[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 193 (Thursday, October 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50646-50651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-24904]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7071-9]


Notice of Proposed NPDES General Permit for Egg Production 
Operations in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and on Indian Lands in New Mexico 
and Oklahoma NMG800000 and OKG800000

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of draft NPDES general permits.

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

SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 is proposing to issue a general NPDES permit 
regulating discharges, or potential discharges, from egg production 
operations (EPOs). The United Egg Producers (UEP), a farmer cooperative 
that represents egg producers nationwide, has entered into an XL 
project agreement with EPA. This XL project will allow eligible EPOs to 
obtain permit coverage under a general permit, as an incentive for the 
industry's large producers to maintain environmentally superior 
facilities, if they implement a multi-media environmental management 
system (EMS). An EMS controls a range of significant environmental 
impacts including those not subject to regulation under the Clean Water 
Act, such as odor and pest control. Facilities that do not continue to 
comply with their general permit or do not adequately implement their 
EMS could be required to obtain individual NPDES permits. The project 
also includes a third-party auditing component and on-farm management 
practices most likely to result in superior environmental performance. 
Each facility's EMS will be required to pass the independent third-
party audit before the facility can apply for coverage under the 
general permit.

DATES: Comments on this proposed permit must be submitted by December 
3, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed permit should be sent to the 
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 
75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Diane Smith, EPA Region 6, 1445 
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-2145. Copies 
of the complete fact sheet and proposed permit may be obtained from Ms. 
Smith. The fact sheet and proposed permit can also be found on the 
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/6wq.htm. In addition, the 
current administrative record on the proposal is available for 
examination at the Region's Dallas offices during normal working hours 
after providing Ms. Smith 24 hours advanced notice.

Public Meetings

    Public meetings on the proposed permit will be held at the 
locations listed below. The public meetings will include a presentation 
on the draft permit and a question and answer session. Written, but not 
oral, comments for the official permit record will be accepted at the 
public meetings.

Albuquerque, NM: November 1, 2001, 7 p.m. at the Albuquerque Technical 
Vocational Institute Workforce Training Center, Conference Room 106, 
5600 Eagle Rock Ave. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113.
Oklahoma City, OK: November 7, 2001, 7 p.m; at the Metro Tech Business 
Conference Center, Big Dipper Conference Room, 1900 Springlake Drive, 
Oklahoma City, OK 73111.

Public Hearings

    EPA has not scheduled any public hearings to receive public comment 
concerning today's proposal. All persons will continue to have the 
right to provide written comments at any time during the public comment 
period. However, interested persons may request a public hearing 
pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12 concerning the proposed permit. Requests for 
a public hearing must be sent or delivered in writing to the same 
address as provided above for public comments prior to the close of the 
comment period. Requests for a public hearing must state the nature of 
the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. Pursuant to 40 CFR 
124.12, EPA shall hold a public hearing if it finds, on the basis of 
requests, a significant degree of public interest in the proposed 
permit. If EPA decides to hold a public hearing, a public notice of the 
date, time and place of the hearing will be made at least 30 days prior 
to the hearing. Any person may provide written or oral statements and 
data pertaining to the proposed permit at the public hearing.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............................  Operators of egg production
                                          operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your (facility, company, business, organization, etc.) is regulated by 
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 
part I, section A.1 of this permit. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act), 33 U.S.C. 
1311(a), makes it unlawful to discharge pollutants to waters of the 
United States in the absence of authorizing permits. CWA section 402, 
33 U.S.C. 1342, authorizes EPA to issue National Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permits allowing discharges on condition they will meet 
certain requirements, including CWA sections 301, 304, and 401 (33 
U.S.C. 1331, 1314 and 1341). Those statutory provisions require that 
NPDES permits include effluent limitations requiring that authorized 
discharges: (1) meet standards reflecting levels of technological 
capability, (2) comply with EPA-approved state water quality standards 
and (3) comply with other state requirements adopted under authority 
retained by states under CWA 510, 33 U.S.C. 1370.

A. National Technology Guidelines

    National guidelines establishing Best Available Technology (BAT) 
and New Source Performance Standards have been promulgated for certain 
sizes and types of facilities in the Feedlots Point Source Category and 
are codified at 40 CFR part 412. For laying hen operations, these 
guidelines apply to facilities having the capacity for 100,000 or more 
laying hens when the facility has unlimited continuous flow watering 
systems, and facilities having the capacity for 30,000 or more laying 
hens when the facility has liquid manure handling systems. The 
facilities potentially eligible to participate in this XL project have 
neither unlimited continuous flow watering systems nor liquid manure 
handling systems. These facilities have dry manure storage and

[[Page 50647]]

handling systems and do not use unlimited continuous flow watering 
systems. There are, therefore, no guidelines establishing BAT and New 
Source Performance Standards for the facilities potentially eligible 
for participation in this XL project, so these facilities will not meet 
the definition of new source in 40 CFR 122.2.

B. Project XL

    Project XL, which stands for ``eXcellence and Leadership,'' is a 
national initiative that tests innovative ways of achieving better and 
more cost-effective public health and environmental protection. The 
information and lessons learned from Project XL are being used to 
assist EPA in redesigning its current regulatory and policy-setting 
approaches. Project XL encourages testing of cleaner, cheaper, and 
smarter ways to attain environmental results superior to those achieved 
under current regulations and policies, in conjunction with greater 
accountability to stakeholders. It is vital that each project tests new 
ideas with the potential for wide application and broad environmental 
benefits.

C. United Egg Producers XL Project

    The United Egg Producers (UEP), a farmer cooperative that 
represents egg producers nationwide, has entered into an XL project 
agreement with EPA to provide a comprehensive program to bring egg-
producing facilities under NPDES permits faster, and help participating 
egg-producing facilities achieve superior environmental performance by 
implementing an environmental management system (EMS). This XL project 
allows these facilities to obtain permit coverage under a less costly 
and complex mechanism; i.e., a general permit and an EMS-based program 
tailored to the needs of the egg-laying industry, as an incentive for 
the industry's large producers to maintain environmentally superior 
facilities and practices. Facilities that do not continue to comply 
with their general permit or do not adequately implement their EMS 
could be required to obtain individual NPDES permits. This project was 
developed by a workgroup comprised of EPA, UEP members, several states, 
non-governmental organizations, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. The 
XL project final agreement was signed on October 25, 2000.
    The XL project agreement requires participating facilities not only 
to comply with the terms of an NPDES general permit, but also to 
implement a multi-media EMS that controls a range of significant 
environmental impacts including those not subject to regulation under 
the Clean Water Act, such as odor and pest control. The project also 
includes a third-party auditing component and on-farm management 
practices most likely to result in superior environmental performance. 
Each facility's EMS will be required to pass the independent third-
party audit before the facility can apply for coverage under the 
general permit. Information on audit results will be provided to the 
appropriate regulatory authorities and will be available to local 
stakeholders. Ongoing audits will be conducted to ensure continuing 
implementation of the EMS, and audit results will be available to the 
public.

D. Requirements for Obtaining Coverage

    Owners/operators of EPOs seeking to be covered by the permit 
general permit must submit: (1) A notice of intent (NOI) to be covered 
by this permit; (2) evidence that the EPO has developed and implemented 
an EMS consistent with the guidelines set forth in the permit; (3) the 
results of a successful audit conducted by an independent third party 
for the purpose of applying for this permit; and (4) evidence that the 
EPO: Has placed a notice in the local newspaper that indicates the EPO 
has passed the audit and intends to submit the NOI, has sent the notice 
directly to local stakeholders, and has established a point of contact 
at the facility for public inquiries. Owners/operators of new EPOs must 
submit an NOI, have a complete comprehensive nutrient management plan 
(CNMP) and an EMS 180 days prior to commencement of operation.

E. Egg Producing Operations Not Eligible for Coverage

    The following EPOs are not eligible for coverage under this NPDES 
general permit:
    1. EPOs that have failed an audit by an independent third party or 
been notified by EPA to apply for an individual NPDES permit.
    2. EPOs that have been notified by EPA that they are ineligible for 
coverage because of a past history of non-compliance.
    3. New and/or significantly expanding EPOs that apply manure and/or 
wastewater to lands that are adjacent to bodies that are listed under 
the Clean Water Act, section 303(d), as impaired due to inadequate 
oxygen, excessive nutrients, suspended solids, turbidity and/or 
pathogens and are notified by the EPA to apply for an individual NPDES 
permit. A significantly expanding EPO means one which meets the 
criteria of 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1)(i), (ii) and/or (iii); although, as 
discussed above, such facilities do not meet the definition of new 
source in 40 CFR 122.2.
    4. EPOs which have liquid manure handling systems and/or unlimited 
continuous flow watering systems.
    5. Facilities which adversely affect properties listed or eligible 
for listing in the National Register of Historical Places.

F. Effluent Limitations

    The following effluent limitations apply to EPOs covered under this 
general permit, and cover both the production and the land application 
areas under the control of the EPO:
    1. Production Areas: There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to waters of the United States, except when a 
catastrophic rainfall event causes an overflow of process wastewater 
from a facility properly designed, constructed, maintained, and 
operated to contain:
    a. All process generated wastewater resulting from the operation of 
the EPO; plus,
    b. All runoff from a 25 year, 24-hour rainfall event for the 
location of the EPO.
    2. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants 
from retention or control structures to groundwater that has a direct 
hydrologic connection to waters of the United States.
    3. Land Application Area: For discharges associated with land 
application of process wastewater and/or manure under the control of 
the EPO operator, including discharges to groundwater that has a direct 
hydrologic connection to waters of the United States:
    a. The EPO must ensure that such activities comply with the 
requirements of Minimum Standard 9 (see section G.9, below).
    b. There shall be no discharge of manure and/or process wastewater 
from land application areas.

G. Minimum Standards to Protect Water Quality in NPDES Permits for 
EPOs

    Each of the following minimum standards is designed to achieve the 
objective of preventing discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. 
and from land application activities under the operational control of 
the EPO. Minimum requirements or portions of minimum requirements that 
must be implemented on the effective date of the permit are identified 
with an asterisk (*).

[[Page 50648]]

1. Minimum Standard--Buffers or Equivalent Practices

    Provide and maintain buffer strips or other equivalent practices 
near the animal confinement areas, manure storage areas, and land 
application areas that are sufficient to minimize the discharge of 
pollutants to waters of the U.S. (e.g., soil erosion and manure and 
wastewater). These practices may include but are not limited to: 
residue management, conservation crop rotation, grassed waterways, 
strip cropping, vegetative buffers, terracing, and diversion.

2. Minimum Standard--Divert Clean Water

    * Design and implement management practices to divert clean water 
and runoff waters from contact with the animal confinement areas; 
animal manure; or manure and/or process wastewater storage systems. 
Clean water and runoff waters includes rain falling on the roofs of 
facilities, runoff from adjacent land, or other sources.

3. Minimum Standard--Prevent Direct Contact of Animals With Waters of 
the U.S.

    * Develop and implement appropriate controls to prevent direct 
access of animals in confinement to waters of the U.S. to protect water 
quality.

4. Minimum Standard--Animal Mortality

    * Handle and dispose of dead animals in a manner that prevents 
contamination of surface waters of the U.S. (including contamination of 
groundwater with a direct hydrological connection to surface waters).

5. Minimum Standard--Chemical Disposal

    * Prevent introduction of chemicals into manure and wastewater 
storage structures for purposes of disposal. Examples include 
pesticides, hazardous and toxic chemicals, and petroleum products/by-
products.

6. Minimum Standard--Proper Operation and Maintenance

    * Implement an operation and maintenance program to minimize the 
discharges of pollutants to surface water and groundwater that is 
hydrologically connected to surface water that involves periodic visual 
inspection and maintenance of all manure storage and handling equipment 
and structures and all runoff management devices (e.g., cleaning 
separators, barnyards, catch basins, screens, annual testing and 
calibration of land application equipment to ensure proper application 
rates and maintenance of filter strips).

7. Minimum Standard--Recordkeeping and Testing

    * Maintain a log that documents the visual inspections, findings, 
preventative maintenance, testing, and calibration that has been 
performed.
    * Document the date, rate, location, types of crops, and methods 
used for application of manure and wastewater, as well as other 
nutrients, to land under the control of the EPO operator.
    Where manure and wastewater are not applied on land under the 
operational control of the EPO operator, maintain a record of the 
transfer of the manure off-site.
    * Record the results of annual manure and wastewater sampling to 
determine nutrient content.
    * Record the results of representative soil sampling and analyses 
conducted at least every three years to determine nutrient content.

8. Minimum Standard--Maintain Proper Storage Capacity

    * Maintain sufficient freeboard in liquid manure/wastewater storage 
structures to assure compliance with the permit conditions.
    * Store dry manure in production buildings or in storage facilities 
or in another as to prevent polluted runoff, (e.g, located on 
relatively flat land, away from waterbodies, wetlands and wells, and/or 
surrounded by a berm or buffer).
    Provide adequate storage capacity so that land application occurs 
only during periods when land or weather conditions are suitable for 
manure and wastewater application (see Minimum Standard #9, below).

9. Minimum Standard--Rates and Timing of Land Application of Manure and 
Wastewater

    * Land apply manure and/or wastewater in accordance with proper 
agricultural practices.
    Land apply manure and/or wastewater in accordance with land 
application rates developed on a site-specific basis as needed to 
protect water quality. At a minimum, land application rates should (1) 
prevent application of nutrients at rates that will exceed the capacity 
of the soil and the planned crops to assimilate nutrients and minimize 
water pollution; and (2) be quantified and based on the most limiting 
nutrient in the soil (e.g., phosphorus or nitrogen), type of crop, 
realistic crop yields, soil type, and all nutrient inputs in addition 
to those from manure and wastewater.
    Incorporate manure applied to the bare soil surface within 24 hours 
after land application.
    * Land application of manure and/or wastewater is prohibited on 
land that is flooded, saturated with water, frozen or snow covered 
(unless approved conservation measures of a certified CNMP are in place 
to prevent off-site movement of contaminated water) at the time of land 
application where the manure and/or wastewater may enter waters of the 
U.S.
    * Land application of manure and/or wastewater is prohibited on 
land with slopes greater than 6 per cent unless approved conservation 
measures of a certified CNMP are in place to prevent off-site movement 
of contaminated water.
    * Land application of manure and/or wastewater is prohibited during 
the period of November 15 through April 15 on land with slopes greater 
than 3 per cent unless approved conservation measures of a certified 
CNMP are in place to prevent off-site movement of contaminated water.
    *Land application of manure and/or wastewater is prohibited during 
rainfall events and for 24 hours prior to a 60 per cent forecasted 
rainfall event of \1/4\ inch or more.

H. Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP)

1. Elements of a CNMP

    Each EPO covered by this permit shall develop and implement a site-
specific CNMP that includes the following elements as appropriate to 
the needs and circumstances of the permitted facility: animal outputs; 
manure handling and storage; land application of manure and wastewater; 
site management; record keeping; and other manure and/or wastewater 
utilization options. The CNMP must be developed and implemented to meet 
all of the Minimum Standards to Protect Water Quality that are 
applicable to the permitted facility. The CNMP must be developed and 
implemented to meet the requirements of the CWA, current State and U.S. 
Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 
technical standards and NRCS's CNMP Technical guidance.

2. Schedule for Developing, Submitting, and Implementing a CNMP

    a. For existing EPO facilities--Following the submission of the 
NOI, any existing EPO covered by this NPDES general permit shall 
develop and implement a CNMP no later than 2 years after the effective 
date of this general permit. The permittee must

[[Page 50649]]

notify the permitting authority in writing within thirty days following 
the completed development of the site-specific CNMP.
    b. For EPO facilities constructed after the effective date of this 
permit--New EPOs must have developed a CNMP at least 180 days prior to 
commencement of operation.
    c. For existing EPOs having significant expansions, constructed 
after the effective date of this permit, a CNMP (or revised CNMP) 
addressing the expansion must be developed at least 180 days prior to 
commencement of operation of the expansion.

I. Management Practices

    1. Emergency Discharge Impact Abatement: Authorized discharges (see 
section F, Effluent Limitations, above) must, where practicable, be 
released to vegetated fields for filtering or captured in secondary 
containment to minimize discharge to waters of U.S.
    2. Irrigation Control: Irrigation systems shall be managed so as to 
reduce or minimize: (1) Ponding or puddling of wastewater on land 
application fields; and (2) contamination of ground and surface water.
    3. Spills: Appropriate measures necessary to prevent spills and to 
clean up spills of any toxic and other pollutants shall be taken. If 
possible spills are anticipated, materials handling procedures and 
storage must be specified in the CNMP. Procedures for cleaning up 
spills shall be identified, and the necessary equipment to implement 
clean up shall be made available to facility personnel. All spills 
resulting in actual or potential to discharge to waters of th U.S. must 
be reported to EPA and State/Indian Tribe authorities.
    4. Measurement of Rainfall: A rain gauge meeting National Weather 
Service standards or its equivalent shall be kept on site of all EPOs 
which collect egg wash wastewater in uncovered lagoons or basins or 
which practice land application of manure or egg wash wastewater. A log 
of all measurable rainfall events shall be kept by the EPO operator/
owner.
    5. Liner Requirement: Where a direct hydrologic connection through 
ground water exists, the ponds, lagoons and basins of the retention 
structure must have a liner which will prevent the potential 
contamination of surface waters.
    6. Employee Training: Where employees are responsible for work 
activities which relate to permit compliance, those employees must be 
regularly trained or informed of any information pertinent to the 
proper operation and maintenance of the facility and waste disposal. 
Training shall include topics as appropriate such as land application 
of wastes, proper operation and maintenance of the facility, good 
housekeeping and material management practices, necessary record-
keeping requirements, and spill response and clean up. The permittee is 
responsible for determining the appropriate training frequency for 
different levels of personnel and the CNMP shall identify periodic 
dates for such training. This training program must also be included in 
the EMS.
    7. Chemical Handling: The owner/operator shall prevent the 
discharge of pesticide-contaminated waters into retention structures. 
All wastes from dipping vats, pest and parasite control units, and 
other facilities utilized for the management of potentially hazardous 
or toxic chemicals shall be handled and disposed of in a manner such as 
to prevent pollutants from entering the retention structures or waters 
of the United States.
    8. Discharges of Chemicals to Containment Structures: All 
discharges to containment structures shall be composed entirely of 
wastewater from the proper operation and maintenance of an EPO and the 
precipitation runoff from the EPO areas. The disposal of any materials 
(other than materials and discharges associated with proper operation 
and maintenance of the EPO) into the containment structures is 
prohibited by this permit.
    9. Siting and Structural Integrity: Site and construct new 
facilities so as to comply with applicable State and/or local 
requirements. In the absence of applicable State and/or local 
requirements, new facilities must be constructed to meet NRCS, ASCS, or 
equivalent engineering and construction standards. Existing facilities 
must be checked and maintained to ensure their structural integrity, 
and that they are appropriately sized for egg-producing operations.
    10. Facility Closure: The following conditions shall apply to the 
closure of egg washing storage structures and other litter and 
wastewater facilities:
    a. Closure of Egg Washing Wastewater Storage Structures
    No egg washing wastewater storage structure shall be permanently 
abandoned without proper closure.
    Egg washing wastewater storage structures shall be maintained at 
all times until closed in compliance with this section.
    Egg washing wastewater storage structures must be properly closed 
if the permittee ceases operation. In addition, any egg washing 
wastewater storage structure that is not in use for a period of twelve 
consecutive months must be properly closed unless the facility is 
financially viable, intends to resume use of the structure at a later 
date, and either: (1) maintains the structure as though it were 
actively in use, to prevent compromise of structural integrity; or (2) 
removes manure and wastewater to a depth of one foot or less and 
maintains a depth of wastewater sufficient to preserve the integrity of 
the synthetic or earthen liner. In either case, the permittee shall 
notify the EPA of the action taken, and shall conduct routine 
inspections, maintenance, and record-keeping as though the structure 
were in use. Prior to restoration of use of the structure, the 
permittee shall notify the EPA and provide the opportunity for 
inspection.
    All closure of lagoons and other earthen or synthetic lined basins 
must be consistent with NRCS standards (currently, Field Technical 
Guide No. 998, Interim Standard for Closure of Abandoned Waste 
Treatment Lagoons and Waste Storage Ponds). Consistent with NRCS 
standards, the permittee shall remove all waste materials to the 
maximum extent practicable and dispose of them in accordance with the 
permittee's CNMP, unless otherwise authorized by the EPA. If the 
permittee plans to land apply lagoon sludge, the CNMP should have 
special conditions for such application based on the most limiting 
contaminant in the waste.
    Unless otherwise authorized by the EPA, completion of closure for 
egg washing wastewater storage structures shall occur as promptly as 
practicable after the permittee ceases to operate or, if the permittee 
has not ceased operations, 12 months from the date on which the use of 
the structure ceased, unless the lagoons or basins are being maintained 
for possible future use in accordance with the requirements above.
    b. Closure Procedures for Manure and Other Wastewater Facilities
    No manure or other wastewater control and retention structure shall 
be abandoned. Closure of all such structures shall occur as promptly as 
practicable after the permittee has ceased to operate, or, if the 
permittee has not ceased to operate, within 12 months after the date on 
which the use of the structure ceased. To close a manure or wastewater 
control and retention structure, the permittee shall remove all manure 
and wastewater and dispose of it in accordance with the permittee's 
CNMP, unless otherwise authorized by the EPA.

[[Page 50650]]

Other Legal Requirements

A. State Certification

    Under section 401(a)(1) of the Act, EPA may not issue an NPDES 
permit until the State in which the discharge will originate grants or 
waives certification to ensure compliance with appropriate requirements 
of the Act and State law. Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Act requires that 
NPDES permits contain conditions that ensure compliance with applicable 
state water quality standards or limitations. The proposed permit 
contains limitations and requirements intended to ensure compliance 
with state water quality standards and has been determined by EPA 
Region 6 to be consistent with the applicable state's water quality 
standards and the corresponding implementation plans. The Region has 
solicited certification from the States of New Mexico, Oklahoma, and 
the Pueblos of Acoma, Isleta, Nambe, Picuris, Pojoaque, Sandia, San 
Juan, Santa Clara, and Tesuque.

B. Endangered Species Act

    EPA Region 6 has determined that issuance of this general permit is 
unlikely to adversely affect any threatened or endangered species or 
its critical habitat. EPA made this determination for the following 
reasons:
    The permit specifically excludes operations having either 
continuous overflow watering or liquid manure handling. EPOs covered by 
this permit must comply with the permit requirements which include a 
prohibition on discharges of process wastewater pollutants except 
during catastrophic rainfall events from properly designed, 
constructed, maintained and operated facilities. Discharges during 
chronic rainfall events are prohibited. These EPOs will also be subject 
to the numerous other requirements designed to assure proper operation 
of the animal confinement areas, storage facilities and unloading/
handling areas of manure or egg wash water. Additionally, the permit 
requirements will assure that manure and wastewater is properly applied 
at an agronomic rate to minimize the contamination of rainwater falling 
on the land application site. EPOs covered by this permit will be 
subject to the additional requirement to implement a multi-media 
environmental management system that controls a range of environmental 
impacts, including those not subject to regulation under the Clean 
Water Act, such as odor and pest control.
    EPA is seeking written concurrence from the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service on this determination.

C. Historic Preservation Act

    Facilities which adversely affect properties listed or eligible for 
listing in the National Register of Historical Places are not 
authorized to discharge under this permit.

D. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866)

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may have an annual effect 
on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities; create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or raise novel legal or policy issues arising out 
of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set 
forth in the Executive Order. EPA has determined that this general 
permit is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of 
Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to formal OMB review 
prior to proposal.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection required by this permit has been 
approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in submission made for the NPDES permit program 
and assigned OMB control numbers 2040-0086 (NPDES permit application) 
and 2040-0004 (discharge monitoring reports).

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that 
EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for regulations that have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As 
discussed below, the permit being proposed to be reissued is not a 
``rule'' subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. EPA prepared a 
regulatory flexibility analysis, however, on the promulgation of the 
Coastal Subcategory guidelines on which many of the permit's effluent 
limitations are based. That analysis shows that compliance with the 
permit requirements will not result in a significant impact on 
dischargers, including small businesses, covered by these permits. EPA 
Region 6 therefore concludes that the permits proposed today will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 
104-4, generally requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of 
their ``regulatory actions'' on State, local, and tribal governments 
and the private sector. UMRA uses the term ``regulatory actions'' to 
refer to regulations. (See, e.g., UMRA section 201, ``Each agency shall 
* * * assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions * * * (other 
than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements 
specifically set forth in law)'' (emphasis added)). UMRA section 102 
defines ``regulation'' by reference to section 658 of Title 2 of the 
U.S. Code, which in turn defines ``regulation'' and ``rule'' by 
reference to section 601(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). 
That section of the RFA defines ``rule'' as ``any rule for which the 
agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 
553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or any other law * * 
*''
    NPDES general permits are not ``rules'' under the APA and thus not 
subject to the APA requirement to publish a notice of proposed 
rulemaking. NPDES general permits are also not subject to such a 
requirement under the Clean Water Act (CWA). While EPA publishes a 
notice to solicit public comment on draft general permits, it does so 
pursuant to the CWA section 402(a) requirement to provide ``an 
opportunity for a hearing.'' Thus, NPDES general permits are not 
``rules'' for RFA or UMRA purposes.
    EPA thinks it is unlikely that this proposed permit issuance would 
contain a Federal requirement that might result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The Agency also 
believes that the proposed permit issuance would not significantly nor 
uniquely affect small governments. For UMRA purposes, ``small 
governments'' is defined by reference to the definition of ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' under the RFA. (See UMRA section 102(1), 
referencing 2

[[Page 50651]]

U.S.C. 658, which references section 601(5) of the RFA.) ``Small 
governmental jurisdiction'' means governments of cities, counties, 
towns, etc., with a population of less than 50,000, unless the agency 
establishes an alternative definition. The proposed permit issuance 
also would not uniquely affect small governments because compliance 
with the proposed permit conditions affects small governments in the 
same manner as any other entities seeking coverage under the permit.

    Dated: September 26, 2001.
Sam Becker,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 01-24904 Filed 10-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P