR Part 23, this permit shall be considered
issued for the purpose of judicial review on the day 2 weeks after
Federal Register Publication. 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 1.5 of the VGP.
This permit also provides additional dates for compliance with the
terms of these permits.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this final
vessel NPDES general permit, 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 Juhi Saxena at EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of
Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; or at tel. 202-564-0719; or e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Final Permit Apply To Me?
This action applies to all vessels operating in a capacity as a
means of transportation, except recreational vessels as defined in CWA
section 502(25), Public Law 110-288, that have discharges incidental to
their normal operations into waters subject to this permit. With
respect to (1) commercial fishing vessels of any size as defined in 46
U.S.C. 2101 and (2) those non-recreational vessels that are less than
79 feet in length, the coverage under this permit is limited to ballast
water discharges only. Unless otherwise excluded from coverage by Part
6 of the permit, waters subject to this permit, means waters of the
U.S. as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
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 under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055 VGP. The official public
docket is the collection of materials, including the administrative
record, for the final permit, required by 40 CFR 124.18. It is
available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Although all documents in the docket are listed
in an index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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. In addition, the comments and information that EPA
received in response to its June 21, 2007, Federal Register notice can
be found in the public docket at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0483.
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 Section I.A.1.
Response to public comments. EPA received 173 comments on the
proposed VGP from the shipping industry (108), States (28),
Environmental Groups and the public (37). EPA has responded to all
comments received and has included these responses in a separate
document in the public docket for this permit. See the document titled
Proposed VGP: EPA's Response to Public Comments.
C. Public Outreach: Public Hearing and Public Meetings, Webcast
Because EPA anticipated a significant degree of public interest in
the draft permit, EPA held a public hearing Monday, July 21, 2008, to
receive public comment and answer questions concerning the proposed
permit. In addition, EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard co-hosted three (3)
public meetings on Thursday, June 19, 2008, in Washington, DC; Tuesday,
June 24, 2008, in Portland, OR; and Thursday, June 26, 2008, in
Chicago, IL; to present the proposed requirements of the VGP and the
basis for those requirements, as well as to answer questions concerning
the proposed permit. The public meetings and public hearing were
attended by a wide variety of
[[Page 79475]]
stakeholders including representatives from industry, government
agencies, and environmental organizations.
In addition, EPA held a Webcast on July 2, 2008, to provide
information on the proposed permits and to answer questions from
interested parties that were unable to attend the public meetings or
hearing.
D. Who Are the EPA Regional Contacts for This Proposed Permit?
For EPA Region 1, contact Sara Green at USEPA REGION 1, 1 Congress
Street, Suite 1100, Mail Code: CIP, Boston, MA 02114-2023; or at tel.:
(617) 918-1574; or e-mail at [email protected].
For EPA Region 2, contact James Olander at USEPA REGION 2, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; or at tel.: (212) 637-3833; or e-
mail at [email protected].
For EPA Region 3, contact Mark Smith at USEPA REGION 3, 1650 Arch
Street, Mail Code: 3WP41, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029; or at tel.:
(215) 814-3105; or e-mail at [email protected].
For EPA Region 4, contact Marshall Hyatt at USEPA REGION 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960; or at tel.: (404) 562-
9304; or e-mail at [email protected].
For EPA Region 5, contact Sean Ramach at USEPA REGION 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code: WN-16J, Chicago, IL 60604-3507; or at
tel.: (312) 886-5284; or e-mail at [email protected].
For EPA Region 6, contact Paul Kaspar at USEPA REGION 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Mail Code: 6WQPP, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; or at
tel.: (214) 665-7459; or e-mail at [email protected].
For EPA Region 7, contact Alex Owutaka at USEPA REGION 7, 901 North
Fifth Street, Mail Code: WWPDWIMB, Kansas City, KS 66101; or at tel:
(913) 551-7584; or e-mail at [email protected].
For EPA Region 8, contact Sandy Stavnes, at USEPA REGION 8, 1595
Wynkoop St., Mail Code: 8P-W-WW, Denver, CO 80202-1129; or at tel:
(303) 312-6117; or e-mail at [email protected].
For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at USEPA REGION 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mail Code: WTR-5, San Francisco, CA 94105; or at
tel.: (415) 972-3510; or e-mail at [email protected].
For EPA Region 10, contact Cindi Godsey at USEPA Region 10--Alaska
Operations Office, Federal Building Room 537, 222 West 7th Avenue
19, Mail Code: AOO/A, Anchorage, AK 99513-7588; or at tel.:
(907) 271-6561; or e-mail at [email protected].
II. Statutory and Regulatory History
A. The Clean Water Act
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that ``the
discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful'' unless the
discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33
U.S.C. 1311(a). The CWA defines ``discharge of a pollutant'' as ``(A)
any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point
source, (B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the
contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel
or other floating craft.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A ``point source'' is a
``discernible, confined and discrete conveyance'' and includes a
``vessel or other floating craft.'' 33 U.S.C. 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'' as defined in
Clean Water Act section 312. 33 U.S.C. 1362(6). One way a person may
discharge a pollutant without violating the section 301 prohibition is
by obtaining a section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). Under section 402(a), EPA may
``issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of
pollutants, notwithstanding section 1311(a)'' upon certain conditions
required by the Act.
B. The History of the Exclusion of Vessels From the NPDES Program
Less than one year after the CWA was enacted, EPA promulgated a
regulation that excluded discharges incidental to the normal operation
of vessels from NPDES permitting. 38 FR 13528, May 22, 1973. After
Congress re-authorized and amended the CWA in 1977, EPA invited another
round of public comment on the regulation. 43 FR 37078, August 21,
1978. In 1979, EPA promulgated the final revision that established the
regulation largely in its current form. 44 FR 32854, June 7, 1979. The
regulation identifies several types of vessel discharges as being
subject to NPDES permitting, but specifically excludes discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.
The following discharges do not require NPDES permits:
(a) Any discharge of sewage from vessels, effluent from properly
functioning marine engines, laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes
or any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel. This exclusion does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or
other such materials discharged overboard; nor to other discharges
when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation such as when used as an energy or mining facility, a
storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured
to a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when
secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone or waters of the
United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or
development. 40 CFR 122.3(a).
Although other subsections of 40 CFR 122.3 and its predecessor were the
subject of legal challenges (See NRDC v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C.
Cir. 1977)), following its promulgation, the regulatory text relevant
to discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels went
unchallenged at that time, and has been in effect ever since.
C. The Legal Challenge
In December 2003, the long-standing exclusion of discharges
incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the NPDES program
became the subject of a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The lawsuit arose from a January 13,
1999, rulemaking petition submitted to EPA by a number of parties
concerned about the effects of ballast water discharges. The petition
asked the Agency to repeal its regulation at 40 CFR 122.3(a) that
excludes certain discharges incidental to the normal operation of
vessels from the requirement to obtain an NPDES permit. The petition
asserted that vessels are ``point sources'' requiring NPDES permits for
discharges to U.S. waters; that EPA lacks authority to exclude point
source discharges from vessels from the NPDES program; that ballast
water must be regulated under the NPDES program because it contains
invasive plant and animal species as well as other materials of concern
(e.g., oil, chipped paint, sediment and toxins in ballast water
sediment); and that enactment of CWA section 312(n) (Uniform National
Discharge Standards, also known as the UNDS program) demonstrated
Congress' rejection of the exclusion.
In response to the 1999 petition, EPA first prepared a detailed
report for public comment, Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water
Discharges: Issues and Options (September 10, 2001). See, 66 FR 49381,
September 27, 2001. After considering the comments received, EPA
declined to reopen the exclusion for additional rulemaking, and denied
the petition on September 2, 2003. EPA explained that since enactment
of the CWA, EPA has consistently interpreted the Act to provide for
NPDES regulation of
[[Page 79476]]
discharges from industrial operations that incidentally occur onboard
vessels (e.g., seafood processing facilities or oil exploration
operations at sea) and of discharges overboard of materials such as
trash, but not of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel (e.g., ballast water) subject to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion.
EPA further explained that Congress had expressly considered and
accepted the Agency's regulation in the years since its promulgation,
and that Congress chose to regulate discharges incidental to the normal
operation of vessels through programs other than CWA section 402
permitting. Thus, it was EPA's understanding that Congress had
acquiesced to EPA's long-standing interpretation of how the CWA applied
to vessels. Denial of the petition did not reflect EPA's dismissal of
the significant impacts of aquatic invasive species, but rather the
understanding that other programs had been enacted to specifically
address the issue and that the CWA does not currently provide an
appropriate framework for addressing ballast water and other discharges
incidental to the normal operation of non-military vessels.
In the denial of the petition, EPA noted that when Congress
specifically focused on the problem of aquatic nuisance species in
ballast water, it did not look to or endorse the NPDES program as the
means to address the problem. Instead, Congress enacted new statutes
which directed and authorized the Coast Guard, rather than EPA, to
establish a regulatory program for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of vessels, including ballast water (i.e., Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 4701
et seq.; Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).
Furthermore, Congress made no effort to legislatively repeal EPA's
interpretation of the NPDES program or to expressly mandate that
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels be addressed
through the NPDES permitting program. EPA reasoned that this
Congressional action and inaction in light of Congress' awareness of
the regulatory exclusion confirmed that Congress accepted EPA's
interpretation and chose the Coast Guard as the lead agency under other
statutes.
In addition, EPA found significant practical and policy reasons not
to re-open the longstanding CWA regulatory exclusion, reasoning that
there are a number of ongoing activities within the Federal government
related to control of invasive species in ballast water, many of which
are likely to be more effective and efficient than use of NPDES permits
under the CWA. EPA also noted that nothing in the CWA prevents states
from independently regulating ballast water discharges under State law,
should they choose to do so, pursuant to CWA section 510.
After EPA's September 2003 denial of the petition, a number of
groups filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The complaint was brought pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., and set out
two causes of action. First, the complaint challenged EPA's
promulgation of 40 CFR 122.3(a), an action the Agency took in 1973. The
second cause of action challenged EPA's September 2003 denial of their
petition to repeal the Sec. 122.3(a) exclusion.
D. District Court Decision
In March 2005, the Court determined that the exclusion exceeded the
Agency's authority under the CWA. Specifically, in March 2005 the Court
granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs:
The Court DECLARES that EPA's exclusion from NPDES permit
requirements for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel at 40 CFR 122.3(a) is in excess of the Agency's authority
under the Clean Water Act * * *.
Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. United States EPA, 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 5373 (N.D. Cal. 2005). After this ruling, the Court granted
motions to intervene on behalf of the Plaintiffs by the States of
Illinois, New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin,
and on behalf of the Government-Defendant by the Shipping Industry
Ballast Water Coalition.
Following submission of briefs and oral argument by the parties and
interveners on the issue of a proper remedy, the Court issued a final
order in September 2006 providing that:
The blanket exemption for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel, contained in 40 CFR 122.3(a), shall be
vacated as of September 30, 2008.
Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. United States EPA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
69476 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2006).
EPA filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, and on July 23, 2008, the Court upheld the District Court's
decision, leaving the September 30, 2008 vacatur date intact. Northwest
Envtl. Advocates v. EPA 537 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2008). EPA subsequently
petitioned the District Court to extend the date for vacatur of the 40
CFR 122.3(a) exclusion to December 19, 2008, and the District Court
granted this request. Northwest NW. Envt'l Advocates et al. v. United
States EPA, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66738 (N.D. Cal. August 31, 2008)
This means that, effective December 19, discharges incidental to
the normal operation of vessels currently excluded from NPDES
permitting by that regulation will become subject to CWA section 301's
discharge prohibition, unless covered under an NPDES permit. The CWA
authorizes civil and criminal enforcement for violations of that
prohibition and also allows for citizen suits against violators.
Additional material related to the lawsuit is contained in the
docket accompanying these proposed permits and fact sheets.
III. Scope and Applicability of the 2008 VGP
A. CWA Section 401 Certification and Coastal Zone Management Act
Concurrence
EPA may not issue a permit authorizing discharges into the waters
of a State until that State has granted certification under CWA section
401 or has waived its right to certify (or been deemed to have waived).
33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1); 40 CFR 124.53(a). For this permit, a State was
deemed to have waived its right to certify if it did not exercise that
right within 60 days from the date the State was notified of the draft
permit, unless EPA granted that State more time to certify based on
``unusual circumstances.'' 40 CFR 124.53(c)(3). If a State believed
that any permit condition(s) more stringent than those contained in the
draft permit were necessary to meet the applicable requirements of
either the CWA or State law, the State had an opportunity to include
those condition(s) in its certification. 40 CFR 124.53(e)(1). A number
of States provided such conditions in their certifications, and EPA has
added them to the VGP pursuant to CWA section 401(d). 33 U.S.C.
1341(d).
Similarly, the EPA may not issue a general permit authorizing
discharges into waters of a State if the State objects, in the case of
this general permit, with EPA's National Consistency Determination,
pursuant to the regulations implementing of the Coastal Zone Management
Act (``CZMA''), specifically the regulations at 15 CFR 930.31(d) and
930.36(e). Several States provided conditions to the VGP, based on
specific enforceable coastal policies of the State, which allowed the
State to concur with EPA's consistency determination. According to the
regulations, EPA incorporated these
[[Page 79477]]
conditions to the maximum extent practicable. If a State coastal zone
management agency's conditions are not incorporated into the general
permit or if the State coastal zone management agency objects to the
general permit, then the general permit is not available for use by
potential general permit users in that State unless the applicant who
wants to use the general permit provides the State agency with the
applicant's consistency determination and the State agency concurs. 15
CFR 930.31(d), NOAA has explained that ``a State objection to a
consistency determination for the issuance of a general permit would
alter the form of CZMA compliance required, transforming the general
permit into a series of case by case CZMA decisions and requiring an
individual who wants to use the general permit to submit an individual
consistency certification to the State agency in compliance with 15 CFR
part 930.'' 71 FR 788, 793. In States that have not provided conditions
for incorporation into the permit to allow the State to concur, as well
as States that have not objected to the permit, EPA's CZMA compliance
requirements derive from CZMA section 307(c)(1). Id.
B. Geographic Coverage of VGP
The VGP applies to discharges incidental to the normal operation of
a vessel identified as being eligible for coverage in the final permit,
into waters subject to the permit. These waters are ``waters of the
United States'' as defined in 40 CFR 122.2 (extending to the reach of
the 3-mile territorial sea as defined in section 502(8) of the CWA).
The final permit covers vessel discharges in the waters of the U.S. in
all States, Territories and Indian Country Land, regardless of whether
a ``state'' is otherwise authorized to implement the NPDES permit
program within its jurisdiction. For more information on this approach,
see the fact sheet accompanying the final permit.
As of the issuance date of this permit, the following jurisdictions
have not yet granted, denied, waived (or been deemed to have waived)
certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and/or
final responses on the national consistency determination required by
section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Therefore, this
permit does not yet provide coverage in the following jurisdictions:
[ctrcir] The State of Alaska
[ctrcir] The State of Hawaii
EPA will announce the availability of coverage under the VGP discharges
in these jurisdictions in a separate Federal Register notice as soon as
possible should it receive the appropriate 401 certifications or
waivers, and/or final responses on the national consistency
determination. In addition, the VGP is not effective in the Taos Pueblo
Indian Country Land (New Mexico) because they have denied certification
under CWA section 401.
C. Categories of Vessels Covered Under VGP
The final vessel general permit (VGP) applies to owners and
operators of non-recreational vessels that are 79 feet (24.08 meters)
and greater in length, as well as to owners and operators of commercial
vessels of less than 79 feet and commercial fishing vessels of any
length which discharge ballast water.
The final VGP does not apply to recreational vessels of any size,
commercial fishing vessels of any size which do not discharge ballast
water, and non-recreational vessels of less than 79 feet which do not
discharge ballast water. For Commercial fishing vessels and non-
recreational vessels of less than 79 feet in length that discharge
ballast water, the only effluent limit these vessels are subject to are
the VGP standards that apply to ballast water discharges.
D. Summary of VGP Terms and Requirements
The final VGP addresses 26 vessel discharge streams by establishing
effluent limits, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), to control
the discharge of the waste streams and constituents found in those
waste streams. The discharge streams eligible for coverage under this
final permit are: Deck washdown and runoff and above water line hull
cleaning; bilge water; ballast water; anti-fouling leachate from anti-
fouling hull coatings; aqueous film forming foam (AFFF); boiler/
economizer blowdown; cathodic protection; chain locker effluent;
controllable pitch propeller hydraulic fluid and thruster hydraulic
fluid and other oil sea interfaces including lubrication discharges
from paddle wheel propulsion, stern tubes, thruster bearings,
stabilizers, rudder bearings, azimuth thrusters, and propulsion pod
lubrication; distillation and reverse osmosis brine; elevator pit
effluent; firemain systems; freshwater layup; gas turbine wash water;
graywater; motor gasoline and compensating discharge; non-oily
machinery wastewater; refrigeration and air condensate discharge;
seawater cooling overboard discharge; seawater piping biofouling
prevention; small boat engine wet exhaust; sonar dome discharge,
underwater ship husbandry; welldeck discharges; graywater mixed with
sewage from vessels; and exhaust gas scrubber wash water discharge.
For each discharge type, among other things, the final permit
establishes effluent limits pertaining to the constituents found in the
effluent, including 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.
Discharge Authorization Timeframe
To obtain authorization, the owner or operator of a vessel that is
either 300 or more gross 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
June 19, 2009, but no later than September 19, 2009. Until September
19, 2009 these vessels will be automatically authorized upon permit
issuance to discharge according to the permit requirements. For vessels
that were delivered to the owner or operator on or before September 19,
2009, the vessel will receive final permit coverage on the date that
EPA receives the complete NOI. New vessels that are delivered after
September 19, 2009 will receive permit coverage 30 days after EPA
receives the complete NOI. When ownership of a vessel previously
authorized to discharge under this permit is transferred to a new
owner, the discharge authorization date is the later of the date EPA
receives an NOI from the new owner or the date of transfer. In the case
of an existing vessel which was not previously authorized to discharge
under this permit, delivered to the owner after September 19, 2009, the
discharge authorization date is 30 days after EPA receives the complete
NOI.
Vessels that are less than 300 gross tons or are able to carry or
discharge no more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water capacity will be
automatically authorized upon permit issuance to discharge according to
the permit requirements.
Monitoring and Reporting
The VGP requires routine self-inspection and monitoring of all
areas of the vessel that the permit addresses. The routine self-
inspection must be documented in the ship's logbook. Analytical
monitoring is required for certain types of vessels. The VGP also
requires comprehensive annual vessel
[[Page 79478]]
inspections, to ensure even the hard-to-reach areas of the vessel are
inspected for permit compliance. If the vessel is placed in dry dock
while covered under this permit, a dry dock inspection and report must
be completed. Additional monitoring requirements are imposed on certain
classes of vessels, based on unique characteristics not shared by other
vessels covered under the VGP.
Vessel Type-Specific Requirements
The permit imposes additional requirements for 8 specific types of
vessels which have unique characteristics resulting in discharges not
shared by other types of vessels. These vessel types are medium cruise
ships, large cruise ships, large ferries, barges, oil or petroleum
tankers, research vessels, rescue boats, and vessels employing
experimental ballast water treatment systems. The permit requirements
are designed to address the discharges from features unique to those
vessels, such as parking decks on ferries and overnight accommodations
for passengers on cruise ships.
E. Summary of Significant Changes From Proposal to Final Permit
The final VGP differs from the proposed permit in several ways, the
most significant of which are discussed below. These changes include
modifying the graywater discharge requirements for existing medium
cruise ships unable to voyage more than 1 nautical mile (nm) from
shore, adding requirements for the discharge of pool and spa water from
cruise ships, prohibiting the discharge of tetrachloroethylene
degreasers, expanding the prohibition against discharge of Tributyltin
to a prohibition against discharge of any organotin compounds, and the
addition of whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing to the requirements
for vessels employing a ballast water treatment system which discharge
certain biocides. Other changes made include revising the universe of
vessels eligible for coverage of the permit in response to two new laws
(see Summary section above), combining three discharge categories into
a new category that includes all oil to sea interfaces, modifying
discharges and limits for large ferries, and additional clarifications
added to several cruise ship discharges.
In addition to seeking public comment on all requirements of the
proposed VGP, EPA specifically sought comment on several specific
aspects of the VGP (for more detail on each element see the Permit Fact
Sheet). The following sections summarize each topic for which EPA
requested comment and what, if anything, EPA changed in the final VGP.
For specific and full responses to public comment, please see the
response to comments document included in the docket for this permit.
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE)
EPA sought information on whether uses of Tetrachloroethylene (TCE)
other than dry cleaning should be explicitly included or excluded from
permit coverage. EPA was also interested in comments on the frequency
and nature of the use of TCE-containing products on vessels. (TCE
discharges associated with dry-cleaning activities on vessels were not
proposed to be eligible for coverage because they are not considered to
be incidental to the normal operation of a vessel).
Based on public comments received, discharges of TCE degreasers and
other TCE containing products were made ineligible for coverage under
the permit.
Notice of Intent (NOI) Requirements
EPA specifically requested comment on the approach for requiring
NOIs from vessels. Comments received on this topic were split, with
some in favor of the proposed requirements, and some recommending
changes. The most concern was raised over unmanned barges and the
difficulty of submitting NOIs for an entire fleet of vessels. EPA
acknowledges these comments and is attempting to make its e-NOI system
as user friendly as possible. The Agency intends to consider the needs
of users who must fill in multiple forms when designing the electronic
system. The e-NOI is expected to be operational six months from the
date of permit issuance (June 19, 2009).
Additionally, based on public comment noting that most regulations
were changing to use ``gross ton'' instead of ``gross registered ton''
as a unit for regulation, EPA has changed the NOI requirements to
require an NOI from those vessels of more than 300 gross tons, rather
than 300 gross registered tons. Vessels that have the ability to hold
or discharge more than 8 cubic meters of ballast are also required to
submit an NOI. The majority of commenters supported EPA's decision to
require NOIs of only a subset of vessels covered by the permit.
Numeric Discharge Limits in Place of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
EPA specifically requested comment on whether the permit should
establish numeric discharge limits for any of those discharges for
which the proposed permit would have solely imposed best management
practices (BMPs). The proposed permit included numeric discharge limits
for graywater from cruise ships; oily discharges, including oily
mixtures; and residual biocide limits from vessels utilizing
experimental ballast water treatment systems. For the remainder of the
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels, the proposed
permit would have imposed BMPs, based on EPA's conclusion that numeric
effluent limitations are not feasible for vessel discharges in this
permit iteration. EPA requested that if commenters provide suggested
numeric limits, that they should also provide any supporting data that
identifies technologies or BMPs available to meet those limits, and if
those limits are more stringent than requirements of the proposed
permit, provide the costs and non-water quality impacts of setting
those limits, and any other relevant information that would be helpful
in setting those limits.
While several commenters recommended establishing numeric limits
for more discharges than were included in the proposed permit, EPA has
not added additional numeric limits except for experimental ballast
water treatment discharges and for Pool and Spa discharges (see section
titled ``Operational Limits for Large Cruise Ships'' below for
discussion about Pool and Spa discharges). In the proposal for this
general permit, EPA specifically requested comment on whether whole
effluent toxicity (``WET'') tests should be used in addition to, or in
lieu of, analytical monitoring of residual biocides and derivatives and
if so, what appropriate toxicity-based endpoints might be used for this
purpose. Based on public comment, the final VGP establishes WET
testing, as a requirement for VGP coverage for ballast water treatment
systems using biocides, or which have derivatives from such biocides,
for which there are not acute water quality criteria. This approach is
based on existing EPA WET methods and WET testing for ballast water
discharges adopted by the State of Washington, and relies primarily on
the methods specified in 40 CFR Part 136. The principal public comment
on WET referenced the Washington State WET testing provisions for
ballast water, which can be found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9580.pdf, appendix H. EPA used this manual as a reference in addition
to WET tests consistent with past Agency practice (including Denton et
al. 2007).
Several commenters noted that EPA should include numeric treatment
standards for Ballast Water. EPA notes that although ballast water
treatment technologies are not currently available
[[Page 79479]]
within the meaning of BAT under the CWA, such technologies are rapidly
developing and might become ``available'' using a BAT standard within
this permit term. EPA commits to continuing to review the evolution of
ballast water treatment technologies and may, if appropriate, use the
permit reopener in light of that evolution. See Part 4 of the VGP Fact
Sheet for additional discussion. Additional discussion about ballast
water discharge standards can be found in the fact sheet for this
permit and in the response to comments document.
Bilgewater Discharges in Embayments
EPA requested comment on whether the permit should limit discharges
of bilgewater in embayments, such as the Chesapeake Bay, for large
vessels that regularly leave waters subject to the permit.
A few commenters recommended limiting discharges of bilgewater in
embayments, but provided no additional information on which EPA could
base such a decision. EPA notes that defining embayments is difficult
and the information before the Agency does not demonstrate that there
are available and economically achievable approaches for limiting such
discharges in embayments. Hence, EPA has not specifically limited
discharges of bilgewater in embayments. Nonetheless, other proposed
requirements restricting discharge location and concentration for
certain vessels remain in the permit. For instance, vessels greater
than 400 gross tons, which regularly leave waters subject to the VGP,
are subject to additional restrictions on the discharge of bilgewater,
including a prohibition on the discharge of untreated bilgewater and
restrictions when operating in the specially protected waters
referenced in Part 12.1 of the permit, many of which may include bays
and other similarly enclosed areas.
Saltwater Flushing for Vessels with Unpumpable Ballast Water and
Residual Sediment
EPA requested comment on whether the requirement of mandatory
saltwater flushing for all vessels with unpumpable ballast water and
residual sediment which sail more than 200 nm (nautical mile) from any
shore is appropriate.
Comments were received which both supported and opposed the
mandatory saltwater flushing requirement. The final VGP retains the
requirement for mandatory saltwater flushing for two classes of
vessels: those defined as ocean-going vessels and those engaged in
Pacific near shore voyages.
Ballast Water Exchange Requirements for Coastwise Trade Vessels on
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts
EPA requested comment on whether ballast water exchange
requirements similar to those proposed for Pacific near shore voyages
should be applied to vessels engaged in coastwise trade on the Atlantic
or Gulf Coasts that will discharge to waters subject to this permit.
After considering the range of public comment on the issue, which both
supported and opposed inclusion of Atlantic and Gulf ballast water
exchange, EPA has not included Atlantic and Gulf nearshore ballast
water exchange and saltwater flushing requirements. None of the
commenters provided directly applicable data to support their views.
EPA will, however, continue to investigate whether Atlantic and Gulf
coast ballast water exchange is an appropriate best management practice
for vessel owner/operators engaged in nearshore voyages. This
exploration may include several elements such as examining vessel
traffic and operation patterns along the Eastern and Gulf seaboards,
the volume of ballast water transported and released, and the number of
miles traveled by the average Atlantic and Gulf nearshore voyage.
Adequacy of the One-Time Report
EPA requested comment on whether the questions developed for the
one-time report are appropriate and whether alternative or supplemental
questions should be considered. The proposed permit would have required
owner/operators to submit a one-time report that contains basic
information about the vessel after the 30th month of permit coverage.
Many commenters suggested that the one-time report was an added
burden on permittees and would not provide useful information to EPA
while other commenters recommended requesting more information in the
report and increasing the frequency of reporting. EPA has decided to
retain the one-time report as it was proposed in the final VGP. EPA
believes it will provide additional, useful information for future
permit decisions without creating a substantial administrative burden
on permittees.
Operational Limits for Large Cruise Ships
EPA requested comment on whether the proposed operational limits
for large cruise ships are appropriate and whether the discharge
standards proposed for within 1 nm of any shore should be extended to 3
nm from any shore, regardless of the speed of the vessel. For large
cruise ships, the proposed permit would have prohibited the discharge
of graywater within 1 nautical mile of shore unless the graywater has
been treated to treatment standards in part 5.2.1.1.2 of the proposed
permit. The proposed permit would also have required the discharge to
either meet the effluent limits outlined in this proposed permit under
Part 5.2.1.1.2 or be discharged while the vessel is moving at least 6
knots for discharges between 1 nm and 3 nm of shore.
Several commenters, primarily environmental groups, recommended
extending the discharge standards to 3nm from any shore, regardless of
the speed of the vessel, or to impose even more stringent limits on
cruise ship discharges. Other commenters, including those from the
cruise ship industry, commented that the permit should include the
graywater treatment standards, but should not prohibit the discharge of
treated graywater provided the discharge met those standards. EPA has
clarified in the final permit that discharges of graywater are allowed
within 1 nm of shore, provided that those discharges meet the standards
in Parts 5.1 or 5.2 of the permit.
As part of comments received, several cruise ship representatives
noted that they must discharge pool and spa water into waters subject
to this permit. The commenters noted that they completely dechlorinate
or debrominate this discharge as applicable. As a result of these
comments, EPA has authorized the direct discharge of pool and spa
water, provided it is dechlorinated and debrominated (as applicable),
the vessel is underway at least 6 knots, and the permittee monitors the
effluent before every discharge event. See Part 7.1 and 7.2 of the VGP
fact sheet for additional discussion of these requirements.
Discharge of Untreated Graywater within 1nm of Shore or Nutrient
Impaired Waters
EPA requested comment on whether the proposed prohibition on
discharges of untreated graywater within 1 nm of shore for large and
medium cruise ships, and into nutrient-impaired waters such as the
Chesapeake Bay for large cruise ships, is appropriate and whether EPA's
economic analyses are accurate.
Comments received on this issue were split, with commenters both
supporting the prohibition on discharges of untreated graywater within
1nm of shore and nutrient impaired estuaries as well as opposing the
requirements as too stringent or burdensome. Primarily, several
comments raised concern about
[[Page 79480]]
certain medium cruise ships which are unable to travel more than 1nm
from shore, whether due to geographic constraints, such as traveling on
inland waters, or restrictions on the vessel based on the license
issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. In response to these comments, the
final permit changes the permit conditions for medium cruise ships that
are unable to travel outside 1nm. Medium cruise ships constructed after
the issuance of this permit must meet the same permit conditions as
those that are able to travel outside 1nm from shore. Additionally,
medium cruise ships which undergo a major renovation must also meet the
same permit conditions as those able to travel more than 1 nm from
shore.
Graywater Treatment Standards for Large Ferries
EPA requested comment on whether large ferries should be subject to
additional graywater treatment standards similar to those proposed for
medium and large cruise ships.
EPA received comments that both supported and opposed adding
graywater treatment standards similar to the requirements for large
cruise ships to the requirements for large ferries. No additional
supporting data for either approach was submitted during the comment
period. In the final permit, EPA has not altered the proposed permit
requirements for large ferries.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 `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 small-entity 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 has committed 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 VGP
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 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
[[Page 79481]]
with EPA guidance regarding RFA certification.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's current guidance, entitled Final Guidance for EPA
Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory 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. Analysis of Economic Impacts of VGP and RGP
EPA determined that, in consideration of the discussion in Section
IV above, the issuance of the VGP may have the potential to affect a
substantial number of small entities. Therefore, in order to determine
what, if any, economic impact this permit may have on small businesses,
EPA conducted an economic assessment of these general permits. This
economic analysis is included in the records for these permits. Based
on this assessment, EPA concludes that despite a minimal economic
impact on all entities, including small businesses, this permit is not
likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Including the ballast water and other discharge requirements, the
draft economic impact analysis indicates that the best management
practices in this permit would cost between $ 6.7 million and $16.7
million annually. Including paperwork requirements, the permit is
estimated to cost between $7.7 and $21.9 million dollars annually for
domestic vessels. Including estimates of ballast water costs for
foreign vessels, the permit is expected to cost between $8.9 and $23.0
million dollars annually. Depending upon sector (vessel type), median
costs per firm range from $1 to $795 in the low-end assumptions and
from $5 to $1,967 in the high-end assumptions (excluding median values
from commercial fishing vessels which are expected to be $0). Costs for
the 95th percentile range from $7 for the Deep Sea Coastal and Great
Lakes Passenger Vessels to $20,355 for marine cargo handling under low-
end cost estimates and from $88 to $35,190 for the same vessel classes
for high-end cost estimates (see table 7.1 of the economic assessment
cost estimates across vessel classes). 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 percent 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 213 under low cost assumptions to 308 under high cost
assumptions. Of this universe, the total number of entities expected to
exceed a 3% cost ratio ranges from 55 under low cost assumptions to 73
under high cost assumptions. The total universe that would be affected
by this permit includes approximately 61,000 domestic flagged vessels
and 8,000 foreign flagged vessels. Accordingly, EPA concludes that this
permit is unlikely to result in a significant economic impact on any
businesses and in particular, small businesses. The economic analyses
are available in the record for these permits.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this permit have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. as part of
the NPDES Consolidated ICR. On September 28, 2008 EPA published the
first public notice of this ICR under the OMB number 2040-0004 and on
December 17, 2008, EPA published the final public notice for a 30 day
comment period. The information collection requirements for this permit
are not enforceable until OMB approves the ICR.
This information must be collected in order to appropriately
administer and enforce the terms and conditions of the Vessel General
Permit. This information collection is mandatory as authorized by Clean
Water Act Section 308 and all information collected will be treated as
Confidential Business Information (CBI).
The information collection burden for the paperwork collection
requirements of this permit is estimated to be 135,693 hours per year,
which represents a burden of 0.64 hours per response per year,
multiplied by a total of 210,759 responses per year from 65,625
respondents (Note: to ensure that an adequate number of burden hours
are requested, the number of respondents is slightly higher than the
estimated 61,000 domestically flagged vessels identified in the
economic analysis that would be affected by this permit). The frequency
of responses varies, but includes every five years, annual, quarterly,
and occasionally/as needed, depending on the specific reporting
requirements. No reporting and record keeping costs beyond labor costs
are estimated for this permit.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR Part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final permit.
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
Barbara A. Finazzo,
Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, EPA Region
2.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
Carl-Axel P. Soderberg,
Division Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA
Region 2.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
James D. Giattina,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 4.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
Peter Swenson,
Acting Director, Water Division, Water Division, EPA Region 5.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
William K. Honker,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
William A. Spratlin,
Director Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, EPA Region 7.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
Eddie A. Sierra,
Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and
Regulatory Assistance, EPA Region 8.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
Nancy Woo,
Associate Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.
Dated: December 18, 2008.
Michael Gearheard,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. E8-30816 Filed 12-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P