[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76716-76725]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31576]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9502-3; EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141 and EPA-HQ-2011-0150]

Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permits for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a
Vessel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of draft permit issuances and notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are publishing
for comment a draft NPDES Vessel General Permit (VGP) that would
authorize discharges incidental to the normal operation of non-military
and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 feet in
length. If finalized, this draft VGP would replace the current VGP,
which was issued in December 2008 and expires on December 19, 2013. EPA
is also proposing a draft NPDES Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) to
authorize discharges incidental to the normal operation of non-military
and non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. EPA is
proposing the sVGP to authorize discharges from vessels less than 79
feet in length, because the P.L. 110-299 moratorium (subsequently
extended by P.L. 111-215) expires on December 18, 2013. These laws
generally provide that no NPDES permits shall be required for
incidental discharges (except discharges of ballast water) from vessels
less than 79 feet and commercial fishing vessels. EPA is soliciting
comment on today's draft VGP and draft sVGP. Comments on any aspect of
the permit, including the fact sheet discussions and economic analyses
supporting the Agency's tentative decisions, are welcome. Note that in
many places, EPA requests comments on specific aspects of today's draft
permits; these specific solicitations are meant to highlight for
commenters areas on which they may wish to focus, most often because
these areas involve provisions not contained in the 2008 VGP. The
requests for comment on specific aspects of the permit should not be
interpreted as discouraging comment on other provisions or aspects of
the draft permits.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0141 for the VGP or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150 for the
sVGP, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Original and three copies to: Water Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room,
Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the VGP,
including how to obtain copies of the draft general permit and fact
sheet, contact Ryan Albert at EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office
of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington DC 20460; or at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For further information on the sVGP, including how to
obtain copies of the draft general permit and fact sheet, contact Robin
Danesi at EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater
Management, mail code 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington DC
20460; or at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at vgp<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information is organized
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How can I get copies of these documents and other related
information?
    C. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    D. How and to whom do I submit comments?
    E. Public Hearing
    F. Public Meeting
    G. Webcast
    H. Finalizing the Permits
    I. Who are the EPA regional contacts for these draft permits?
II. Background of Permits
    A. Statutory and Regulatory History
    B. The 2008 VGP
    C. National Research Council and Science Advisory Board Ballast
Water Studies
III. Summary of Today's Permits
    A. Summary of Significant Proposed Changes to the 2008 VGP
    B. Summary of the Draft sVGP
    C. Draft Permit Provisions on Which EPA Is Specifically
Soliciting Comment
    D. Analysis of Economic Impacts of Draft VGP and Draft sVGP
    E. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to vessels operating in a capacity as a means
of transportation that have discharges incidental to their normal
operation into waters subject to this permit, except recreational
vessels as defined in Clean Water Act section 502(25) and vessels of
the Armed Forces as defined in Clean Water Act section 312(a)(14).
Affected vessels are henceforth referred to as non-military, non-
recreational vessels. Unless otherwise excluded from coverage by Part 6
of the VGP and Part 5 of the sVGP, waters subject to this permit means
waters of the U.S. as defined in 40 CFR section 122.2. That provision
defines ``waters of the U.S.'' as certain inland waters and the
territorial sea, which extends three miles from the baseline. More
specifically, CWA section 502(8) defines ``territorial seas'' as ``the
belt of the seas measured from the line of the ordinary low water along
that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea
and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, and extending
seaward a distance of three miles.'' Note that the Clean Water Act
(CWA) does not require NPDES permits for vessels or other floating
craft operating as a means of transportation beyond the territorial
seas, i.e., in the contiguous zone or ocean as defined by the CWA
sections 502(9), (10). See CWA section 502(12) and 40 section CFR
section 122.2 (definition of ``discharge of a pollutant''). This
permit, therefore, does not apply in such waters.
    Non-military, non-recreational vessels greater than 79 feet in
length operating in a capacity as a means of transportation that need
NPDES coverage for their incidental discharges will generally be
covered under the VGP. Similarly situated vessels less than 79 feet in
length may be covered under the VGP, or may instead opt for coverage
under the sVGP (unless those vessels have 8 or more cubic meters of
ballast water capacity, in which case, they must seek coverage under
the VGP).

B. How can I get copies of these documents and other related
information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0141 for the VGP and Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0150 for the sVGP. The official public docket is
the collection of materials, including the administrative record
required by 40 CFR 124.18, for the final permit. It is

available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Although all documents in the docket are listed
in an index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room, open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
(202) 566-2426.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) found at http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the FDMS to
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once at the Web site, enter
the appropriate Docket ID No. in the ``Search'' box to view the docket.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket
facility identified in this section.

C. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    Please follow these guidelines as you prepare your comments so that
EPA can better address them in a timely manner.
    1. Identify the permit by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Explain why you agree or disagree with any proposed provisions;
suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested
changes.
    3. Describe any assumptions, and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    4. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    6. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline. EPA is not obligated to accept or consider late comments.

D. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    The opportunity to raise issues and provide information on the
general permits is during the public comment period (see 40 CFR 124.13
for more information). You may submit comments electronically, by mail,
or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject
line on the first page of your comment. To ensure that EPA can read,
understand, and therefore properly respond to comments, the Agency
would prefer that commenters cite, where possible, the paragraph(s) or
section in the fact sheet or part of the permit to which each comment
refers. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the
comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider
these late comments (see, however, Section 3.15 of the fact sheet,
where EPA expresses an intent to consider late comments with specific,
narrow issue).
    For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Water
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments may be submitted to EPA in the following ways:
    EPA Dockets. Use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit
comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving
comments. Go directly to www.regulations.gov and follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select
``search'' and then Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0141 for the VGP and
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0150 for the sVGP. The system is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity, email address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
    E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (email) to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0141 for the
VGP and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0150 for the sVGP. In contrast to
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's email system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an email comment directly to
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
email system automatically captures your email address. Email addresses
that are automatically captured by EPA's email system are included as
part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and
made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM that
you mail to the mailing address identified below. These electronic
submissions will be accepted in Microsoft Word or ASCII file format. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption.
    By Mail. Send the original and three copies of your comments to:
Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150.
    By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Public
Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141
for the VGP and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150 for the sVGP. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.

E. Public Hearing

    Because EPA anticipates a significant degree of public interest in
the draft VGP and the draft sVGP, EPA will hold a public hearing on
Wednesday January 11, 2012 to receive public comment and answer
questions concerning the draft

VGP and draft sVGP, and will present the proposed requirements of the
draft VGP and the draft sVGP and the basis for those requirements. The
hearing will be held at EPA East Room 1153, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington DC 20460, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (EST) or until all comments
have been heard. Any person may provide written or oral statements and
data pertaining to the draft permits at the public hearing. Depending
on the number of people who desire to make an oral statement, EPA may
impose limits on the time allowed for oral statements, which may result
in the full statement not being heard. Therefore, EPA recommends that
all those planning to present oral statements also submit written
statements. Any person not making an oral statement may also submit a
written statement. Please note that the public hearing may close early
if all business is finished.

F. Public Meeting

    The focus of the public meeting is to present the proposed
requirements of the draft VGP and draft sVGP and the basis for those
requirements, as well as to answer questions concerning the draft
permits. At this meeting, any person may provide written or oral
statements and data pertaining to the draft permits. The date, time,
and location of the public meeting is as follows:
    Monday January 23, 2012, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. CST or until all
comments have been heard, Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal Building, Room 331,
77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago IL 60604.
    Depending on public interest, EPA may host at least one additional
public meeting. Please see EPA's Web page at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels,
which will announce any additional public meetings. EPA will announce
the public meeting on its Web page at least four weeks before it is
scheduled to occur.
    EPA encourages interested and potentially affected stakeholders to
attend one of the scheduled public meetings or hearings and provide
oral or written comments. These meetings are open to the public. Please
note that the public meeting may end early if all business is finished.
Oral or written comments received at the public meeting will be entered
into the Docket. If you are unable to attend, you may submit comments
to the EPA Water Docket at the address listed under Section D.

G. Webcast

    EPA is scheduling a webcast to provide information on the draft
permits and to answer questions for interested parties that are unable
to attend the public meetings or public hearing. For information on the
time, how to register, and how to attend the webcast, see EPA's Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. EPA plans to schedule this
webcast in the latter half of January and will announce it on its Web
page at least four weeks before it is scheduled to occur. EPA also
plans to make a recording of this webcast available on its Web page for
future playback.

H. Finalizing the Permits

    After the close of public comment period, EPA will issue final
permit decisions. These decisions will not be made until after all
public comments have been considered and appropriate changes are made
to the permits, fact sheet, and other supporting documents. EPA's
response to comments received will be included in the docket as part of
the final permit decisions. EPA plans to take final action on the draft
VGP and sVGP by November 30, 2012. Note that EPA plans to take final
action on the permit a year prior to expiration of the current VGP. EPA
believes this approach makes sense, as it will give the regulated
community substantial time to prepare for the application of new
requirements.

I. Who are the EPA regional contacts for these draft permits?

    For EPA Region 1, contact John Nagle at US EPA, Region 1, New
England/Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Mail Code: OEP 06-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912; or at tel.: (617) 918-
1054; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 2, contact Sara Sorenson at US EPA, Region 2, 290
Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866; or at tel.: (212) 637-
3877; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 3, contact Mark Smith at US EPA, Region 3, 1650 Arch
St., Mail Code: 3WP41, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, or at tel.: (215)
814-3105; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 4, contact Marshall Hyatt at US EPA, Region 4/Water
Permits Division, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St. SW., Atlanta,
GA 30303-3104; or at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 5, contact Sean Ramach at US EPA, Region 5, 77 W.
Jackson Blvd., Mail Code: WN16J, Chicago, IL 60604-3507; or at tel.:
(312) 886-5284; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 6, contact Josh Waldmeier at U.S. EPA, Region 6,
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; or at tel.: (214)
665-8064; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 7, contact Alex Owutaka at US EPA, Region 7, 901 N.
5th St., Kansas City, KS 66101; or at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 8, contact Lisa Luebke at US EPA, Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop St., Mail Code: 8P-W-WW, Denver, CO 80202; or at tel.: (303)
312-6256; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at US EPA, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; or at tel.: (415) 972-
3510; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 10, contact Cindi Godsey at US EPA, Region 10, 222
W. 7th Ave., Box 19, Anchorage, AK 99513; or at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Background Information

A. Statutory and Regulatory History

    The Clean Water Act (CWA) section 301(a) provides that ``the
discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful'' unless the
discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33
USC 1311(a). The CWA defines ``discharge of a pollutant'' as ``(A) any
addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source,
(B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone
or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other
floating craft.'' 33 USC 1362(12). A ``point source'' is a
``discernible, confined and discrete conveyance'' and includes a
``vessel or other floating craft.'' 33 USC 1362(14).
    The term ``pollutant'' includes, among other things, ``garbage * *
* chemical wastes * * * and industrial, municipal, and agricultural
waste discharged into water.'' The Act's definition of ``pollutant''
specifically excludes ``sewage from vessels or a discharge incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces'' within the
meaning of CWA section 312.33 USC 1362(6).
    One way a person may discharge a pollutant without violating the
CWA section 301 prohibition is by obtaining authorization to discharge
(referred to herein as ``coverage'') under a CWA section 402 National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (33 USC section
1342). Under CWA section 402(a), EPA may ``issue a permit for the
discharge of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants,
notwithstanding section 1311(a)'' upon certain conditions required by
the Act.
    EPA issued the original Vessel General Permit in response to a
District Court ruling which vacated a longstanding regulatory exemption
for

discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels at 40 CFR
122.3(a). Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. United States EPA, 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69476 (N.D. Cal. 2006). EPA developed the VGP to
regulate incidental discharges from vessels operating in a capacity as
a means of transportation. That permit was issued on December 18, 2008,
with an effective date of December 19, 2008. 73 FR 79,473 (Dec. 29,
2008). Subsequently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California issued an order providing that ``the exemption for
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, contained in
40 CFR 122.3(a), is vacated as of February 6, 2009.'' Northwest
Environmental Advocates et al. v. United States EPA, No. C 03-05760-SI
(December 17, 2008). Therefore, the date when the regulated community
was required to comply with the VGP was February 6, 2009.
    In 2010, Congress enacted Public Law 111-215 which extended the
moratorium (Pub. L. 110-299) prohibiting NPDES permitting for
discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial fishing
vessels (regardless of size) and those other non-recreational vessels
less than 79 feet in length until December 2013. That moratorium does
not include ballast water discharges. That moratorium also does not
apply to other incidental discharges, which on case-by-case basis, EPA
or the State, as appropriate, determines contribute to a violation of
water quality standards or pose an unacceptable risk to human health or
the environment. The original legislation called for a two-year
moratorium on permitting until July 31, 2010, during which time EPA was
to study the relevant discharges and submit a report to Congress. EPA
finalized this Report to Congress, entitled ``Study of Discharges
Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other
Non-Recreational Vessels Less Than 79 Feet'' in August 2010, and it can
be viewed at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/background.cfm.

B. The 2008 VGP

    The 2008 VGP addresses 26 potential vessel discharge streams by
establishing effluent limits, including Best Management Practices
(BMPs), to control the discharges of waste streams and constituents
found in those waste streams. For these discharges, the permit
establishes effluent limits pertaining to the constituents found in the
effluent and BMPs designed to decrease the amount of constituents
entering the waste stream. A vessel might not produce all of these
discharges, but a vessel owner or operator is responsible for meeting
the applicable effluent limits and complying with all the effluent
limits for every listed discharge that the vessel produces.
    To obtain authorization, the owner or operator of a vessel that is
either 300 or more gross registered tons or has the capacity to hold or
discharge more than 8 cubic meters (2113 gallons) of ballast water is
required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to receive permit coverage,
beginning six months after the permit's issuance date, but no later
than nine months after the permit's issuance date. Owners or operators
of vessels that meet the applicable eligibility requirements for permit
coverage but are not required to submit an NOI, including vessels less
than 300 gross registered tons with no more than 8 cubic meters of
ballast water capacity are automatically authorized by the permit to
discharge according to the permit requirements.
    The VGP requires owners or operators of vessels to conduct routine
self-inspections and monitoring of all areas of the vessel that the
permit addresses. The routine self-inspections are required to be
documented in the ship's logbook. Analytical monitoring of certain
discharges is required for certain types of vessels. The VGP also
requires owners or operators of vessels to conduct comprehensive annual
vessel inspections, to ensure even the hard-to-reach areas of the
vessel are inspected for permit compliance. If the vessel is placed in
dry dock while covered under the permit, a dry dock inspection and
report is required to be completed. Additional monitoring requirements
are imposed on owners or operators of certain classes of vessels, based
on their unique characteristics.
    For additional information on the VGP, please go to www.epa.gov/npdes or see Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055 at www.regulations.gov.

C. National Research Council and Science Advisory Board Ballast Water
Studies

    As part of its strategy for improving the Agency's understanding of
ballast water discharges, EPA, in partnership with the United States
Coast Guard, commissioned two ballast water studies from highly
respected, independent scientific entities. EPA commissioned these
studies in order to produce the best possible scientific compendium of
ballast water information relevant to the development of today's VGP.
EPA commissioned these studies believing that they would help inform
the Agency's decisions about what effluent limits to set for ballast
water discharges.
    The first study was led by the National Research Council (which
functions under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),
the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine) and
addressed how to assess risk to water quality associated with ballast
water discharges (NAS, 2011). EPA designed this study to inform the
Agency's development of water quality-based effluent limits for ballast
water and related provisions for today's draft VGP. The NAS panel
consisted of nine experts with extensive knowledge of issues
surrounding invasive species. That panel found that they could not
evaluate the risk associated with a variety of regulatory discharge
limits because of ``a profound lack of data and information to develop
and validate models'' and ``it was not possible with any certainty to
determine the risk of nonindigenous species establishment under
existing discharge limits'' (NAS 2011, pp. 3). The NAS report noted
that setting a concentration based, ballast water discharge standard
that is consistent with the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
D-2 standard (the standard expressed in the 2004 International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and
Sediments) is ``clearly a first step forward'' (103), and that it
``represents a significant reduction in concentrations beyond ballast
water exchange'' (98). Furthermore, the report stated that the IMO D-2
standard ``now provides a manageable baseline for developing scientific
models that can be used to quantitatively determine ballast water
discharge standards'' (101). Of further note, the report proposed a
coordinated, large scale research program, consisting of two major
parts: the first involving ``[a] well-designed ship discharge sampling
program to measure propagule supply'' and the second involving an
experimental, mesocosm based approach to calibrate models which should
yield results in ``a three to five year time horizon'' (111). The NAS
panel estimated that different elements of this research program would
take between 3-10 years to complete. For a copy of the NAS report,
please go to: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13184.
    The second study was led by EPA's autonomous Science Advisory Board
(SAB) and evaluated the status of ballast water treatment technologies.
EPA designed the SAB study to inform EPA's understanding of appropriate
technology-based limits for ballast water provisions for today's draft
VGP. The

SAB panel was made up of 22 scientists and engineers, a significant
number of which are recognized as experts in evaluating ballast water
treatment systems. The SAB found, among other things, that at least
five types of ballast water treatments systems are available which
treat to the limits found in the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) Ballast Water Convention and proposed in today's permit. For a
copy of the SAB report, please see: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/BW%20discharge!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.3#2

III. Summary of Today's Permits

A. Summary of Significant Proposed Changes to the 2008 VGP

    For purposes of highlighting significant proposed changes to the
2008 VGP, EPA is organizing this discussion into 3 sections: changes to
ballast water requirements; changes to other incidental discharge
effluent requirements; and changes to administrative requirements.
    1. Ballast Water. In today's draft permit, EPA is proposing new,
more stringent numeric technology-based effluent limitations that are
applicable to vessels with ballast water tanks and will largely replace
the non-numeric effluent limitations for ballast water in the 2008 VGP.
These limitations will achieve significant reductions in the number of
living organisms discharged via ballast water into waters subject to
this permit. Ballast water discharges are widely recognized as one of
the primary sources (or vectors) for the spread of aquatic invasive
species, also known as aquatic nuisance species (ANS). When species in
ballast tanks are transported between waterbodies and discharged, they
have potential for establishing new, non-indigenous populations that
can cause severe economic and ecological impacts. EPA has expressed the
numeric effluent limit for ballast water discharges as numbers of
living organisms per cubic meter (i.e. as a maximum acceptable
concentration) because reducing the concentration of living organisms
will reduce inoculum densities of potential invasive species discharged
in a vessel's ballast water, i.e., thereby reducing the risk posed by
the discharge. EPA has proposed a staggered implementation schedule for
certain existing vessels for achieving the numeric limitation by the
first drydocking after January 1, 2014 or January 1, 2016 (depending
upon vessel size), which may extend beyond the permit term for some
vessels. Vessels newly constructed after January 1, 2012 that are
subject to the numeric limitation must meet those limits upon entering
U.S. waters upon the effective date of the permit. EPA notes that this
time schedule is consistent with the timelines in the standards set
forth in regulation D-2 of the International Ballast Water Convention
established by the IMO. Also as part of today's draft permit, EPA has
proposed maximum discharge limitations for certain biocides and
residuals to limit the impact of these pollutants to waters subject to
this permit. The draft permit would also allow for most vessels which
meet the treatment requirements to no longer perform ballast water
exchange.
    Under the draft VGP, vessel owner/operators subject to the
concentration-based numeric discharge limitations would be able to meet
their obligations in one of four ways: discharge ballast water meeting
the applicable numeric limits of the VGP; transfer the ship's ballast
water to a third party treatment at an NPDES permitted facility; use
treated municipal/potable water as ballast water; or not discharge
ballast water. As in the 2008 VGP, vessels enrolled in, and meeting the
requirements of the US Coast Guard's Shipboard Technology Evaluation
Program (STEP) would be deemed to be in compliance with the numeric
limitations.
    In today's draft permit, the numeric concentration-based treatment
limits for ballast water discharges would not apply to some vessels.
Special requirements would apply to the following vessel classes:
vessels operating exclusively within a limited area on short voyages;
unmanned, unpowered barges; and existing bulk carrier vessels (commonly
known as ``Lakers'') built before January 1, 2009 that operate
exclusively in the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal (referred
to as existing ``confined Lakers''). See discussion below regarding
specific draft requirements for Lakers.
    Due to the challenges of installing ballast water treatment systems
currently available on the existing confined Lakers, and the lack of
currently available ballast water treatment systems appropriate for
these vessels, alternative technologies are being researched. If these
issues can be appropriately addressed, e.g., if an active substance and
disinfection regime is identified, such technology might be a
potentially useful treatment technology for the confined Lakers. EPA is
specifically seeking comment as to whether the numeric ballast water
treatment limits should be applicable to existing confined Lakers. All
confined Lakers built after January 1, 2009, however, would be required
to meet ballast water treatment numeric technology-based effluent
limits found in the VGP.
    EPA has determined that Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT) over time will be a function of a vessel's
construction date, size, and class. For certain existing vessels, EPA
has proposed a staggered implementation schedule that requires the
vessel to meet the numeric effluent limitations by the first drydocking
after January 1, 2014 or January 1, 2016 depending on vessel size,
which may extend beyond the permit term for certain vessels.
    The draft VGP would impose several best management practices (BMPs)
for vessels until they are required to meet the numeric ballast water
limits that EPA has found to be available, practicable and economically
achievable. These interim requirements are substantially similar to
those in the 2008 VGP.
    One of the interim management measures is that all vessels that are
equipped to carry ballast water and enter the Great Lakes via the Saint
Lawrence Seaway System must conduct saltwater flushing of ballast water
tanks 200 nautical miles from any shore before entering either the U.S.
or Canadian waters of the Seaway System. Additionally, vessels entering
the Great Lakes utilizing a ballast water treatment system would also
be required to conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing (as
applicable) in addition to meeting the numeric limits for ballast water
once they apply if they meet the following requirements: (1) The vessel
operates outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and more than 200 nm
from any shore and then enters the Great Lakes, and (2) the vessel has
taken on ballast water that has a salinity of less than 18 ppt from a
coastal, estuarine, or freshwater ecosystem within the previous month.
If a vessel affected by these draft conditions has not taken on ballast
water with a salinity of less than 18 ppt in the previous month, the
master of the vessel would be required to certify to this effect as
part of the ballast water recordkeeping requirements before entering
the Great Lakes.
    EPA has included in today's draft VGP three management measures
specific to existing confined Lakers. EPA believes these requirements
are economically practicable and achievable, and represent common sense
approaches to managing ballast water discharges for vessels when they
have not installed ballast water treatment systems. If existing
confined

Lakers are retrofitted to meet the numeric effluent limits in the draft
VGP, these vessels would no longer be required to perform these
management measures.
    As in the 2008 VGP, EPA has included certain mandatory requirements
for all vessels. These requirements are consistent with EPA's Science
Advisory Board's recommendations to reduce risks at multiple points in
the ballast's operations (See EPA SAB 2011, available at http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr--activites/
6FFF1BFB6F4E09FD852578CB006E0149/$File/EPA-SAB-11-009-unsigned.pdf).
Some of the mandatory requirements for all vessels equipped with
ballast water tanks that operate in waters of the U.S. would be to:
avoid the discharge of ballast water into waters subject to this permit
that are within or that may directly affect marine sanctuaries, marine
preserves, marine parks, shellfish beds, or coral reefs; minimize or
avoid uptake of ballast water in the listed areas and situations; clean
ballast tanks regularly to remove sediments in mid-ocean or under
controlled arrangements in port, or at dry dock; when the vessel is
equipped with high and low suction, utilize the high suction for
ballast tank discharge to minimize the discharge of entrained sediment;
and minimize the discharge of ballast water essential for vessel
operations while in the waters subject to this permit. EPA estimated
the cost and burden of the ballast water requirements in its economic
analysis for the permit.
    2. Non-Ballast Water. Today's proposed VGP would impose more
stringent technology-based effluent limits in the form of Best
Management Practices for discharges of oil to sea interfaces. The draft
VGP would require that all powered new build vessels (those constructed
after December 19, 2013) must use ``environmentally acceptable
lubricants'' in their oil-to-sea interfaces. Additionally, the draft
VGP would authorize the discharge of fish hold effluent and establish
appropriate Best Management Practices for this discharge type. EPA has
also included numeric limits for exhaust gas scrubber effluent that are
consistent with those established by International Maritime
Organization guidelines for this discharge type. EPA is also
specifically seeking input as to whether to include more stringent
numeric limits for bilgewater for certain vessels, which would decrease
the amount of oil (and potentially other pollutants) discharged into
U.S. waters.
    The proposed VGP contains monitoring requirements for certain
larger vessels for ballast water, graywater, and exhaust gas scrubber
effluent if they discharge into waters subject to the permit. EPA has
included this monitoring requirement to assure treatment systems are
performing as required (when applicable) and to generate additional
information for EPA's future analyses. EPA estimated the cost and
burden of these requirements in its economic analysis for the permit.
    3. Administrative Improvements. EPA has made several efficiency
improvements in the draft permit, including clarifying that electronic
recordkeeping is allowed under the permit, eliminating duplicative
reporting, and allowing consolidated reporting for certain vessels.
    Under this draft VGP, permittees not required to submit a NOI would
be required to complete and keep a Permit Authorization and Record of
Inspection (PARI) Form onboard their vessel at all times. EPA is
proposing the PARI form requirement because the Agency believes it is
an efficient way for the owner/operator to certify that they have read
and agreed to comply with the terms of the permit, and demonstrate
basic understanding of the permit's terms and conditions. In addition,
the form will provide EPA (or its authorized representative) with a
standardized foundation for conducting inspections.
    Under the draft VGP, EPA would consolidate the one-time report and
annual noncompliance report into one annual report. As discussed in the
fact sheet for today's permit, EPA found that the 2008 VGP reporting
requirements resulted in confusion among some permittees. EPA believes
that having a single annual report that permittees must file, which can
include all of the permittee's analytical monitoring results (as
applicable) for the previous year, would reduce this confusion and
result in better information for the Agency. Additionally, the draft
VGP would authorize a combined annual report for unmanned, unpowered
barges if they meet specified criteria to maximize efficiency and
reduce burden on a significant portion of the regulated universe. EPA
believes that many of these barges are fundamentally similar and have a
limited number of discharges. Furthermore, vessel owner/operators may
have several thousand barges with these similar characteristics. Hence,
EPA identified this provision as an efficient way to gather information
by the agency without sacrificing data quality.
    EPA is specifically seeking comment on the administrative
improvements in today's draft VGP, and soliciting suggestions for other
efficiency improvements.

B. Summary of the Draft sVGP

    EPA is today proposing the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) for
vessels less than 79 feet and all commercial fishing vessels. EPA is
proposing the sVGP to provide coverage for vessels less than 79 feet in
length because the Public Law 110-299 moratorium (subsequently extended
by Pub. L. 111-215) expires on December 18, 2013. EPA recognizes that
small commercial vessels are different in operation than larger
commercial vessels, they generally have fewer discharge types, and that
owner/operators of smaller vessels have particularized expertise and
different resources available to manage their vessels than owner/
operators of larger vessels; hence, the draft sVGP is structured
differently for this class of permittees.
    The draft sVGP would not require the vessel owner or operator to
submit an NOI to receive permit coverage. However, as with vessels not
required to submit an NOI under the VGP, sVGP permittees would be
required to complete and keep a Permit Authorization and Record of
Inspection (PARI) form onboard their vessel at all times. EPA also
notes that vessel owner/operators of vessels less than 79 feet that
have less than 8 cubic meters of ballast water may choose whether they
wish to seek coverage under the sVGP or the VGP. The PARI form would
document under which permit the owner/operator has sought coverage.
    The discharges covered in the draft sVGP are categorized into
several broad categories listed in the permit. The management
categories regulated under the draft sVGP are divided into general
requirements, fuel management, engine and oil control, solid and liquid
waste management, deck washdown and runoff and above water line hull
cleaning, vessel hull maintenance, graywater management, fish hold
effluent management, and ballast water management. Additionally, vessel
owner/operators would be required to comply with practices to reduce
pollutant concentrations in their discharges.
    The draft sVGP includes non-numeric effluent limits in the form of
Best Management Practices (BMPs), which were developed for these
discharges because EPA has determined that it is infeasible to
calculate numeric effluent limits at this time. The BMPs are designed
to minimize the amount of any discharge produced as well as reduce the
likelihood the discharge would enter a waterbody. In addition to
required

BMPs, the permit includes a section of encouraged BMPs. EPA believes
that for most small vessel discharges, minimization of pollutants in
those discharges can be achieved without using highly engineered,
complex treatment systems.

C. Draft Permit Provisions on Which EPA Is Specifically Soliciting
Comment

    While EPA encourages the public to review and comment on all
aspects and provisions of the draft permits, EPA has included in the
body of the draft VGP and sVGP several specific requests for comment on
draft conditions. Note that in many places in this notice and the fact
sheet for the draft permit, EPA requests comments on specific aspects
of today's draft permit; these specific solicitations are meant to
highlight for commenters areas on which they may wish to focus, most
often because they involve provisions not contained in the 2008 VGP.
They should not be interpreted as discouraging comment on other
provisions of the draft permit. The following list summarizes many of
these conditions and the nature of the Agency's specific request for
comment, and indicates where they are included in the proposed permit:
    1. A four year permit term for the VGP, specifically, what are the
merits of a four year permit term instead of the standard five year
permit term? See Section 2.4 of the VGP fact sheet.
    2. The approach of not requiring vessels that are smaller than 300
gross tons, and do not have the capacity to carry more than 8 cubic
meters (2113 gallons) of ballast water to submit an NOI. See Part
<IP_ADDRESS> of the VGP and Section 3.7.1 of the VGP fact sheet.
    3. The requirement that vessel owner/operators that are not
required to submit NOIs must complete, sign and maintain onboard the
VGP PARI Form contained in Appendix K of the permit. See Part <IP_ADDRESS>
of the VGP and Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the VGP fact sheet.
    4. The inclusion of revised language in the proposed VGP regarding
what may constitute new information with respect to ballast water
discharges for the purposes of potentially modifying the permit during
its term (the ``reopener'' provision). See Part 1.9.1 of the VGP and
Section 3.11 of the VGP fact sheet.
    5. Whether the controls in this permit represent the BPT, BCT and
BAT levels of control. If commenters believe that the proposed controls
do not, or that other controls would better represent the BPT, BCT or
BAT levels of control, explicitly provide data and information about
the applicability of such controls to all types of commercial vessels
in all weather/operating situations, and the costs and non-water
quality environmental impacts, including energy impacts, of such
options. See Part 2.1 of the VGP and Section 4.2. of the VGP fact
sheet.
    6. The requirement that vessel owner/operators must outline their
training plans in their recordkeeping documentation to show they have
made good faith efforts to assure their crews can adequately maintain
and use pollution prevention equipment and otherwise meet the terms of
this permit. See Part 4.2 of the VGP and Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the VGP
fact sheet.
    7. Whether to include more stringent bilgewater requirements for
new build vessels and whether to provide existing vessels with
additional bilgewater management options in the final VGP. See Part
2.2.2 of the VGP and Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the VGP fact sheet.
    8. Whether ballast water management plans should be made available
to the public, considering any benefits that might accrue from making
the plans available to the public and any increases in administrative
burdens on both permittees and the Agency that might result from such a
requirement. See Part <IP_ADDRESS> of the VGP and Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the VGP
fact sheet.
    9. Whether additional management measures which reduce risks at
various stages of ballasting are appropriate to include in the final
VGP. Specifically, what additional management measures the VGP should
include, costs associated with those measures, and how well those
measures reduce the risk from ballast water discharges. Also, any
additional measures discussed by the NAS (2011) or SAB (2011) reports
that EPA should consider incorporating in this permit. Please submit
any data or other information supporting your recommendations. See Part
<IP_ADDRESS> of the VGP and Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the VGP fact sheet.
    10. The appropriateness of the biocide discharge limits, in
particular, whether the limit for peracetic acid is adequately
protective of coldwater environments. See Part <IP_ADDRESS>.<IP_ADDRESS> of the
VGP and Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1.1.4 of the VGP fact sheet.
    11. The approach of requiring owner/operators of ballast water
treatment systems which use a biocide or biocide derivative that is not
specifically authorized by the VGP to notify EPA at least 120 days in
advance of its use, and the option of conducting whole effluent
toxicity testing for those biocides or biocide derivatives that are not
specifically authorized in the VGP in lieu of notification. See Part
<IP_ADDRESS>.<IP_ADDRESS> of the VGP and Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1.1.6 of the VGP fact
sheet.
    12. Whether the use of potable water generated by shipboard
treatment systems on vessels which use small quantities of ballast
water, for example utilizing potable water ballast to offset fuel
consumption on research vessels, is an appropriate approach to meeting
the numeric technology-based effluent limits of the 2013 VGP. See Part
<IP_ADDRESS>.1.3 of the VGP and Section <IP_ADDRESS>.3 of the VGP fact sheet.
    13. New definition of ``short distance voyage.'' Are these the
appropriate definitions of such a voyage? Are these definitions
workable for vessel operators? Are there alternative suggestions? For
instance, is there an existing approach to defining geographic
boundaries based upon ecological criteria which would be appropriate?
If so, why are these appropriate? Please provide any supporting data
and rationale with your comments. See Part <IP_ADDRESS>.3.1 of the VGP and
Section <IP_ADDRESS>.6.1 of the VGP fact sheet.
    14. Whether unmanned, unpowered barges have technologies available
to meet numeric ballast water treatment limits. Also, any information
about how these vessels utilize ballast water, and whether the Agency's
understanding of their ballasting patterns is correct. See Part
<IP_ADDRESS>.3.2 of the VGP and Section <IP_ADDRESS>.6.2 of the VGP fact sheet.
    15. Whether ``existing confined Lakers'' built before January 1,
2009 that operate exclusively in the Great Lakes upstream of the
Welland Canal should be required to use a ballast water treatment
system to meet the ballast water discharge standards found in this
permit under the implementation schedule. The applicability and
availability of ballast water treatment systems for existing confined
Lakers built before January 1, 2009. Given the constraints noted by the
SAB, can the confined Lakers implement the technologies evaluated by
the SAB? Are there unique technologies that are available or that would
potentially be available during the permit term for the confined
Lakers? Are there other treatment technologies and/or methods that can
be implemented by confined Lakers that can reliably treat ballast water
to reduce the concentration of living organisms upon discharge? Please
provide appropriate supporting documentation, including applicable data
and sources for your information. See Part <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>.3.3 of
the VGP and Section <IP_ADDRESS>.6.3 of the VGP fact sheet.
    16. The appropriateness of the technology-based ballast water
controls

proposed in this VGP, and whether there are data sources which indicate
that certain ballast water treatment systems reliably exceed the limits
established in this permit. Whether the numeric discharge limits can be
applied to those vessel classes to which, under the proposed VGP, such
limits would not apply. See Part <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>.3 of the VGP and
Sections <IP_ADDRESS>.6 and <IP_ADDRESS>.7 of the VGP fact sheet.
    17. The appropriateness of including alternative treatment limits
used by other regulatory agencies, specifically limits promulgated by
the State of California and whether the numeric limits for ballast
water discharges from the Performance Standards for the Discharge of
Ballast Water For Vessels Operating in California Waters, California
Code of Regulations Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.7
sections 2293-2294 as codified as of March 4, 2011, should be included
in the final VGP. As discussed in VGP fact sheet in Section <IP_ADDRESS>.8,
those limits are:
    (a) No detectable living organisms that are greater than 50
micrometers in minimum dimension;
    (b) Less than 0.01 living organisms per milliliter that are less
than 50 micrometers in minimum dimension and more than 10 micrometers
in minimum dimension;
    (c) For living organisms that are less than 10 micrometers in
minimum dimension:
    (1) Less than 1,000 bacteria per 100 milliliter;
    (2) Less than 10,000 viruses per 100 milliliter;
    (3) Concentrations of microbes that are less than:
    (A) 126 colony forming units per 100 milliliters of Escherichia
coli;
    (B) 33 colony forming units per 100 milliliters of Intestinal
enterococci; and
    (C) 1 colony forming unit per 100 milliliters or 1 colony forming
unit per gram of wet weight of zoological samples of Toxicogenic Vibrio
cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139).
    See Section <IP_ADDRESS>.7 of the VGP fact sheet.
    18. The requirement for vessels entering the Great Lakes from
freshwater and brackish ecosystems to conduct ballast water exchange or
saltwater flushing in addition to treatment with a ballast water
treatment system. Also, whether BWE should be required for all vessels
entering the Great Lakes that are subject to the numeric TBEL,
regardless of origin, whether this requirement should be considered for
other freshwater destinations in U.S. waters, and/or whether this
requirement should be considered for other destinations in U.S. waters,
regardless of whether those vessels took on ballast water from
saltwater or freshwater ports. See Part <IP_ADDRESS> of the VGP and Section
<IP_ADDRESS>.4.2 of the VGP fact sheet.
    19. EPA's determination, including the detailed explanation, that
water quality-based effluent limits for ballast water discharges are
infeasible to calculate at this time. See Section <IP_ADDRESS>.4.1 of the
VGP fact sheet.
    20. Inclusion of factors associated with electronic recordkeeping
to ensure that records created and/or maintained in such systems are
readable and legally dependable with no less evidentiary value than
their paper equivalent and the implementation guidance provided in the
fact sheet. See Part 4.2.1 of the VGP and Section 6.3.1 of the VGP fact
sheet.
    21. The authorization to combine the annual report for unmanned,
unpowered barges because many of these vessels are fundamentally
similar and have a limited number of discharges. Specifically, EPA is
seeking comment on whether there are any other categories of vessels
for which owner/operators should be allowed to submit a combined annual
report instead of the annual report for each of their vessels. Please
submit specific information as to why such an approach is appropriate
for certain vessel types. See Part 4.4.2 and Section 6.4.2 of the VGP
fact sheet.
    22. Several new definitions, including ``biodegradable,''
``environmental acceptable lubricants,'' and ``voyage.'' See Appendix A
of the VGP and Section 9 of the VGP fact sheet.
    23. The approach that allows vessels which have 8 or more cubic
meters of ballast water capacity, but which do not discharge ballast
water, to maintain coverage under the sVGP. Additionally, EPA is
seeking comment on whether larger or smaller volumes of ballast water
discharge should be regulated under the sVGP and whether additional
best management practices should be required for these small volumes of
ballast water from sVGP vessels. Please submit any supporting
information, data sources, and rationale. See Part 2.9 of the sVGP and
Section 4.9 of the sVGP fact sheet.
    24. Definition section as a whole in the sVGP and the specific
definitions contained therein. See Part 6 of the sVGP and Section 8 of
the sVGP fact sheet.

D. Analysis of Economic Impacts of the Draft VGP and the Draft sVGP

    EPA performed an economic analysis for both the draft VGP and draft
sVGP to evaluate the incremental costs of requirements in each permit.
Both of these analyses are available in the docket for today's permits.
A summary of each follows.
    1. Analysis of draft VGP costs. EPA estimates that approximately
60,000 domestic flag and 12,400 foreign flag vessels would be covered
under the draft VGP, but only a subset of these vessels would incur
incremental costs as a result of the revised VGP requirements. To
estimate the effect of revised permit requirements on an industry as a
whole, EPA's VGP analysis takes into account previous conditions and
determines how the industry would act in the future in the absence of
revised Permit requirements. The baseline for this analysis is full
industry compliance with existing federal and state regulations,
including the 2008 VGP in the case of vessels currently covered by the
permit; and current industry practices or standards that exceed current
regulations to the extent that they can be empirically observed. In
addition, a number of laws and associated regulations (including the
National Invasive Species Act; the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships;
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act; the Organotin Anti-fouling Paint Control Act; and others) already
cover certain discharges that would be subject to the new permitting
regime. The overlap between revised permit requirements and existing
regulations and practices is discussed at greater length in the
economic analysis.
    EPA estimated compliance costs to commercial vessels associated
with each of the permit's practices and discharge categories identified
and the paperwork burden costs. Incremental costs are understood to
result from the inclusion of all commercial fishing vessels 79 feet or
larger under the VGP As noted above, the moratorium on coverage for
commercial fishing vessels and vessels less than 79 feet expires on
December 18, 2013. Commercial fishing vessels 79 feet or larger will be
covered by this permit, and most non-recreational vessels less than 79
feet, including commercial fishing vessels, are expected to be covered
by the Small Vessel General Permit, and from revised, more stringent
requirements for certain discharge categories and practices. Changes in
compliance costs also result from streamlining selected requirements,
which is expected to reduce compliance costs for owners of certain
vessels. Overall, EPA finds that revisions in the VGP requirements
could result in aggregate annual incremental costs for domestic vessels
ranging between $6.5 and $20.9 million (2010). This includes the
paperwork burden

costs and the sum of all practices for applicable discharge categories
for all vessels estimated to be covered by the revised VGP. The ballast
water provisions of this permit for domestically flagged vessels are
expected to cost between $1.1 and $2.5 million annually (excluding the
cost of purchasing and maintaining a ballast water treatment system:
see Section 4.4.3 of this fact sheet and part 4.2.3 of the economic and
benefits analysis prepared for this permit for additional discussion).
The average per vessel cost ranges from $26 to $3,933. There is
considerable uncertainty in the assumptions used for several practices
and discharge categories and these estimates therefore provide
illustrative ranges of the costs potentially associated with the 2013
rather than incremental costs incurred by any given vessel owner.
    To evaluate economic impacts of revised VGP requirements on the
water transportation, fishing, and mining industries, EPA performed a
firm-level analysis. The firm-level analysis examines the impact of any
incremental cost per vessel to comply with the revised VGP requirements
on model firms that represent the financial conditions of ``typical''
businesses in each of the examined industry sectors. More than ninety
percent of the firms in the water transportation and fishing
industries, and in the drilling oil and gas wells segment of the mining
industry, are small, and EPA believes it is unlikely that firm-level
impacts would be significant among large firms in this industry.
Therefore, a firm-level analysis focuses on assessment of impacts on
small businesses. To evaluate the potential impact of the Vessel
General Permit on small entities, EPA used a cost-to-revenue test to
evaluate the potential severity of economic impact on vessels and
facilities owned by small entities. The test calculates annualized pre-
tax compliance cost as a percentage of total revenues and uses a
threshold of 1 and 3 percent to identify facilities that would be
significantly impacted as a result of this Permit.
    EPA applied a cost-to-revenue test which calculates annualized pre-
tax compliance cost as a percentage of total revenues and used a
threshold of 1 and 3% to identify entities that would be significantly
impacted as a result of this Permit. The total number of entities
expected to exceed a 1% cost ratio ranges from 52 under low cost
assumptions to 360 under high cost assumptions. Of this universe, the
total number of entities expected to exceed a 3% cost ratio ranges from
0 under low cost assumptions to 11 under high cost assumptions. This is
based out of 5,480 total small firms. Accordingly, EPA concludes that
this permit will not, if issued result in a significant economic impact
on any businesses, and in particular, small businesses.
    2. Analysis of draft sVGP costs. EPA estimates that between 115,000
and 138,000 vessels are potentially affected by the draft sVGP
requirements. The establishments that own and operate vessels that will
be subject to the sVGP are primarily associated with the fishing and
water transportation industries, and with the oil and gas sector within
the mining industry. To estimate the effect of sVGP requirements on an
industry as a whole, EPA's analysis takes into account previous
conditions and determines how the industry would act in the future in
the absence of Permit requirements. The baseline for this analysis is
full industry compliance with existing federal and state regulations
and with current industry practices or standards that exceed current
regulations to the extent that they can be empirically observed. EPA
estimated potential compliance costs to vessels associated with each of
the practices and discharge categories identified in the sVGP, and with
the inspection and recordkeeping requirements. Overall, EPA finds that
sVGP requirements could result in total annual incremental costs for
domestic vessels ranging between $7.0 million and $12.1 million
(2010$), in the aggregate. This includes the paperwork burden costs and
the sum of all practices for applicable discharge categories. Per
vessel incremental compliance costs average between $17 and $98 per
year, depending on the number of applicable discharge categories and
baseline practices. As with the VGP economic analysis, EPA evaluated
economic impacts of sVGP requirements on the affected industries, and
performed a firm-level analysis. Since nearly all firms in the affected
industries are small, the firm-level analysis focuses on assessment of
impacts on small businesses. Further, given the distribution of revenue
among firms in the affected industry sectors which suggests a
relatively greater potential for impacts to small firms in the
commercial fishing industry, EPA looked more specifically at this
industry when assessing the significance of impacts. As with the VGP,
to evaluate the potential impact of the sVGP on small entities, EPA
used a cost-to-revenue test to evaluate the potential severity of
economic impact on vessels and facilities owned by small entities. The
test calculates annualized pre-tax compliance cost as a percentage of
total revenues and uses a threshold of 1 and 3 percent to identify
facilities that would be significantly impacted as a result of this
Permit. Based on this firm-level analysis, EPA concludes that the sVGP
will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities based on information showing that
few firms have revenue below those where the compliance costs would
exceed the one percent cost-to-revenue threshold under high end cost
assumptions.
    3. Benefits of the draft VGP and draft sVGP. Although EPA was
unable to evaluate the expected benefits of the permits in dollar terms
due to data limitations, the Agency collected and considered relevant
information to enable qualitative consideration of ecological benefits
and to assess the importance of the ecological gains from the
revisions. EPA expects that reductions in vessel discharges will
benefit society in two broad categories: (1) Enhanced water quality
from reduced pollutant discharges and (2) reduced risk of invasive
species introduction.
    Because many of the nation's busiest ports are considered to be
impaired by a variety of pollutants found in vessel discharges,
reducing pollutant loadings from these discharges is expected to have
benefits associated with the reduction of concentrations of nutrients,
metals, oil, grease, and toxics in waters with high levels of vessel
traffic.

E. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993))
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.

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

    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Ira W. Leighton,
Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    Dated: November 30, 2011.
John Filippelli,
Acting Division Director, Division of Environmental Planning and
Protection, EPA Region 2.
    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Jos[eacute] C. Font,
Acting Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA
Region 2.
    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3.
    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Douglas F. Mundrick,
Deputy Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 4.
    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Timothy C. Henry,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.
    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Troy C. Hill,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.
    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Karen Flournoy,
Director, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, EPA Region 7.
    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Stephen S. Tuber,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory
Assistance, EPA Region 8.
    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Alexis Strauss,
Director Water Division, EPA Region 9.
    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Michael A. Bussell,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2011-31576 Filed 12-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48844]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19482]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010; FRL-9845-7]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill (MRSL)
Superfund Site (Site) located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County,
Oklahoma, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
The EPA and the State of Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ), have determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1990-0010, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email: Michael Torres; Remedial Project Manager;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: Michael Torres, Remedial Project Manager (RPM): 214-
665-6660
     Mail: Michael Torres, RPM, US-EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Mail Code 6FS-RL, Dallas, Texas 75202
     Hand delivery: Michael Torres, RPM, US-EPA Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue, 7th floor, Dallas, Texas 75202. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1990-0010. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the 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 email. 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 email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 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.
    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 statue. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
    ODEQ Central Records,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 707 N Robinson, Oklahoma City,
OK 73102, office hours: 8:00 to 4:30 Monday through Friday.
    Ralph Ellison Library,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 2000 NE 23rd Street, Oklahoma
City, OK 73111, hours: 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday,
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Torres, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 6SF-RL, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' Section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of
Deletion of the MRSL Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent to
Delete because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and
anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this
deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion, and
those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse
comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further action on
this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we
will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take
effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a
subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to
Delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of
Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at
this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion
which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: August 1, 2013.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA-Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-19482 Filed 8-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 157 (Friday, August 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48953-48954]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20168]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2015-49]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Lockheed
Martin Corporation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before September 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-3257
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thuy H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER> Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-3257.
    Petitioner: Lockheed Martin Corporation.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 91.121.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner seeks an exemption to
operate its small unmanned aircraft system less than 1,000 feet above
ground level.

[FR Doc. 2015-20168 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P