Revisions to Stormwater Regulations To Clarify That an NPDES Permit Is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads; Final Rule

This Rule document was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

For related information, Open Docket Folder  Docket folder icon


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 122
[EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195; FRL-9758-9]
RIN 2040-AF42

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations To Clarify That an NPDES Permit Is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads

Agency

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Action

Final rule.

Summary

The EPA is revising its Phase I stormwater regulations to clarify that stormwater discharges from logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity and that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for these stormwater discharges.

Dates

This final rule is effective on January 7, 2013.

Addresses

The record for this rulemaking is available for inspection and copying at the Water Docket, located at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. The record is also available via the EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195.

For Further Information Contact

For further information on this notice, you may contact Jeremy Bauer, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management via email at bauer.jeremy@epa.gov or telephone at 202-564-2775.

Supplementary Information

I. General Information

A. Applicability

This action does not impose requirements on any entity. The action clarifies the status of stormwater discharges from logging roads. Those with an interest in such discharges may be interested in this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this rule, consult the person listed in the precedingFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.

B. Copies of This Document and Other Information

This document is available for download at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/forestroads or under docket EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195.

II. Background

A. Purpose

The EPA is promulgating this final rule to address the stormwater discharges identified under Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011) (NEDC).

The final rule clarifies that, for the purposes of assessing whether stormwater discharges are “associated with industrial activity,” the only facilities under SIC code 2411 that are “industrial” are: rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage. This clarifies, contrary to the Ninth Circuit's decision in NEDC, that discharges of stormwater from silviculture facilities other than the four specifically named silviculture facilities identified above do not require an NPDES permit. (1)

B. Statutory Authority and Regulatory History

The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). To that end, the Act provides that the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful, except in compliance with other provisions of the statute. Generally, the Act provides for a permit program for the addition to waters of the United States of a pollutant from a point source, defined as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(14). In 1987 Congress amended the Clean Water Act by adding section 402(p), that created a temporary moratorium on NPDES permits for stormwater discharges, except for certain listed categories, and gave the EPA discretion to designate other stormwater discharges for regulation. 33 U.S.C. 1342(p).

For the initial phase, section 402(p)(1) created a temporary moratorium on NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from point sources except for those listed in section 402(p)(2), which includes discharges for which a permit had already been issued; discharges from large municipal separate storm sewer systems; and “industrial discharges.” Congress did not define industrial discharges, allowing the EPA to define the term. For subsequent phases, section 402(p)(5) directs the EPA to conduct studies, in consultation with the states, for “identifying those stormwater discharges or classes of stormwater discharges for which permits are not required”; “determining to the maximum extent practicable, the nature and extent of pollutants in such discharges”; and “establishing procedures and methods to control stormwater discharges to the extent necessary to mitigate impacts on water quality.” Section 402(p)(6) directs the Agency to issue regulations, in consultation with state and local officials, based on such studies. The section allows the EPA flexibility in issuing regulations to address designated stormwater discharges where appropriate and does not require the use of NPDES permits or any specific regulatory approach. Specifically, the section states that the regulations “shall establish priorities, establish requirements for state stormwater management programs, and establish expeditious deadlines” and may include “performance standards, guidelines, guidance, and management practices and treatment requirements, as appropriate.” 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(6). This flexibility is unique to stormwater discharges and is different than the treatment of stormwater discharges listed in section 402(p)(2)(B) of the Act, which requires a permit for a stormwater discharge “associated with industrial activity.”

Prior to the 1987 Amendments, there were numerous questions regarding the appropriate means of regulating stormwater discharges within the NPDES program due to the water quality impacts of stormwater, the variable nature of stormwater, the large number of stormwater discharges, and the limited resources of permitting agencies. The EPA undertook numerous regulatory actions, which resulted in extensive litigation, in an attempt to address these unique discharges.

The EPA's Silvicultural Rule (40 CFR 122.27) predates the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act that created section 402(p) for stormwater controls. The Agency defined silvicultural point source as part of the Silvicultural Rule to specify which silvicultural discharges were to be included in the NPDES program. The rule defines silvicultural point source to mean any “discernible, confined and discrete conveyance related to rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, or log storage facilities which are operated in connection with silvicultural activities and from which pollutants are discharged into waters of the United States” and further explains that “the term does not include non-point source silvicultural activities such as nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, or road construction and maintenance from which there is natural runoff.”

In 1990, following the 1987 amendments that directed the Agency to develop regulations requiring permits for large municipal separate storm sewer systems and stormwater “discharges associated with industrial activity,” the EPA promulgated the Phase I stormwater regulations. (55 FR 47990, November 16, 1990). The EPA defined in the Phase I regulations “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” which is not defined by the Act. In describing the scope of the term “associated with industrial activity,” several members of Congress explained in the legislative history that the term applied if a discharge was “directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant.” (Vol. 132 Cong. Rec. H10932, H10936 (daily ed. October 15, 1986); Vol. 133 Cong. Rec. H176 (daily ed. January 8, 1987)). The Phase I rule clarified the regulatory definition of “associated with industrial activity” by adopting the language used in the legislative history and supplementing it with a description of various types of areas (e.g., material handling sites, sites used for the storage and maintenance of material handling equipment, etc.) that are directly related to an industrial process and to industrial facilities identified by the EPA. The supplemental language in the Phase I rule also includes the term “immediate access road.” The EPA considers “immediate access roads” to refer to roads which are exclusively or primarily dedicated for use by the industrial facility. See 55 FR 47990, 48009 (Nov. 16, 1990). These “immediate access roads” do not include public access roads that are state, county, or federal roads such as highways or Bureau of Land Management roads which happen to be used by the facility. See id. The Phase I regulation defines the term “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” to include stormwater discharges from facilities identified in the rule by standard industrial classification or “SIC” code at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). The Phase I regulation included in the definition of that term SIC code 24 (Lumber and Wood Products) which includes 2411 (logging), but the Agency also had specified in the Phase I rule that the term does not include discharges from facilities or activities excluded from the NPDES program under other parts of the EPA's regulations, including the Silvicultural Rule. As discussed above, the EPA had previously specified under the Silvicultural Rule which silvicultural discharges were to be included in the NPDES program (40 CFR 122.27). The EPA intended to regulate those same “silvicultural point source[s]” under the Phase I rule (i.e., rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities) and to exclude from the Phase I regulation stormwater runoff from other silvicultural activities. For the “silvicultural point source[s]” (i.e., rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities) regulatedunder the Phase I rule, the term “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” includes “immediate access roads” (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii)). Unlike “immediate access roads” associated with industrial facilities, many logging roads have multiple uses, including recreation and general transportation, and commonly extend over long distances (i.e.; may not provide “immediate access” to an industrial site). The intent of the EPA in this rulemaking is that the NPDES program requirements be implemented with regard to “immediate access roads” in the same way they were implemented prior to the decision by the Ninth Circuit.

In developing the second phase of stormwater regulations, the EPA submitted to Congress in March 1995 a report that presented the nature of stormwater discharges from municipal and industrial facilities that were not already regulated under the Phase I regulations (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1995. Storm Water Discharges Potentially Addressed by Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Program: Report to Congress. Washington, DC. EPA 833-K-94-002). On December 8, 1999, the EPA published the Phase II stormwater regulations to address stormwater discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems and construction sites that disturb one to five acres. (64 FR 68722, December 8, 1999). The EPA retains the authority to designate additional stormwater discharges for regulation at a later date under either CWA section 402(p)(2)(E) or 402(p)(6).

The Phase II regulations for stormwater controls were challenged in Environmental Defense Center v. US EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003) (EDC v. EPA). In that case, petitioners contended that the EPA arbitrarily failed to regulate discharges from forest roads under the Phase II rule. The court held that the EPA failed to consider the petitioners' comments and remanded the issue to the EPA “so that it may consider in an appropriate proceeding Petitioner's contention that § 402(p)(6) requires the EPA to regulate forest roads. The EPA may then either accept Petitioners' arguments in whole or in part, or reject them on the basis of valid reasons that are adequately set forth to permit judicial review.”Id. at 863.

More recently, in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011) (NEDC), a citizen suit was filed alleging violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging stormwater from ditches alongside two logging roads in state forests without a permit. The court held that because the stormwater runoff from the two roads in question is collected by and then discharged from a system of ditches, culverts and channels, there was a point source discharge of industrial stormwater for which an NPDES permit is required. As discussed above, the Agency specified in the Phase I rule that the term “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” does not include discharges from facilities or activities excluded from the NPDES program under other parts of the EPA's regulations, including the aforementioned Silvicultural Rule. The EPA intends through this regulation to more clearly limit Phase I applicability to only those silvicultural facilities that are “rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities.”

In response to the partial remand under Environmental Defense Center, Inc. (EDC) v. US EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003), the Agency continues to review available information on the water-quality impacts of stormwater discharges from forest roads, which include logging roads as discussed above, as well as existing practices to control those discharges and is considering a range of options to address such discharges, which could include designating a subset of stormwater discharges from forest roads for regulation under the Agency's section 402(p) rulemaking authority. The EPA believes that the broad range of flexible approaches under section 402(p)(6) may be well suited to address the complexity of forest road ownership, management, and use.

In the interim, the EPA notes that Congress has directed that permits are not required for stormwater discharges for logging roads. Under the continuing resolution passed in September, 2012, until March 27, 2013, the Administrator may not require an NPDES permit or directly or indirectly require any state to require a permit, for discharges of stormwater runoff from roads, the construction, use, or maintenance of which are associated with silvicultural activities.

III. EPA's Proposed Revisions and Public Comments Received on Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Revisions

The EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii) to clarify that for the purposes of defining stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, the only activities under SIC code 2411 that are “industrial” are rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage. This revision does not remove any existing exemptions. Though the existing language in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii) excepts SIC code 2434, wood kitchen cabinets, the wood kitchen cabinets category remains covered in a separate subsection. See id. at 122.26(b)(14)(xi) (listing “Facilities covered under Standard Industrial Classifications 20, 21, 22, 23, 2434 * * *” as engaging in industrial activity for purposes of the industrial stormwater regulations).

B. Public Comments

The EPA received 85 comment letters on its “Notice of Proposed Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify That an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads” (77 FR 53834, September 4, 2012). The Agency had previously announced its plan to propose these revisions in an earlier notice, “Notice of Intent to Revise Stormwater Regulations To Specify That an NPDES Permit is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads and To Seek Comment on Approaches for Addressing Water Quality Impacts From Forest Road Discharges” (77 FR 30473, May 23, 2012). While the EPA has reviewed and is considering the comments received in response to the May 23 Notice of Intent, the Agency explained in its September 4 proposal that the EPA is not developing responses to those comments as part of this rulemaking.

The EPA has reviewed and considered all of the comments received on the proposed revisions. Many commenters expressed support for the EPA's proposal. Most agreed with the objective to clarify the applicability of Phase I stormwater regulations but some suggested alternate language or approaches to reach that objective. For example, some suggested that the EPA simply state in its regulations that stormwater discharges from logging roads do not require a NPDES permit. Others recommended that the EPA assert that logging roads are nonpoint sources and therefore would not require a NPDES permit.

The EPA believes that the final language clarifies the applicability of Phase I stormwater regulations to stormwater discharges from logging roads. The final language indicates explicitly which facilities are included in the definition of stormwater discharges “associated with industrial activity” (i.e., “Facilities classified within Standard Industrial Classification 24, Industry Group 241that are rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, or log storage facilities operated in connection with silvicultural activities”). Moreover, the final language further explains that “not included are all other types of silvicultural facilities.”

Many commenters suggested that the EPA delay finalizing the rule until after the Supreme Court rules on Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, No. 11-388, and Georgia-Pacific West v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, No. 11-347. Some suggested that the Agency should have sought relief from the Supreme Court or Congress. The EPA disagrees with these commenters because today's action ends any uncertainty created by the Ninth Circuit's holding in NEDC administratively by clarifying what constitutes a discharge “associated with industrial activity” in connection with silvicultural activities. By moving to finalize this rule expeditiously, the EPA is providing the regulatory certainty needed in the wake of the Ninth Circuit's decision and is reaffirming the EPA's long-standing regulatory position regarding the applicability of stormwater regulations to logging roads. In doing so, this final rule cancels out any on-the-ground impact of the Ninth Circuit's decision. Further, the EPA actions are consistent with amicus curiae briefs filed by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on May 24 and again on September 4, which described to the public and to the Supreme Court the administrative steps that the EPA would take to clarify “expeditiously” that an NPDES permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads.

Some commenters disagreed with the EPA's proposal, asserting that at least a subset of stormwater discharges from logging roads is truly industrial in nature and that those discharges should require NPDES permits. The EPA clarifies the applicability of Phase I stormwater regulations to stormwater discharges from logging roads and the Agency's rationale in section II.B of this preamble. As the EPA notes, the Agency did not intend logging roads themselves to be regulated as industrial facilities and its view has not changed since EPA first issued the Phase I stormwater rule. The EPA is revising that rule to clarify the Agency's original intent.

Some commenters asserted that the water quality impacts of stormwater discharges from logging roads and other forest roads are well-documented and suggested that the Agency should regulate them. Other commenters pointed to existing programs and suggested that a national regulation is unnecessary. Some asserted that existing state, federal, and tribal programs are insufficient to protect water quality. Others commented that the Agency already has all of the information it needs in order to regulate stormwater discharges from forest roads and suggested that if information gaps remain, the Agency should specify what information is needed and indicate on what schedule that information will be collected.

The EPA is not proposing new regulations for stormwater discharges from forest roads, including logging roads, at this time. While the EPA has not developed a specific schedule for addressing stormwater discharges from forest roads, the Agency notes that, in response to the partial remand under EDC v. US EPA, the Agency continues to review available information on the water quality impacts of stormwater discharges from forest roads, which include logging roads, as well as existing practices to control those discharges and is considering a range of options to address such discharges, which could include designating a subset of stormwater discharges from forest roads for regulation under the Agency's section 402(p) rulemaking authority. The EPA believes that the broad range of flexible approaches under section 402(p)(6) may be well-suited to address the complexity of forest road ownership, management, and use.

IV. Final Rule

The EPA has made no revisions to the proposed rule. The EPA is revising 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii) to clarify that for the purposes of defining stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, the only activities under SIC code 2411 that are “industrial” are rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage. This revision does not remove any existing exemptions. Though the existing language in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii) excepts SIC code 2434, wood kitchen cabinets, the wood kitchen cabinets category remains covered in a separate subsection. See id. at 122.26(b)(14)(xi) (listing “Facilities covered under Standard Industrial Classifications 20, 21, 22, 23, 2434 * * *” as engaging in industrial activity for purposes of the industrial stormwater regulations.)

As discussed in this preamble, the EPA did not intend logging roads themselves to be regulated as industrial facilities, but, in light of NEDC, the EPA is modifying 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) to clarify the Agency's intent. The EPA believes that stormwater discharges from forest roads, including logging roads, should be evaluated under section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act because the section allows for a broad range of flexible approaches, including non-permitting approaches, that may be better suited to address the complexity of forest road ownership, management, and use.

V. Economic Impact

The final rule clarifies existing regulations and does not impose new regulatory requirements. As a result this action has no economic, public health, or environmental impacts.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. 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, the 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.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection burden as it serves only to clarify existing regulations. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR 122.26) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0004. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business “as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;” (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Rather, the rule clarifies that stormwater discharges from logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity and that an NPDES permit is not required for these stormwater discharges.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. This action clarifies existing regulations and has no economic impact. Thus, it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, November 2, 1999).

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

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

The action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. Moreover, this action clarifies existing regulations and has no economic, public health, or environmental impacts.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

The action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Additionally, the change does not involve the installation of treatment or other components that use a measurable amount of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the EPA decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

The action clarifies existing regulations and makes no change to existing standards.

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

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission. Agencies must do this by identifying and addressing as appropriate any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

The EPA has determined that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The action clarifies existing regulations and has no economic, public health, or environmental impacts.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theFederal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in theFederal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective January 7, 2013.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122

Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

Dated: November 30, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 122 is amended as follows:

Regulatory Text

Part 122 Epa Administered Permit Programs the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Subpart B—Permit Application and Special NPDES Program Requirements

2. Section 122.26 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(14)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 122.26 Storm water discharges (applicable to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25).

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(14) * * *

(ii) Facilities classified within Standard Industrial Classification 24, Industry Group 241 that are rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, or log storage facilities operated in connection with silvicultural activities defined in 40 CFR 122.27(b)(2)-(3) and Industry Groups 242 through 249; 26 (except 265 and 267), 28 (except 283), 29, 311, 32 (except 323), 33, 3441, 373;(not included are all other types of silviculture facilities);

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2012-29688 Filed 12-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Footnotes

(1) This rulemaking responds to the uncertainty created by the Ninth Circuit's holding in NEDC that certain channeled discharges of stormwater from logging roads constitute point source discharges, bringing them within the Section 402 NPDESpermitting framework. This final rule, by clarifying what constitutes a discharge “associated with industrial activity,” makes clear that such discharges do not require NPDES permits even if they are point source discharges. We note that the Supreme Court has granted review of the NEDC case for the October 2012 term.

 
 
Comments Not Accepted
ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0278
View original printed format:
PDF

Document Information

Date Posted: Dec 7, 2012
RIN: 2040-AF42
CFR: 40 CFR Part 122
Federal Register Number: 2012-29688
Show More Details  

Docket Information

This document is contained in

Document text and images courtesy of the
Federal Register