[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 41 (Monday, March 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12288-12295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04254]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372; FRL-10005-82-OW]


National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 2020 
Issuance of the Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges 
Associated with Industrial Activity

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: All ten of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Regions 
are proposing for public comment the 2020 National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for stormwater discharges 
associated with industrial activity, also referred to as the ``2020 
Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)'' or the ``proposed permit.'' The 
proposed permit, once finalized, will replace the EPA's existing MSGP 
that will expire on June 4, 2020. The EPA proposes to issue this permit 
for five (5) years, and to provide permit coverage to eligible 
operators in all areas of the country where the EPA is the NPDES 
permitting authority, including Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
and New Mexico, Indian country lands, Puerto Rico, the District of 
Columbia, and most U.S. territories and protectorates. The EPA seeks 
comment on the proposed permit and on the accompanying fact sheet, 
which contains supporting documentation. This Federal Register document 
describes the proposed permit and includes specific topics on which the 
EPA is particularly seeking comment. Where the EPA proposes a new or 
modified provision, the Agency also solicits comment on alternatives to 
the proposal and/or not moving forward with the proposal in the final 
permit. The EPA encourages the public to read the fact sheet to better 
understand the proposed permit. The proposed permit and fact sheet can 
be found at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-industrial-activities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 1, 2020. Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection 
provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) on or before April 1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-
2019-0372, by any of the following methods:

[[Page 12289]]

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Electronic versions of this proposed permit and fact sheet 
are available on the EPA's NPDES website at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-industrial-activities. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments.
    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2019-
0372 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for this 
proposed permit. Comments received may be posted without change to 
https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information, see the ``Public Participation'' heading of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the 
proposed permit, contact the appropriate EPA Regional office listed in 
Section I.F of this action, or Emily Halter, EPA Headquarters, Office 
of Water, Office of Wastewater Management (4203M), 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-3324; email 
address: halter.emily@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    This section is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How do I submit written comments?
    C. Will public hearings be held on this action?
    D. What process will the EPA follow to finalize the proposed 
permit?
    E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for the proposed permit?
II. Background of Permit
III. Summary of Proposed Permit
    A. 2015 MSGP Litigation and National Academies Study
    B. Summary of Proposed Permit Changes
    C. Other Requests for Comment
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
V. Cost Analysis
VI. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
VII. Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
VIII. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
IX. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The proposed permit covers stormwater discharges from industrial 
facilities in the 30 sectors shown below:

    Sector A--Timber Products.
    Sector B--Paper and Allied Products Manufacturing.
    Sector C--Chemical and Allied Products Manufacturing.
    Sector D--Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials Manufactures and 
Lubricant Manufacturers.
    Sector E--Glass, Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Product 
Manufacturing.
    Sector F--Primary Metals.
    Sector G--Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing).
    Sector H--Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related Facilities.
    Sector I--Oil and Gas Extraction.
    Sector J--Mineral Mining and Dressing.
    Sector K--Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage or Disposal.
    Sector L--Landfills and Land Application Sites.
    Sector M--Automobile Salvage Yards.
    Sector N--Scrap Recycling Facilities.
    Sector O--Steam Electric Generating Facilities.
    Sector P--Land Transportation.
    Sector Q--Water Transportation.
    Sector R--Ship and Boat Building or Repairing Yards.
    Sector S--Air Transportation Facilities.
    Sector T--Treatment Works.
    Sector U--Food and Kindred Products.
    Sector V--Textile Mills, Apparel, and other Fabric Products 
Manufacturing.
    Sector W--Furniture and Fixtures.
    Sector X--Printing and Publishing.
    Sector Y--Rubber, Miscellaneous Plastic Products, and 
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries.
    Sector Z--Leather Tanning and Finishing.
    Sector AA--Fabricated Metal Products.
    Sector AB--Transportation Equipment, Industrial or Commercial 
Machinery.
    Sector AC--Electronic, Electrical, Photographic and Optical 
Goods.
    Sector AD--Reserved for Facilities Not Covered Under Other 
Sectors and Designated by the Director.
    Coverage under the proposed 2020 MSGP is available to operators of 
eligible facilities located in areas where the EPA is the permitting 
authority. A list of eligible areas is included in Appendix C of the 
proposed 2020 MSGP.

B. How do I submit written comments?

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2019-
0372, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the 
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may 
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the 
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish 
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment 
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, 
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission 
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or 
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective 
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

C. Will public hearings be held on this action?

    The EPA has not scheduled any public hearings to receive public 
comment concerning the proposed permit. All persons will continue to 
have the right to provide written comments 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 and must state the nature of the issue the requester 
would like raised in the hearing. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12, the EPA 
shall hold a public hearing if it finds, on the basis of requests, a 
significant degree of public interest in a public hearing on the 
proposed permit. If the 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.

D. What process will the EPA follow to finalize the proposed permit?

    After the close of the public comment period, the EPA intends to 
issue a final permit. This permit will not be issued until all 
significant comments have been considered and appropriate changes have 
been made to the proposed permit. The EPA's responses to public 
comments received will be included in the docket as part of the final 
issuance. Once the final permit becomes effective, eligible operators 
of industrial facilities may seek authorization under the 2020 MSGP.

[[Page 12290]]

E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for the proposed permit?

    For the EPA Region 1, contact David Gray at: (617) 918-1577 or 
gray.davidj@epa.gov.
    For the EPA Region 2, contact Stephen Venezia at: (212) 637-3856 or 
venezia.stephen@epa.gov, or for Puerto Rico contact Sergio Bosques at: 
(787) 977-5838 or bosques.sergio@epa.gov.
    For the EPA Region 3, contact Carissa Moncavage at: (215) 814-5798 
or moncavage.carissa@epa.gov.
    For the EPA Region 4, contact Sam Sampath at: (404) 562-9229 or 
sampath.sam@epa.gov.
    For the EPA Region 5, contact Matthew Gluckman at: (312) 886-6089 
or gluckman.matthew@epa.gov.
    For the EPA Region 6, contact Nasim Jahan at: (214) 665-7522 or 
jahan.nasim@epa.gov.
    For the EPA Region 7, contact Mark Matthews at: (913) 551-7635 or 
matthews.mark@epa.gov.
    For the EPA Region 8, contact Amy Clark at: (303) 312-7014 or 
clark.amy@epa.gov.
    For the EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at: (415) 972-3510 or 
bromley.eugene@epa.gov.
    For the EPA Region 10, contact Margaret McCauley at: (206) 553-1772 
or mccauley.margaret@epa.gov.

II. Background of Permit

    Section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 added section 402(p) 
of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which directed the EPA to develop a 
phased approach to regulate stormwater discharges under the NPDES 
program. The EPA published a final regulation on the first phase on 
this program on November 16, 1990, establishing permit application 
requirements for ``stormwater discharges associated with industrial 
activity.'' See 55 FR 48063. The EPA defined the term ``stormwater 
discharge associated with industrial activity'' in a comprehensive 
manner to cover a wide variety of facilities. See 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). 
The EPA proposes to issue the MSGP under this statutory and regulatory 
authority.

III. Summary of Proposed Permit

    The proposed 2020 MSGP, once finalized, will replace the existing 
MSGP, which was issued for a five-year term on June 4, 2015 (see 80 FR 
34403). The 2020 MSGP will cover stormwater discharges from industrial 
facilities in areas where the EPA is the NPDES permitting authority in 
the EPA's Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, and will also now 
provide coverage for industrial facilities where the EPA is the NPDES 
permitting authority in the EPA's Region 4. As proposed, this permit 
will cover facilities in the state of Idaho; the schedule for the 
transfer of NPDES Permitting Authority to Idaho for stormwater general 
permits is July 1, 2021. The geographic coverage of this permit is 
listed in Appendix C of the proposed permit. This permit will authorize 
stormwater discharges from industrial facilities in 30 sectors, as 
shown in section I.A. of this document.
    The proposed permit is similar to the existing permit and is 
structured in nine (9) parts: General requirements that apply to all 
facilities (e.g., eligibility requirements, effluent limitations, 
inspection and monitoring requirements, Stormwater Pollution Prevention 
Plan (SWPPP) requirements, and reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements) (Parts 1-7); industrial sector-specific conditions (Part 
8); and state and Tribal-specific requirements applicable to facilities 
located within individual states or Indian Country (Part 9). 
Additionally, the appendices provide proposed forms for the Notice of 
Intent (NOI), the Notice of Termination (NOT), the Conditional No 
Exposure Exclusion, the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR), and the 
annual report, as well as step-by-step procedures for determining 
eligibility with respect to protecting historic properties and 
endangered species, and for calculating site-specific, hardness-
dependent benchmarks.

A. 2015 MSGP Litigation and National Academies Study

    After the EPA issued the 2015 MSGP, numerous environmental non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) \1\ challenged the permit, two 
industry groups \2\ intervened, and a Settlement Agreement was signed 
in 2016 with all parties. The settlement agreement did not affect the 
2015 MSGP but stipulated several terms and conditions that the EPA 
agreed to address in the proposed 2020 MSGP. One key term from the 
settlement agreement stipulated that the EPA fund a study conducted by 
the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's 
National Research Council (NRC) on potential permit improvements, 
focused primarily on monitoring requirements, for consideration in the 
next MSGP. In the settlement agreement, the EPA agreed that, when 
drafting the proposed 2020 MSGP, it will consider recommendations 
suggested in the completed NRC Study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Environmental NGOs included Waterkeeper Alliance, 
Apalachicola Riverkeeper, Galveston Baykeeper, Raritan Baykeeper, 
Inc. d/b/a NY/NJ Baykeeper, Snake River Waterkeeper, Ecological 
Rights Foundation, Our Children's Earth Foundation, Puget 
Soundkeeper, Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper, and Conservation Law 
Foundation (collectively, ``Petitioners'').
    \2\ Industry intervenors included Federal Water Quality 
Coalition and Federal Storm Water Association. i
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRC delivered the results of their study, Improving the EPA 
Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Stormwater Discharges, in 
February of 2019. The NRC study can be found at the following website: 
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25355/improving-the-epa-multi-sector-general-permit-for-industrial-stormwater-discharges.
    The NRC study's overarching recommendation is that the MSGP is too 
static and should continuously improve based on best available science, 
new data, and technological advances. The following is a high-level 
summary of the NRC study's recommendations the EPA addressed in the 
proposed 2020 MSGP, organized by category. The proposed Fact Sheet 
provides further discussion of the NRC study's recommendations and the 
settlement agreement terms and how they were addressed in the proposed 
permit.
    Where the EPA proposes a new or modified provision, the EPA also 
solicits comment on alternatives to the proposal and/or not moving 
forward with the proposal in the final permit. A more comprehensive 
discussion of the NRC study recommendations can be found in Part III of 
the fact sheet.
     Recommendations for MSGP pollutant monitoring requirements 
and benchmark thresholds:
    [cir] Industry-wide monitoring for pH, total suspended solids 
(TSS), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) as basic indicators of the 
effectiveness of stormwater controls employed on site. To address this 
recommendation, the EPA proposes to require ``universal benchmark 
monitoring'' for pH, TSS, and COD for all facilities. See Part 4.2.1 of 
the proposed permit and fact sheet.
    [cir] A process to periodically review and update sector-specific 
benchmark monitoring requirements to incorporate new scientific 
information. To address this recommendation, the EPA proposes revisions 
to the MSGP's sector-specific fact sheets, and proposes specific 
benchmark monitoring for Sectors I, P, and R. See Parts 4.2.1.1 and 8, 
and Appendix Q of the proposed permit and fact sheet.
    [cir] Benchmark levels based on the criteria designed to protect 
aquatic ecosystems from adverse impacts from short term or intermittent 
exposures, which to date have generally been acute criteria. To address 
this recommendation, the EPA proposes to update and/or requests comment 
on benchmark thresholds for aluminum,

[[Page 12291]]

selenium, arsenic, cadmium, magnesium, iron, and copper based on the 
latest toxicity information. See Parts 4.2.1.2 and 8 of the proposed 
fact sheet.
     Recommendations for sampling and data collection:
    [cir] Allowance and promotion of the use of composite sampling for 
benchmark monitoring for all pollutants except those affected by 
storage time. To address this recommendation, the EPA proposes an 
explicit clarification that composite sampling is allowed for benchmark 
monitoring. See Part 4.1.4 of the proposed permit and fact sheet.
    [cir] For permittees with average results that meet the benchmark, 
a minimum of continued annual sampling to ensure appropriate stormwater 
management throughout the remainder of the permit term. To address this 
recommendation, as part of proposed ``universal benchmark monitoring'' 
for pH, TSS, and COD for all facilities in Part 4.2.1.1, the EPA 
proposes that facilities monitor and report for these three parameters 
on a quarterly basis for the entire permit term, regardless of any 
benchmark threshold exceedances, to ensure facilities have current 
indicators of the effectiveness of their stormwater control measures 
throughout the permit term. See Part 4.2.1.2 of the proposed permit and 
fact sheet.
    [cir] A tiered approach to monitoring that recognizes the varying 
levels of risk among different industrial activities and that balances 
the overall burden to industry and permitting agencies. To address this 
recommendation, the EPA proposes to have the following tiered approach 
to monitoring: (1) A possible ``inspection-only'' option available to 
low-risk facilities (see Part 4.2.1.1 of the proposed permit and fact 
sheet and associated request for comment in that Part); (2) require new 
``universal benchmark monitoring'' for pH, TSS, and COD; (3) continue 
existing benchmark monitoring requirements from the 2015 MSGP; and (4) 
require continued benchmark monitoring as part of the proposed 
Additional Implementation Measures (AIM) protocol for repeated 
benchmark exceedances. See Parts 4.2. and 5.2 in the proposed permit 
and fact sheet.
     Recommendations for stormwater retention to minimize 
pollutant loads:
    [cir] Incentives to encourage industrial stormwater infiltration or 
capture and use where appropriate. The EPA acknowledges the importance 
of protecting groundwater during the use of stormwater infiltration 
systems. To address this recommendation, the EPA proposes infiltration, 
where the operator can demonstrate to the EPA that it is appropriate 
and feasible for site-specific conditions, as an alternative or adjunct 
to structural source controls and/or treatment controls required in 
proposed Tier 3 AIM responses. See Part 5.2.3.2.b of the proposed 
permit and fact sheet.
    In addition to the NRC study, the following are other key terms 
from the 2016 Settlement Agreement and how and where the EPA addressed 
those terms in the proposed permit:
     Comparative analysis. The EPA agreed to review examples of 
numeric and non-numeric effluent limitations (including complete 
prohibitions, if any) applicable to the discharge of industrial 
stormwater that have been set in other jurisdictions and evaluate the 
bases for those limitations. The EPA includes this analysis, titled 
``MSGP Effluent Limit Comparative Analysis,'' in the docket for this 
proposed permit (Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372).
     Preventing recontamination of federal Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites. 
The EPA agreed to propose for comment an expansion to all the EPA 
Regions of the existing eligibility criterion regarding operators 
discharging to federal CERCLA sites that currently applies to operators 
in Region 10 in the 2015 MSGP. See Part 1.1.7 of the proposed permit 
and fact sheet.
     Eligibility criterion regarding coal-tar sealcoat. The EPA 
agreed to propose for comment a new eligibility condition for operators 
who, during their coverage under the next MSGP, will use coal-tar 
sealcoat to initially seal or to re-seal pavement and thereby discharge 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in stormwater. The EPA agreed 
to propose that those operators are not eligible for coverage under the 
MSGP and must either eliminate such discharge or apply for an 
individual permit. See Part 1.1.8 of the proposed permit and fact 
sheet.
     Permit authorization relating to a pending enforcement 
action. The EPA agreed to solicit comment on a provision covering the 
situation where a facility not covered under the 2015 MSGP submits an 
NOI for permit coverage while there is a related pending enforcement 
stormwater related action by the EPA, a state, or a citizen (to include 
both notices of violations (NOVs) by the EPA or the state and notices 
of intent to bring a citizen suit). In this situation, the EPA agreed 
to solicit comment on holding the facility's NOI for an additional 30 
days to allow the EPA an opportunity to (a) review the facility's 
control measures expressed in its SWPPP, (b) identify any additional 
control measures that the EPA deems necessary to control site 
discharges in order to ensure that discharges meet technology-based and 
water quality-based effluent limitations, and/or (c) to conduct further 
inquiry regarding the site's eligibility for general permit coverage. 
See Part 1.3.3 and Table 1-2 of the proposed permit and fact sheet.
     Additional Implementation Measures (AIM). The EPA agreed 
to include in the benchmark monitoring section of the proposed MSGP 
``Additional Implementation Measures'' (AIM) requirements for operators 
for responding to benchmark exceedances. See Part 5.2 of the proposed 
permit and fact sheet.
     Facilities required to monitor for discharges to impaired 
waters without an EPA-approved or established Total Maximum Daily Load 
(TMDL). The EPA agreed to propose for comment specific edits regarding 
monitoring for impaired waters. See Part 4.2.4.1 of the proposed permit 
and fact sheet.
     Revision of Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheets. The EPA 
agreed to review and revise the MSGP's sector-specific fact sheets 
associated with the permit. See Appendix Q of the proposed permit.

B. Summary of Proposed Permit Changes

    The proposed MSGP includes several new or modified requirements 
from the 2015 MSGP, many of which were discussed in the previous 
section and are being proposed to address terms in the 2016 Settlement 
Agreement and the NRC study's recommendations. The EPA requests comment 
on these and all parts of the proposed permit.
    1. Streamlining of permit. The EPA proposes to streamline and 
simplify language throughout the permit to present the requirements in 
a generally more clear and readable manner. Regarding structure of the 
proposed permit, proposed Part 4 (Monitoring) was previously Part 6 in 
the 2015 MSGP; proposed Part 5 (Corrective Actions and AIM) was 
previously Part 4 in the 2015 MSGP; and proposed Part 6 (SWPPP) was 
previously Part 5 in the 2015 MSGP. In the EPA's view, formatting the 
permit in this new order (Monitoring, followed by Corrective Actions 
and AIM, then SWPPP requirements) makes more sequential sense as the 
latter parts often refer back to requirements in previous parts of the 
permit. This new structure should enhance understanding of and 
compliance with the permit's requirements. The EPA also made a few 
additional edits to improve permit readability and clarity. The EPA 
revised the wording of many eligibility requirements to be an 
affirmative expression of the requirement instead of

[[Page 12292]]

assumed ineligibility unless a condition was met. For example, proposed 
Part 1.1.6.2 reads ``If you discharge to an `impaired water'. . .you 
must do one of the following:'' In comparison, the 2015 MSGP reads ``If 
you are a new discharger or a new source. . .you are ineligible for 
coverage under this permit to discharge to an `impaired water' . . . 
unless you do one of the following.'' The EPA also numbered proposed 
permit conditions that were previously in bullet form to make it easier 
to follow and reference the permit conditions. Finally, the language of 
the proposed permit was changed from passive to active voice where 
appropriate (e.g., ``Samples must be collected . . .'' now reads ``You 
must collect samples . . .'').
    2. Permit eligibility and authorization-related changes.
     Eligibility for stormwater discharges to a federal CERCLA 
site. The 2015 MSGP requires facilities in the EPA Region 10 that 
discharge stormwater to certain CERCLA or Superfund sites (as defined 
in MSGP Appendix A and listed in MSGP Appendix P) to notify the EPA 
Regional Office in advance and requires the EPA Regional Office to 
determine whether the facility is eligible for permit coverage. In 
determining eligibility for coverage, the EPA Regional Office may 
evaluate whether the facility has included appropriate controls and 
implementation procedures designed to ensure that the discharge will 
not lead to recontamination of aquatic media at the CERCLA site. While 
the 2015 MSGP permit cycle was limited to discharges to certain CERLCA 
sites in EPA Region 10, the Agency is concerned that CERCLA site 
recontamination from MSGP authorized discharges may be an issue in all 
EPA Regions. In the proposed permit, the EPA requests comment on 
whether this current eligibility criterion should be applied in all the 
EPA Regions for facilities that discharge to Federal CERCLA sites that 
may be of concern for recontamination from stormwater discharges. The 
EPA is interested in information from the public that would assist the 
Agency in identifying such sites. The EPA also requests comment on 
requiring such facilities to notify the EPA Regional Office a minimum 
of 30 days in advance of submitting the NOI form. See Part 1.1.7 in the 
proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 1.
     Eligibility related to application of coal-tar sealcoat. 
The EPA proposes in Part 1.1.8 to include aa new eligibility criterion 
related to stormwater discharges from pavement where there is coal-tar 
sealcoat. Operators who will use coal-tar sealcoat to initially seal or 
to re-seal their paved surfaces where industrial activities are located 
and thereby discharge polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in 
stormwater, would be eligible for coverage under the 2020 MSGP only if 
they eliminate such discharge(s). This would reduce the amount of PAHs 
in industrial stormwater discharges. Alternatively, operators who wish 
to pave their surfaces where industrial activities are located with 
coal-tar sealcoat may apply for an individual permit. See Part 1.1.8 of 
the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 2.
     Discharge authorization related to enforcement action. The 
EPA proposes to establish a discharge authorization wait period of 60 
calendar days after NOI submission for any operators whose discharges 
were not previously covered under the 2015 MSGP and who have a pending 
stormwater-related enforcement action by the EPA, a state, or a citizen 
(to include both NOVs by the EPA or a state and notices of intent to 
bring a citizen suit). EPA is proposing this new requirement because 
the Agency is aware of some instances where a facility with a pending 
enforcement action will quickly submit an NOI without adequately 
developing their SWPPP or stormwater control measures (SCMs) in order 
to avoid further enforcement action. This additional review time would 
allow EPA to (a) review the facility's SCMs detailed in the NOI and 
SWPPP to make sure they are appropriate for the facility which may 
already have stormwater pollution issues, (b) identify any additional 
SCMs that EPA deems necessary to control site discharges in order to 
ensure that discharges meet technology-based and water quality-based 
effluent limitations, and/or (c) conduct further inquiry regarding the 
site's eligibility for permit coverage. See Part 1.3.3, Table 1-2 of 
the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 4.
    3. Public sign of permit coverage. The EPA proposes that the 2020 
MSGP include a requirement that MSGP operators must post a sign of 
permit coverage at a safe, publicly accessible location in close 
proximity to the facility. The EPA proposes that this notice must also 
include information that informs the public on how to contact the EPA 
if stormwater pollution is observed in the discharge. This addition 
will make the protocol for requesting a SWPPP easily understandable by 
the public and improve transparency of the process to report possible 
violations. The EPA requests comment on this proposal and what 
information could be included on any sign or other notice. See Part 
1.3.6 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 6.
    4. Consideration of major storm control measure enhancements. The 
EPA proposes that operators would be required to consider implementing 
enhanced measures for facilities located in areas that could be 
impacted by stormwater discharges from major storm events that cause 
extreme flooding conditions. The purpose of this proposed requirement 
is to encourage industrial site operators to consider the risks to 
their industrial activities and the potential impact of pollutant 
discharges caused by stormwater discharges from major storm events and 
extreme flooding conditions. The EPA also requests comment on how the 
permit might identify facilities that are at the highest risk for 
stormwater impacts from major storms that cause extreme flooding 
conditions. See Part 2.1.1.8 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and 
request for comment 8.
    5. Monitoring changes.
     Universal benchmark monitoring for all sectors. The EPA 
proposes to require all facilities to conduct benchmark monitoring for 
three indicator parameters of pH, TSS, and COD, called universal 
benchmark monitoring. This proposed requirement would apply to all 
sectors/subsectors, including those facilities that previously did not 
have any chemical-specific benchmark monitoring requirements and those 
that previously did not have these three specific benchmark parameters 
under the 2015 MSGP. These three parameters would provide a baseline 
and comparable understanding of industrial stormwater risk, broader 
water quality problems, and stormwater control effectiveness across all 
sectors. See Part 4.2.1 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and 
requests for comment 10 and 13.
     Impaired waters monitoring. Under the 2015 MSGP, operators 
discharging to impaired waters must monitor once per year for 
pollutants for which the waterbody is impaired and can discontinue 
monitoring if these pollutants are not detected or not expected in the 
discharge. The EPA proposes to require operators discharging to 
impaired waters to monitor only for those pollutants that are both 
causing impairments and associated with the industrial activity and/or 
benchmarks. The proposal specifies that, if the monitored pollutant is 
not detected in your discharge for three consecutive years, or it is 
detected but you have determined that its presence is caused solely by 
natural background sources, operators may discontinue monitoring for 
that

[[Page 12293]]

pollutant. This proposed requirements potentially narrows scope of 
pollutants for which the operator must monitor and improves protections 
for impaired waters. See Part 4.2.4.1 of the proposed permit and fact 
sheet.
     Benchmark values. The EPA proposes to modify and/or 
requests comment on benchmark thresholds for selenium, arsenic, 
cadmium, magnesium, iron, and copper based on the latest toxicity 
information. See Parts 4.2.1 and 8 of the proposed fact sheet and fact 
sheet, and requests for comment 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19.
     Sectors with new benchmarks. The 2015 MSGP does not 
require sector-specific benchmark monitoring for Sector I (Oil and Gas 
Extraction), Sector P (Land Transportation and Warehousing), or Sector 
R (Ship and Boat Building and Repair Yards). Based on the NRC study 
recommendation which identified potential sources of stormwater 
pollution from these sectors, the EPA proposes to add benchmark 
monitoring requirements for these three sectors. See Part 8 of the 
proposed permit, Parts 4.2.1.1 and 8 of the proposed fact sheet, and 
request for comment 12.
    6. Additional implementation measures. The EPA proposes revisions 
to the 2015 MSGP's provisions regarding benchmark monitoring 
exceedances. The corrective action conditions, subsequent action 
deadlines, and documentation requirements in proposed Part 5.1 remain 
unchanged from the 2015 MSGP. In proposed Part 5.2, the EPA proposes 
new tiered Additional Implementation Measures (AIM), that are triggered 
by benchmark monitoring exceedances. The proposed AIM requirements 
would replace corresponding sections regarding benchmark exceedances in 
the 2015 MSGP (``Data exceeding benchmarks'' in Part 6.2.1.2 in the 
2015 MSGP). There are three AIM levels: AIM Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. 
Operators would be required to respond to different AIM levels with 
increasingly robust control measures depending on the nature and 
magnitude of the benchmark threshold exceedance. The EPA proposes to 
retain exceptions to AIM triggers based on natural background sources 
or run-on for all AIM levels. The EPA also proposes an exception in AIM 
Tier 2 for a one-time aberrant event, and an exception in AIM Tier 3 
for operators who are able to demonstrate that the benchmark exceedance 
does not result in any exceedance of applicable water quality 
standards. Proposed AIM requirements will increase regulatory certainty 
while ensuring that discharges are sufficiently controlled to protect 
water quality. See Part 5.2 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and 
requests for comment 21, 22, 23, and 26.
    7. Revisions to sector-specific fact sheets. The EPA proposes 
updates to the existing sector-specific fact sheets that include 
information about control measures and stormwater pollution prevention 
for each sector to incorporate emerging stormwater control measures. 
These fact sheets are also proposed to be used when implementing Tier 2 
AIM. See Part 5.2.2.2 and Appendix Q of the proposed permit and fact 
sheet.

C. Other Requests for Comment

    In addition to the specific proposed changes discussed previously 
on which the EPA seeks comment, the Agency also requests comment on the 
following:
    1. Eligibility related to use of cationic chemicals. The EPA 
requests comment on adding an eligibility requirement to the MSGP for 
operators who may elect to use cationic treatment chemicals to comply 
with the MSGP, similar to that eligibility requirement in the EPA's 
Construction General Permit (CGP). See Part 1 of the proposed permit 
and fact sheet, and request for comment 3.
    2. Change NOI form. The EPA requests comment on whether a separate 
paper Change NOI form would be useful for facilities for submitting 
modifications to a paper NOI form. See Part 1.3.4 of the proposed 
permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 5.
    3. New acronym for the No Exposure Certification (NOE). The EPA 
requests comment on changing the acronym for the No Exposure 
Certification from ``NOE'' to ``NEC'' to more accurately represent what 
the acronym stands for. See Part 1.5 of the proposed permit and fact 
sheet, and request for comment 7.
    4. Alternative approaches to benchmark monitoring. The EPA requests 
comment on viable alternative approaches to benchmark monitoring for 
characterizing industrial sites' stormwater discharges, quantifying 
pollutant concentrations, and assessing stormwater control measure 
effectiveness. See Part 4.2.1 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, 
and request for comment 9.
    5. Inspection-only option in lieu of benchmark monitoring. The EPA 
requests comment on whether the permit should include an inspection-
only option for ``low-risk'' facilities in lieu of conducting benchmark 
monitoring. See Part 4.2.1.1 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and 
request for comment 11.
    6. Information about polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The 
EPA requests comment on information and data related to pollutant 
sources under all industrial sectors with petroleum hydrocarbon 
exposure that can release polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) via 
stormwater discharges, any concentrations of individual PAHs and/or 
total PAHs at industrial sites, the correlation of PAHs and COD, and 
appropriate pollution prevention/source control methods and stormwater 
control measures that could be used to address PAHs. See Part 4.2.1.2 
of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 20.
    7. Modifying the method for determining natural background 
pollutant contributions. The EPA requests comment on changing the 
threshold for the natural background exception throughout the permit 
from the 2015 MSGP, which required no net facility contributions, to 
the proposed 2020 MSGP method of subtracting natural background 
concentrations from the total benchmark exceedance to determine if 
natural background levels are solely responsible for the exceedance. 
EPA requests comment on implications of this change and other factors 
the Agency should consider in proposing this change to the exception. 
EPA also requests comment on other appropriate methods to characterize 
natural background pollutant concentrations. See Part 5.2.4 of the 
proposed permit and fact sheet, and requests for comment 24 and 25.
    8. Clarifications to Sector G monitoring requirements. The EPA 
requests comment on whether the newly proposed language in Part 8.G.8.3 
clarifies the monitoring requirements for that part and if the proposed 
monitoring frequency is appropriate. Given the overlap in parameters 
the operator is required to monitor for in Parts 8.G.8.2 and 8.G.8.3 
and the potential confusion about the monitoring schedules for the same 
parameter, EPA proposes to align the monitoring schedule for Part 
8.G.8.3 to that of Part 8.G.8.2. The EPA also requests comment on 
suspending the analytical monitoring currently required for radium and 
uranium in Part 8.G.8.3 until a relevant water quality criterion and 
possible benchmark value can be developed. The EPA requests comment on 
any alternative or additional clarifications to the monitoring 
frequencies the Agency should consider for this Part. See Part 8.G.8.3 
of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 27.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed permit have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information

[[Page 12294]]

Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2040-NEW. You can find a copy of the ICR in the 
docket for this permit (Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372), and it is 
briefly summarized here.
    CWA section 402 and the NPDES regulations require collection of 
information primarily used by permitting authorities, permittees 
(operators), and the EPA to make NPDES permitting decisions. The burden 
and costs associated with the entire NPDES program are accounted in an 
approved ICR (EPA ICR number 0229.23, OMB control no. 2040-0004). 
Certain changes in this proposed permit would require revisions to the 
ICR to reflect changes to the forms and other information collection 
requirements. The EPA is reflecting the paperwork burden and costs 
associated with this permit in a separate ICR instead of revising the 
existing ICR for the entire program for administrative reasons. 
Eventually, the EPA plans to consolidate the burden and costs in this 
ICR into that master ICR for the entire NPDES program and discontinue 
this separate collection.
    Respondents/affected entities: Industrial facilities in the 30 
sectors shown in section I.A of this notice in the areas where the EPA 
is the NPDES permitting authority.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Compliance with the MSGP's 
information collection and reporting requirements is mandatory for MSGP 
operators.
    Estimated number of respondents: The EPA estimates that 
approximately 2,400 operators will receive coverage under the 2020 
MSGP.
    Frequency of response: Response frequencies in the proposed 2020 
MSGP vary from once per permit term to quarterly.
    Total estimated burden: The EPA estimates that the proposed 
information collection burden of the proposed permit is 68,857 hours 
per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The EPA estimates that the proposed 
information collection cost of the proposed permit is $2,374,891.73 per 
year.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at 
the beginning of this proposed permit (Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2019-
0372). You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to 
OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since 
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than April 1, 
2020. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final 
permit.

V. Cost Analysis

    The EPA expects the incremental cost impact on entities that will 
be covered under this permit, including small businesses, to be 
minimal. The EPA anticipates the incremental cost for new or modified 
permit requirements will be $472.75 per facility per year; or $2,363.74 
per facility over the 5-year permit term. A copy of the EPA's cost 
analysis for the proposed permit, titled ``Cost Impact Analysis for the 
Proposed 2020 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP),'' is available in the 
docket (Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372). The economic impact analysis 
indicates that while there will be an incremental increase in the costs 
of complying with the new proposed permit, these costs will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VI. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 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 will be 
documented in the docket for this action (Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2019-
0372).

VII. Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 
4321-4307h), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations 
(40 CFR part 15), and the EPA's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 
CFR part 6), the EPA has determined that the reissuance of the MSGP is 
eligible for a categorical exclusion requiring documentation under 40 
CFR 6.204(a)(1)(iv). This category includes ``actions involving 
reissuance of a NPDES permit for a new source providing the conclusions 
of the original NEPA document are still valid, there will be no 
degradation of the receiving waters, and the permit conditions do not 
change or are more environmentally protective.'' The EPA completed an 
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) 
for the existing 2015 MSGP. The analysis and conclusions regarding the 
potential environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and potential 
mitigation included in the EA/FONSI are still valid for the reissuance 
of the MSGP because the proposed permit conditions are either the same 
or in some cases are more environmentally protective. Actions may be 
categorically excluded if the action fits within a category of action 
that is eligible for exclusion and the proposed action does not involve 
any extraordinary circumstances. The EPA has reviewed the proposed 
action and determined that the reissuance of the MSGP does not involve 
any extraordinary circumstances listed in 6.204(b)(1) through (b)(10). 
Prior to the issuance of the final MSGP, the EPA Responsible Official 
will document the application of the categorical exclusion and will 
make it available to the public on the EPA's website at https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/nepa/search. If new 
information or changes in the proposed permit involve or relate to at 
least one of the extraordinary circumstances or otherwise indicate that 
the permit may not meet the criteria for categorical exclusion, the EPA 
will prepare an EA or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

VIII. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 
EPA has determined that the proposed permit will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because the requirements 
in the permit apply equally to industrial facilities in areas where the 
EPA is the permitting authority, and the proposed provisions increase 
the level of environmental protection for all affected populations.

[[Page 12295]]

IX. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized 
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. With limited exceptions, 
the EPA directly implements the NPDES program in Indian country as no 
tribe has yet obtained EPA authorization to administer the NPDES 
program. As a result, almost all eligible facilities with stormwater 
discharges associated with industrial activities in Indian country fall 
under the EPA MSGP or may be covered under an individual NPDES permit 
issued by the EPA.
    The EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process 
of developing this permit to have meaningful and timely input into its 
development to gain an understanding of and, where necessary, to 
address the tribal implications of the proposed permit. A summary of 
that consultation and coordination follows.
    The EPA initiated a tribal consultation and coordination process 
for this action by sending a ``Notice of Consultation and 
Coordination'' letter on June 26, 2019, to all 573 federally recognized 
tribes. The letter invited tribal leaders and designated consultation 
representative(s) to participate in the tribal consultation and 
coordination process. The EPA held an informational webinar for tribal 
representatives on August 1, 2019. A total of 19 tribal representatives 
participated in the webinar. The EPA also presented an overview of the 
current 2015 MSGP and potential changes for the reissuance of the MSGP 
to the National Tribal Water Council during a July 10, 2019 call with 
EPA staff.
    The EPA solicited comment from federally recognized tribes early in 
the reissuance process. Tribes and tribal organizations submitted one 
letter and three emails to the EPA. Records of the tribal informational 
webinar and a consultation summary summarizing the written comments 
submitted by tribes are included in the docket for this proposed action 
(Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372).
    The EPA incorporated the feedback it received from tribal 
representatives in the proposal. The Agency specifically solicits 
additional comment on this proposed permit from tribal officials.
    The EPA also notes that as part of the finalization of this 
proposed permit, the Agency will complete the Clean Water Act section 
401 certification procedures with all authorized tribes where this 
permit will apply.

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

    Dated: February 12, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Javier Laureano,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 2.
Carmen R. Guerrero-P[eacute]rez,
Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA Region 2.
Catherine A. Libertz,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 3.
Jeaneanne M. Gettle,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 4.
Thomas R. Short Jr.,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.
Brent E. Larsen,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 6.
Jeffrey Robichaud,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 7.
Humberto L. Garcia, Jr.,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 8.
Tom[aacute]s Torres,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-04254 Filed 2-28-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


