25718 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

Comprehensive Solid Waste

Management Program,

Implementation, City of DuPont,

Pierce and Thurston Counties, WA,

Due: June 12, 1995, Contact: Timothy

P. Julius (703) 696–8078.

EIS No. 950182, Draft EIS, NOA, FL,

Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary Comprehensive

Management Plan, Implementation,

Special-Use-Permit, Monroe County,

FL, Due: December 31, 1995, Contact:

Billy Causey (305) 743–2437.

EIS No. 950183, Draft EIS, SFW, CA,

Multiple Species Conservation

Program Planning Area, Issuance of a

Permit to Allow Incidental Take of

Threatened and Endangered Species,

San Diego, County, CA, Due: June 26,

1995, Contact: Laura Hill (503) 231–

6241.

EIS No. 950184, Draft EIS, DOE,

Programmatic EIS—Uranium Mill

Tailings Remedial Action Ground

Water Project, Implementation, Clean

up of 24 Mill Sites, Due: June 26,

1995, Contact: Rich Sena (505) 845–

6307.

EIS No. 950185, Draft EIS, DOE, NM,

Dual Axis Radiographic

Hydrodynamic Test (DARHT)

Facility, Construction and Operation,

Approval of Operating Permit, Los

Alamos National Laboratory (LANL),

Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties,

NM, Due: June 26, 1995, Contact:

Diane Webb (505) 665–6353.

EIS No. 950186, Draft EIS, AFS, Gypsy

Moth Management in the United

States: A Cooperative Approach,

Implementation, US, Due: June 26,

1995, Contact: Charles Bare (301)

734–8247.

EIS No. 950187, Draft EIS, USN, FL,

Naval Training Center Orlando

Disposal and Reuse, Implementation,

Orange County, FL, Due: June 26,

1995, Contact: Ronnie Laftimore (803)

743–0888.

EIS No. 950188, Draft EIS, USN, CA,

San Diego Homeporting Facilities

Construction and Operation to

Support Berthing One NIMITZ Class

Aircraft Carrier, Implementation, San

Diego County, CA, Due: June 26, 1995,

Contact: Robert Hexton (619) 532–

3824.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 910277, Draft EIS, AFS, OR,

White King and Lucky Lass Uranium

Mine Cleanup and Rehabilitation,

Section 404, NPDES Permit and

Special Use Permit, Licenses

Approval, Fremont National Forest,

Lakeview Ranger District, Lake

County, OR, Due: November 07, 1991,

Contact: Felix R. Miera Jr. (503) 947–

3334.

Published FR 08–23–91—Officially

Canceled by Preparing Agency.

EIS No. 950040, Draft EIS, AFS, CA,

California Spotted Owl Habitat

Management Plan, Implementation,

Sierra Nevada National Forests, CA,

Due: July 10, 1995, Contact: Janice

Gauthier (916) 979–2020.

Published FR: 2–3–95—Review period

extended.

EIS No. 950068, Draft EIS, BLM, CA,

NV, Alturas 345 Kilovolt (Kv) Electric

Power Transmission Line Project,

Construction, Operation and

Maintenance, Right-of-Way Grant

Approval, Special-Use-Permit and

COE Section 404 Permit, Susanville

District, Modoc, Lassen and Sierra

Counties, CA and Washoe County,

NV, Due: June 02, 1995, Contact: Peter

Humm (916) 257–0456.

Published FR 03–10–95—Review period

extended.

EIS No. 950073, Draft EIS, BLM, AZ,

Grand Canyon National Park General

Management Plan, Implementation,

Coconino and Mohave Counties, AZ,

Due: May 11, 1995, Contact: Larry L.

Norris (303) 969–2267.

Published FR 03–10–95—Review period

extended.

EIS No. 950106, Draft EIS, NPS, WA,

Mountain Goat Management Within

Olympic National Park,

Implementation, Clallan, Grays

Harbor, Jefferson and Mason Counties,

WA, Due: July 17, 1995, Contact: Paul

Crawford (360) 452–4501.

Published FR—03–31–95 Review period

extended.

EIS No. 950167, Draft Supplement,

DOE, WA, Puget Power Northwest

Washington Electric Transmission

Project, Updated Information,

Construction and Operation, Whatcon

and Skagit Counties, WA, Due: June

19, 1995, Contact: Ken Barnhart (503)

230–3667.

Published FR—05–05–95 Due Date

Correction.

Dated: May 9, 1995.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–11795 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[FRL–5206–5]

Water Pollution Control; Approval of

Application by the State of Florida to

Administer the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Approval of application.

SUMMARY: On May, 1, 1995, the Regional

Administrator for the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), Region IV,

approved the application by the State of

Florida to administer the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) program for regulating point

source discharges of pollutants into

surface waters within the State. The

State NPDES program, as authorized, is

a phased NPDES program encompassing

permitting for: (1) domestic discharges;

(2) industrial discharges, including

those which also have storm water

discharges; and (3) the pretreatment

program for Publicly Owned Treatment

Works. Storm water discharges from

municipal separate storm sewer systems

(MS4’s), individual storm water-only

discharges, storm water general permits,

and Federal facility discharges are to be

phased in by the year 2000. Further, the

State of Florida is not being authorized

to administer a sewage sludge

management program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Dee Stewart, Environmental Engineer,

Permits Section, U.S. EPA Region IV,

345 Courtland Street, NE. Atlanta,

Georgia, 30365, 404/347–3012, ext.

2928. The administrative record (which

comprises approximately 1650 pages)

can be obtained from the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection

(FDEP) office in Tallahassee, Florida or

the EPA office in Atlanta, Georgia at a

minimal cost per page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Governor of Florida requested NPDES

program approval on November 21,

1994, by submitting a complete program

application. Several modifications were

made to the application based on public

comments and discussions between the

EPA and FDEP, and as allowed by

Federal regulations. These

modifications include the clarification

of Section III.C. and additions of

Attachments A, B, and C, to the

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).

Attachment A, represents permits under

active Federal enforcement at the time

of authorization which EPA will

complete the enforcement action but

FDEP will assume permitting,

compliance, and future enforcement

authority for. Attachment B represents

permits for which an evidentiary

hearing has been requested at the time

of program authorization and EPA will

retain full jurisdiction until the matter

is resolved. Attachment C represents

certain facilities as agreed upon by

FDEP and EPA where EPA will retain

full jurisdiction of these NPDES permits

following authorization. Section

IV.C.1.a of the MOA was changed to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25719

allow for EPA review of all discharges

which may affect the waters of another

state or Indian Lands. The final changes,

including the signing of the MOA by the

Regional Administrator for EPA, Region

IV and the Secretary for FDEP, were

completed on May 1, 1995.

Florida’s application was described in

the Federal Register on January 27,

1995, at 60 FR 5390 and in notices

published in: The Orlando Sentinel,

Pensacola News-Journal, Tallahassee

Democrat, News-Press, The Tampa

Tribune, The Palm Beach Post, Key

West Citizen, The Florida Times-Union,

and The Miami Herald, on that same

date. Copies of Florida’s application

were available for review at the EPA

Region IV office and at any FDEP office,

copying was also available at a minimal

cost per page.

As part of the public comment

process, EPA conducted four public

hearings on Florida’s application. The

hearings occurred on March 7, 1995, in

Orlando, Florida, and on March 9, 1995,

in Tallahassee, Florida, at 10:00 a.m and

7:00 p.m. on each day. EPA accepted

written comments from the public until

March 13, 1995. All comments or

objections presented at the public

hearings or received in writing by EPA

Region IV by March 13, 1995, were

considered by EPA.

Comments were received regarding

the following issues: (1) The language in

Section IV.E. of the MOA representing

endangered species, (2) The language in

Section IV.B. of the MOA representing

procedures and policies by which draft

and proposed permits will be reviewed,

(3) Concern regarding Florida’s ability to

administer the NPDES program, (4)

Concern with FDEP and the South

Florida Water Management District

regarding its water quality obligations as

provided in the Federal Everglades Case

Settlement, (5) Concern with the Florida

Everglades Forever Act, (6) Concern

with Florida’s implementation and

enforcement of its Minimum Water

Flows and Level Law, (7) Concern

regarding the possible degradation of

the Central Everglades following state

program approval, (8) Concern that the

United States (including the

Environmental Protection Agency) owes

the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of

Florida a trust responsibility to protect

tribal land and resources which might

be violated by delegation of the Florida

NPDES program, (9) Concern that

NPDES authorization should be held in

abeyance until existing and future

NPDES challenges pertaining to the

Everglades Storm Water Treatment

Areas are settled, (10) Concern that

discharges beyond the territorial seas

(Federal waters) will continue to be

permitted by EPA, and (11) Comments

regarding overall benefits resulting from

authorization. EPA’s response to all

comments are contained in this notice.

The comments and hearing record are

contained in the administrative record

supporting this notice.

I. Comment Concerning the Language in

Section IV.E. of the MOA Representing

Endangered Species

Informal consultation was initiated

under Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) during a meeting

scheduled between the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS), FDEP, and EPA

on June 16, 1994. This consultation was

opened to utilize the expertise of the

NMFS and FWS to evaluate EPA’s

assessment of potential effects on

Federally listed species and critical

habitat in the State of Florida. Since

NMFS was unable to attend, a letter

dated June 23, 1994, was sent to the

NMFS reaffirming the initiation of

informal consultation with NMFS.

A mechanism to address possible

adverse impacts to Federally listed

species and their habitats associated

with state-issued NPDES permits was

developed through discussions with

FDEP, NMFS, FWS, and EPA. The

measures and provision agreed upon are

represented in Section IV.E. of the

MOA. In letters, both dated December

16, 1994, EPA requested concurrence

from NMFS and FWS with EPA’s

determination that the authorization of

the FDEP NPDES permit program is

‘‘not likely to adversely affect’’ listed

species or their critical habitat, pursuant

to 50 CFR 402.13. FWS concurred with

this determination on December 21,

1994, and NMFS concurred with this

determination on January 18, 1995.

On December 15, 1994, EPA requested

concurrence from the Florida Bureau of

Historic Preservation with EPA’s

determination that NPDES program

approval for FDEP will have no effect on

the preservation of historic properties

within the State of Florida with respect

to the National Historic Preservation

Act. Florida’s Bureau of Historic

Preservation concurred with EPA’s

determination in a letter dated March 3,

1995.

A. Comments

Two organizations provided specific

comments suggesting clarification that

all ESA issues resulting in an EPA

objection be limited to impacts

associated to the permitted discharge.

Their comments pertained to Section

IV.E. of the MOA and the concern that

it could provide a framework by which

a Section 7 review of a draft permit

being reviewed by EPA would focus

upon the permit issuance or other

aspects of the permit process that are

unrelated to the discharge allowed

under the permit.

B. EPA’s Response

Section 7 of the ESA requires

interagency cooperation between the

Services and all Federal agencies.

Section 7(a)(1) requires all agencies to

review and utilize their programs in

furtherance of the purposes of the ESA.

Section 7(a)(2) requires each Federal

agency, in consultation with and with

the assistance of the Services, to insure

that any action is not likely to

jeopardize an endangered species or

adversely affect critical habitat. The

Federal action which underwent

Section 7(a)(2) consultation with the

Services was EPA’s approval of

Florida’s administration of the NPDES

program.

Section IV.E. of the MOA was an

important factor in developing EPA’s

approval of the State NPDES program.

Because issuance of a state NPDES

permit and EPA’s review of a proposed

state permit does not trigger Section 7

of the ESA, the MOA calls for close

coordination between EPA, the State,

and the Services to ensure that the stateissued permits are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of

Federally listed species. Since the

Services are natural resource agencies

with several areas of responsibilities

and maintain the right to comment on

any issue, as does the public, the MOA

should not attempt to limit the scope of

the Services’ review of a draft state

NPDES permit. The authority provided

by the CWA, on the other hand, only

allows the State and EPA to ensure that

the permitted discharge will comply

with applicable CWA requirements,

including compliance with state water

quality standards. EPA is moreover only

authorized to object to a state permit

that is outside the guidelines and

requirements of the CWA (402(d)).

EPA’s review therefore will focus on

impacts on the discharge subject to

CWA requirements. EPA believes that

the MOA between the State of Florida

and EPA adequately and appropriately

addresses ESA concerns.

II. The Language in Section IV.B. of the

MOA Representing Procedures and

Policies by Which Draft and Proposed

Permits Will Be Reviewed

A. Comments

One organization provided comments

requesting that Section IV.B. of the

MOA be changed to require that the

basis of EPA’s objections be provided to
25720 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

the permit applicant when EPA makes

an objection to a proposed permit, and

FDEP denies the permit or issues the

permit in accordance with the EPA

objections.

B. EPA’s Response

EPA does not believe that additional

notification in the MOA is necessary.

Florida Administrative Code (FAC)

Section 620.510(18)(b) (November 29,

1994) requires that if EPA objects in

accordance with 40 CFR 123.44 to the

issuance of an NPDES permit, FDEP

shall address EPA’s objections in the

issuance or denial of the NPDES permit.

In accordance with the FAC, FDEP will

advise the applicant of the basis for the

EPA objections and EPA believes that

additional language for the MOA is not

necessary. In addition, EPA is required

by 40 CFR 123.44(a)(1) to send a copy

of any comment, objection or

recommendation on any draft NPDES

permit to the permit applicant.

III. Concern Regarding Florida’s Ability

to Administer the NPDES Program

A. Comments

Three commentors contend that

Florida is unqualified to administer the

NPDES program for regulating

discharges of pollutants into water of

the U.S. The commentors stated that

FDEP was unable to maintain an unbiased position and an objective

appearance while collecting and

evaluating information required for an

NPDES permit, especially with respect

to FDEP’s Northeast District Office. One

commentor expressed concern that

Florida does not utilize a centralized

wastewater permitting system and

stated that delegation to local

government agencies within the state

would be in violation of the Clean Water

Act (CWA).

B. Response

EPA disagrees. EPA is not in the

practice of speculating on future

program implementation. EPA reviewed

the State program submission and found

it complete and sufficient under Federal

law. On November 21, 1994, the State of

Florida submitted its formal State

Program Submission requesting EPA

approval for authorization to administer

the NPDES program under Sections

402(b) and 304(i) of the CWA. The

submittal included a complete program

description (including funding,

personnel requirements and

organization, and enforcement

procedures), an Independent Counsel’s

Statement, copies of applicable State

statutes and regulations, and a MOA to

be executed by the EPA, Region IV,

Regional Administrator and the FDEP

Secretary. On December 28, 1994, EPA

informed the State of Florida that EPA

had reviewed the submittal and found it

‘‘complete’’ under the requirements of

40 CFR Part 123. Modifications to this

package, based on discussions between

EPA and FDEP, were submitted to EPA

in a letter, with attachments, dated

February 2, 1995. EPA reviewed the

program submittal and modifications

and determined that it meets the

requirements of Section 402(b) of the

CWA and Federal regulations, which

include, among other things, authority

to issue permits which comply with the

CWA, authority to impose civil and

criminal penalties for permit violations,

and authority to ensure the public is

given notice and opportunity for a

hearing on each proposed NPDES

permit issuance. Finally, EPA examined

all public comments and considered the

overall advantages and disadvantages of

authorizing NPDES program

administration by the State of Florida.

The State program MOA as approved,

also provides ample opportunity for

continuing Federal oversight of the State

program. EPA may review, in

accordance with Section IV.C of the

MOA, certain draft permits, sufficiency

of permit applications, permit revisions,

revocations, and reissuances for: (a)

Discharges which may affect the waters

of another state or Indian Tribe, (b)

discharges proposed to be regulated by

general permits, (c) discharges from

Publicly Owned Treatment Works with

a permitted daily average discharge of at

least 1.0 million gallons per day, (d)

discharges from any major facility or

facilities within any of the industrial

categories listed in Appendix A to 40

CFR Part 122, (e) discharges from

sources other than a. through d. with an

average discharge exceeding 0.5 million

gallons per day, and (f) discharges from

Publicly Owned Treatment Works

required to have a pretreatment

program. In accordance with the MOA,

EPA has the right to request review, at

any time, on any other NPDES permit.

The EPA permit review process is

outlined in the MOA. On the date the

draft permit is sent to the applicant,

FDEP will send EPA Region IV one copy

of the public notice, draft permit,

application, and the fact sheet or

statement of basis associated with the

draft permit. When applicable, the

submittal will be accompanied by a new

source/new discharger determination. If

the initial permit information supplied

by FDEP is inadequate to determine

whether the draft permit meets the

guidelines and requirements of the

CWA, EPA may, in accordance with 40

CFR 123.44(d)(2) request additional

information. If EPA determines the draft

permit is insufficient, EPA shall have 90

days from the date the draft permit is

sent to EPA to supply specific grounds

for objection, and the terms and

conditions which should be included in

the permit. These written objections

must be based upon one or more of the

criteria identified in 40 CFR 123.44(c).

Following expiration of the period for

public comment for the draft permit,

FDEP will prepare a proposed permit. If

the proposed permit is the same as the

draft permit defined in the public

notice, EPA has not objected to such

draft permit, and valid and significant

public comments have not been made,

FDEP may assume EPA has waived their

review of the proposed permit and issue

the permit without further review by

EPA. In all other cases, FDEP will send

EPA one copy of the proposed permit,

recommendations of any other affected

State, and copies of written comments

and hearing records, including the

response to comments prepared under

40 CFR 124.17 to EPA for review. If EPA

objects to the proposed permit, in

accordance with 40 CFR 123.44, FDEP

will deny the proposed permit or will

issue a permit in accordance with EPA

objections and will mail a copy of the

final permit to EPA. This review process

will ensure that FDEP is operating an

authorized NPDES program in

accordance with the requirements of the

CWA.

In response to the commentors other

concern, as the State Program is

approved, there will be no

subdelegation of permitting authority

outside of the FDEP. Although in 1987,

the CWA was amended to allow for

NPDES program authorization to more

than one state agency, the state program

request must demonstrate equivalent

scope and stringency to the CWA and

the agency(ies) seeking program

approval must have statewide

jurisdiction over the class or categories

of discharges it seeks to regulate. As is

provided in the MOA, the FDEP will be

the State Agency implementing the

NPDES permitting program and EPA

concurs with the management of the

NPDES program in this manner. The

State is not authorized to delegate any

authority to any local agency.

IV. Concern with FDEP and the South

Florida Water Management District and

Its Water Quality Obligations as

Provided in the Federal Everglades

Case Settlement

Comment

One commentor contended that the

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection and the South Florida Water
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25721

Management District have violated and

continue to violate their water quality

obligations in the Federal Everglades

Case Settlement [United States of

America vs. South Florida Water

Management District et al., 847 F.Supp.

1567 (S.D. Fla. 1992)]. The commentor

asserted that the proposed changes to

the settlement attest those violations.

Response

EPA reviewed the program submittal

and modifications and determined that

it meets the requirements of Section

402(b) of the CWA and Federal

regulations. (See response to Comment

III, above.) The Federal Everglades Case

Settlement is not relevant to EPA’s

determination.

V. Concern With the Florida Everglades

Forever Act

Comment

One commentor contended that

Chapter 373.4592 (Supp. 1994), Florida

Statutes, also known as the Everglades

Forever Act of 1994 (EFA), violates the

Federal Everglades Case Settlement and

the CWA, and that Florida is failing to

enforce water quality standards as a

result of the passage of the EFA. The

commentor contended that its testimony

to the Florida Legislature, a summary

authored by the U.S. Department of

Interior, and other documented

statements, outline the deficiencies of

the EFA. The commentor further

claimed that the refusal by FDEP to

allow the Florida Environmental

Regulation Commission (ERC) to

consider its petition for a numeric

phosphorus standard, and statements by

FDEP in appellate court act as

admissions of weakening water quality

standards and estops the State of Florida

from claiming otherwise. In addition,

the commentor stated that FDEP did not

properly submit the EFA for EPA

review, that FDEP has failed to respond

to EPA’s questions about the law, and

that the authorization of the NPDES

program should not be decided while

litigation against EPA is pending

concerning the necessity of EPA

approval of the EFA under the CWA.

Response

This issue is not relevant to EPA’s

determination of completeness or

sufficiency of the State NPDES Program

submission. EPA has made a

determination the Florida’s NPDES

program submission and modifications

meet the requirements of Section 402(b)

and 304(i) of the CWA. The passage of

the EFA was a State action, and the

litigation concerning the necessity of

EPA approval of the EFA is not relevant

to EPA’s determination concerning

NPDES program authorization. It must

be noted that the EFA was submitted by

the State to EPA on October 1, 1994.

Based upon review of the entire statute,

EPA does not consider the EFA to be a

revision of existing water quality

standards, or to change existing

designated uses. FDEP and EPA are in

agreement that the EFA is not a change

to water quality standards but instead

provides a compliance schedule for

bringing existing sources of pollution

into compliance with State water

quality standards.

VI. Concern With Florida’s

Implementation and Enforcement of Its

Minimum Water Flows and Level Law

Comment

One commentor asserted that FDEP

and the South Florida Water

Management District have failed to

implement and enforce the State’s

minimum water flows and levels law for

more than two decades and is thus

unqualified to administer the NPDES

Program.

Response

EPA has made a determination the

Florida’s NPDES program submission

and modifications meet the

requirements of Section 402(b) and

304(i) of the CWA. As part of this

determination, EPA reviewed FDEP’s

resources and believes that FDEP has

adequate resources to administer the

NPDES program. Chapter 373.042,

Florida Statutes, Minimum Water Flows

and Levels, is a state law which is not

relevant to the NPDES regulations in

Section 402 of the CWA or EPA’s

determination because it deals with a

quantity and not a water quality issue.

In addition, if necessary, EPA retains

federal oversight authority, as discussed

above.

VII. Concern Regarding Potential

Degradation of the Central Everglades

Following State Program Approval

Comment

One commentor claimed that the State

of Florida has improperly allowed

continued degradation and pollution of

the central Everglades, which include

Water Conservation Area (WCA) 3–A

and the lands of Miccosukee Tribe of

Indians of Florida. The commentor

further asserted that the lack of

enforcement on the part of the State has

irreparably harmed and degraded the

Everglades and allowed phosphorusladen discharges into the Everglades

and other state water bodies in excess of

two hundred (200) parts per billion.

Response

EPA has made a determination the

Florida’s NPDES program submission

and modifications meet the

requirements of Section 402(b) and

304(i) of the CWA. The issue to which

the commentor refers is being addressed

by the Federal Everglades Case

Settlement [United States of America vs.

South Florida Water Management

District et al., 847 F.Supp. 1567 (S.D.

Fla. 1992)]. That case and the issues

associated with it are not relevant to

EPA’s decision on authorization of

Florida’s application for the NPDES

program.

VIII. Comment Stating that the United

States (Including the Environmental

Protection Agency) Owes the

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida

(Miccosukee Tribe) a Trust

Responsibility to Protect Tribal Land

and Resources Which Might be Violated

by Delegation of the Florida NPDES

Program

Comment

One commentor contended that the

United States (including the EPA) owes

the Miccosukee Tribe a trust

responsibility to protect tribal land and

resources, and that said trust

responsibility would be violated by the

delegation of the State of Florida’s

NPDES program.

Response

As a Federal agency, EPA recognizes

the Federal trust responsibility to the

Miccosukee Tribe and other Indian

Tribes. However, EPA believes that the

authorization to the State of Florida to

administer the NPDES program will not

violate that trust responsibility.

EPA must reiterate that, at this time,

it retains full jurisdiction to administer

the NPDES program on the Miccosukee

Tribe’s Reservation. Until the

Miccosukee Tribe seeks program

authorization, all permit application

and related issues concerning

discharges on the Miccosukee

Reservation must be directed to EPA

Region IV. Further, as noted above, EPA

retains the authority to ensure

compliance with water quality

standards, including any water quality

standard set by and approved by EPA by

one Miccosukee Tribe. In addition, the

Miccosukee Tribe may petition for water

quality standards and Section 401

certification authority or NPDES

program authority under Sections 303,

402, 405 and 518 of the CWA.

Finally, as noted in Comment III

above, EPA does not ‘‘delegate’’ a state

permitting program. Rather, EPA

authorizes the state to implement the
25722 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

permitting program, as provided for

under the CWA and 40 C.F.R. Part 123,

while retaining program oversight

authority for permitting and

enforcement activities. Should the State

of Florida fail to implement its NPDES

program in accordance with the CWA,

EPA has the authority to rescind

authorization.

IX. Comment that NPDES Authorization

Should be Held in Abeyance Until

Existing and Future NPDES Challenges

Pertaining to the Everglades Storm

Water Treatment Areas are Settled

Comment

One commentor asserted that the

State of Florida’s application for

authorization to administer the NPDES

program should be denied or held in

abeyance until the existing and future

NPDES permit challenges pertaining to

the Everglades Storm Water Treatment

Areas (STAs) are settled.

Response

EPA disagrees. This comment is not

relevant to EPA’s decision on

authorization of Florida’s application

for the NPDES program. The NPDES

permit for the Everglades Nutrient

Removal (ENR) Project (NPDES No.

FL0043885), referenced in Comment IX

above, is one of several permits

currently being challenged through the

evidentiary hearing process (40 CFR

Part 124). Section III.C.3. of the MOA

states that, for permits for which an

evidentiary hearing has been requested

at the time of program authorization,

EPA will retain full jurisdiction until

resolution of the administrative

challenge or expiration of the permit.

These permits are listed in Attachment

B to the MOA. In addition, in

accordance with Section III.C.4. and

listed on Attachment C to the MOA,

which represents certain facilities as

agreed upon by FDEP and EPA where

EPA will retain full jurisdiction to issue

these NPDES permits following

authorization, EPA and FDEP have

agreed that EPA will retain full

jurisdiction for the ENR Project (NPDES

No. FL0043885), until such time that

FDEP and the permittee are notified by

EPA that full jurisdiction has been

transferred to FDEP. FDEP shall retain

its rights under Section 401 of the CWA

to consider certification to any NPDES

permit issued by EPA. Any NPDES

permit issued to any STA must meet

state water quality standards and all

applicable Federal regulations.

Therefore, EPA believes that the

argument presented above by the

commentor is not relevant to EPA’s

determination.

X. Concern that Discharges Beyond the

Territorial Seas (Federal Waters) Will

Continue to be Permitted by EPA

A. Comments

One commentor suggested that EPA

specifically state in the MOA that

dischargers to waters beyond the

territorial seas (Federal waters) will not

be included in the State of Florida’s

NPDES program authorization.

B. Response

EPA, as listed in Attachment C of the

MOA (which represents certain facilities

as agreed upon by FDEP and EPA where

EPA will retain full jurisdiction to issue

these NPDES permits following

authorization), will contain all facilities

which discharge into waters outside the

jurisdiction of the State (i.e., beyond the

territorial sea (Federal waters)).

XI. Comments Regarding Overall

Benefits Resulting from Authorization

A. Comments

EPA received comments from three

organizations supporting the delegation

of NPDES authority to Florida. These

comments clearly indicated support for

delegation because:

1. It would result in the consolidation

of wastewater permitting into one

permitting agency,

2. Provide cost benefits to those who

pay to have facilities permitted,

3. As well as, reduce the confusion of

separate permitting and enforcement.

These comments stated the opinion

that State and Federal governments, the

public, and the environment will benefit

from delegation of NPDES authority to

Florida.

B. Response

Comment noted and supported by

EPA’s response to comment number III.

above.

Conclusion

EPA is announcing today the approval

of the State of Florida NPDES permitting

program on May 1, 1995. The State of

Florida has demonstrated that it

adequately meets the requirements for

program authorization as defined in

Sections 402 and 304(i) of the CWA and

at 40 CFR Parts 123 and 403. The State

program will implement state law in

lieu of the Federally administered

program. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service concurred with the EPA ‘‘not

likely to adversely affect’’

determination. This authorization also

represents a phased NPDES program

authorization encompassing permitting

for: (1) Domestic discharges; (2)

Industrial discharges, including those

which also have storm water discharges;

and (3) pretreatment. Storm water

discharges from municipal separate

storm sewer systems (MS4’s), individual

storm water-only discharges, storm

water general permits, and Federal

facility discharges are to be phased in by

the year 2000 for administration by the

State. The State is required to submit a

program modification for authorization

of jurisdiction of these types of NPDES

permits to EPA for approval in

accordance with the schedule set forth

in the MOA. This authorization does not

include the sludge management

program.

At this time, EPA has full jurisdiction

of NPDES program authority for Indian

Lands. All permit applications and

related issues concerning discharges on

Federal Indian Reservations or Indian

Tribal Lands will be directed to EPA

Region IV.

Federal Register Notice of Approval of

State NPDES Programs or Modifications

EPA must provide Federal Register

notice of any action by the Agency

approving or modifying a State NPDES

program. Today’s Federal Register

notice is to announce the approval of

Florida’s authority to administer the

phased NPDES permit program.

Review Under Regulatory Flexibility

Act and Executive Order 12866

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis for all rules that

may have a significant impact on a

substantial number of entities.

State NPDES Program Status

State

Approved

State NPDES

permit program

Approved to

regulate federal facilities

Approved

State

pretreatment

program

Approved general permits

program

Alabama ........................................................................................................... 10/19/79 10/19/79 10/19/79 06/26/91

Arkansas ........................................................................................................... 11/01/86 11/01/86 11/01/86 11/01/86

California .......................................................................................................... 05/14/73 05/05/78 09/22/89 09/22/89
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25723

State

Approved

State NPDES

permit program

Approved to

regulate federal facilities

Approved

State

pretreatment

program

Approved general permits

program

Colorado ........................................................................................................... 03/27/75 ....................... ....................... 03/04/83

Connecticut ....................................................................................................... 09/26/73 01/09/89 06/03/81 03/10/92

Delaware .......................................................................................................... 04/01/74 ....................... ....................... 10/23/92

Georgia ............................................................................................................. 06/28/74 12/08/80 03/12/81 01/28/91

Hawaii ............................................................................................................... 11/28/74 06/01/79 08/12/83 09/30/91

Illinois ................................................................................................................ 10/23/77 09/20/79 ....................... 01/04/84

Indiana .............................................................................................................. 01/01/75 12/09/78 ....................... 04/02/91

Iowa .................................................................................................................. 08/10/78 08/10/78 06/03/81 08/12/92

Kansas .............................................................................................................. 06/28/74 08/28/85 ....................... 11/24/93

Kentucky ........................................................................................................... 09/30/83 09/30/83 09/30/83 09/30/83

Maryland ........................................................................................................... 09/05/74 11/10/87 09/30/85 09/30/91

Michigan ........................................................................................................... 10/17/73 12/09/78 04/16/85 11/29/93

Minnesota ......................................................................................................... 06/30/74 12/09/78 07/16/79 12/15/87

Mississippi ........................................................................................................ 05/01/74 01/28/83 05/13/82 09/27/91

Missouri ............................................................................................................ 10/30/74 06/26/79 06/03/81 12/12/85

Montana ............................................................................................................ 06/10/74 06/23/81 ....................... 04/29/83

Nebraska .......................................................................................................... 06/12/74 11/02/79 09/07/84 07/20/89

Nevada ............................................................................................................. 09/19/75 08/31/78 ....................... 07/27/92

New Jersey ....................................................................................................... 04/13/82 04/13/82 04/13/82 04/13/82

New York .......................................................................................................... 10/28/75 06/13/80 ....................... 10/15/92

North Carolina .................................................................................................. 10/19/75 09/28/84 06/14/82 09/06/91

North Dakota .................................................................................................... 06/13/75 01/22/90 ....................... 01/22/90

Ohio .................................................................................................................. 03/11/74 01/28/83 07/27/83 08/17/92

Oregon .............................................................................................................. 09/26/73 03/02/79 03/12/81 02/23/82

Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 06/30/78 06/30/78 ....................... 08/02/91

Rhode Island .................................................................................................... 09/17/84 09/17/84 09/17/84 09/17/84

South Carolina .................................................................................................. 06/10/75 09/26/80 04/09/82 09/03/92

South Dakota .................................................................................................... 12/30/93 12/30/93 12/30/93 *12/30/93

Tennessee ........................................................................................................ 12/28/77 09/30/86 08/10/83 04/18/91

Utah .................................................................................................................. 07/07/87 07/07/87 07/07/87 07/07/87

Vermont ............................................................................................................ 03/11/74 ....................... 03/16/82 08/26/93

Virgin Islands .................................................................................................... 06/30/76 ....................... ....................... .......................

Virginia .............................................................................................................. 03/31/75 02/09/82 04/14/89 05/20/91

Washington ....................................................................................................... 11/14/73 ....................... 09/30/86 09/26/89

West Virginia .................................................................................................... 05/10/82 05/10/82 05/10/82 05/10/82

Wisconsin ......................................................................................................... 02/04/74 11/26/79 12/24/80 12/19/86

Wyoming ........................................................................................................... 01/30/75 05/18/81 ....................... 09/24/91

Totals ......................................................................................................... 40 35 28 39

Number of Fully Authorized Programs (Federal Facilities, Pretreatment, General Permits) = 25.

Review Under Regulatory Flexibility

Act and Executive Order 12866

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis for all rules that

may have a significant impact on a

substantial number of entities. The

proposed approval of the Florida

NPDES program does not alter the

regulatory control over any industrial

category. No new substantive

requirements are established by this

action. Therefore, because this notice

does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities, a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not

needed.

On October 12, 1993, the Office of

Management and Budget exempted this

Agency action from the requirements of

Executive Order 12866.

John H. Hankinson, Jr.,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–11792 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Farmers & Merchants Bank Employee

Stock Ownership Plan; Acquisition of

Company Engaged in Permissible

Nonbanking Activities

The organization listed in this notice

has applied under § 225.23(a)(2) or (f)

of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR

225.23(a)(2) or (f)) for the Board’s

approval under section 4(c)(8) of the

Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.

1843(c)(8)) and § 225.21(a) of Regulation

Y (12 CFR 225.21(a)) to acquire or

control voting securities or assets of a

company engaged in a nonbanking

activity that is listed in § 225.25 of

Regulation Y as closely related to

banking and permissible for bank

holding companies. Unless otherwise

noted, such activities will be conducted

throughout the United States.

The application is available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. Once the

application has been accepted for

processing, it will also be available for

inspection at the offices of the Board of

Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing on the

question whether consummation of the

proposal can ‘‘reasonably be expected to

produce benefits to the public, such as

greater convenience, increased

competition, or gains in efficiency, that

outweigh possible adverse effects, such

as undue concentration of resources,

decreased or unfair competition,

conflicts of interests, or unsound

banking practices.’’ Any request for a

hearing on this question must be

accompanied by a statement of the

reasons a written presentation would

not suffice in lieu of a hearing,

identifying specifically any questions of

fact that are in dispute, summarizing the

evidence that would be presented at a

hearing, and indicating how the party

commenting would be aggrieved by

approval of the proposal.