60522 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 

pollution control agencies and EPA 

regional offices make recommendations 

to headquarters for the national awards. 

Programs and projects being recognized 

are in compliance with applicable water 

quality requirements and have a 

satisfactory record with respect to 

environmental quality. Municipalities 

and industries are recognized for their 

demonstrated achievements in the 

following awards categories: 

(1) Outstanding operations and 

maintenance practices at wastewater 

treatment facilities; 

(2) Exemplary biosolids management 

projects, technology/innovation or 

development activities, research and 

public acceptance efforts; 

(3) Outstanding municipal 

implementation and enforcement of 

local pretreatment programs; 

(4) Implementing outstanding, 

innovative, and cost-effective storm 

water control. The winners of the EPA’s 

2005 National Clean Water Act 

Recognition Awards are listed below by 

category. 

Operations and Maintenance Awards 

Category 

First Place: Sub-Category: 

Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Clean Water Services, Tigard, Oregon ....................... Large Advanced Plant (tie). 

Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, Denver, Colorado .......................................................................... Large Advanced Plant (tie). 

Mount Holly Water Pollution Control Facility, Mount Holly, New Jersey .................................................. Medium Advanced Plant (tie). 

Northwest Water Reclamation Facility, Kennesaw, Georgia ......................................................................... Medium Advanced Plant (tie). 

Brownstown Wastewater Utility, Brownstown, Indiana ............................................................................... Small Advanced Plant. 

Lawrence Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility, Lawrence, Kansas .................................................... Large Secondary Plant. 

Fountain Sanitation District, Fountain, Colorado .......................................................................................... Medium Secondary Plant. 

Newington New Hampshire Wastewater Treatment Facility, Newington, New Hampshire ...................... Small Secondary Plant. 

North Conway Wastewater Treatment Facility, North Conway, Connecticut .............................................. Large Non-discharging Plant. 

South Blue River Waste Water Treatment Facility, Breckenridge Sanitation District, Breckenridge, Colorado.Small Non-discharging Plant. 

Second Place: Sub-Category: 

Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Shakopee, Minnesota.Large Advanced Plant. 

Wheaton Sanitary District, Wheaton, Illinois ................................................................................................ Medium Advanced Plant. 

Village of Lima Wastewater Treatment Plant, Lima, New York ................................................................... Small Advanced Plant. 

Town of Canton Water Pollution Control Facility, Canton, Connecticut .................................................... Small Secondary Plant. 

Biosolids Management Awards 

Category 

First Place: Sub-Category: 

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Biosolids Management Program, Washington, DC ...... Large Operating Projects. 

Lawrence Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility, ................................................................................... Small Operating Projects Lawrence, Kansas 

Dr. Ken Barbarick and Dr. Jim Ippolito, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado ...................... Research Activities. 

Second Place: Sub-Category: 

West Jackson County Land Application Facility, Pascagoula, Mississippi .................................................. Small Operating Projects. 

Honorable Mention: 

Butler County Department of Environmental Services, Hamilton, Ohio ..................................................... Large Operating Projects. 

Tri-Cities Regional Wastewater Authority and Veolia Water North America, Dayton, Ohio ..................... Small Operating Projects. 

Pretreatment Awards Category 

First Place: Sub-Category: 

Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Martinez, California ........................................................................ Greater than 20 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). 

City of Wilsonville Water Pollution Control Facility, Wilsonville, Oregon ................................................. 6–20 SIUs. 

Second Place: Sub-Category: 

Broward County Water and Wastewater Services Utility Compliance and Monitoring Industrial 

Pretreatment Program, Pompano Beach, Florida.

Greater than 20 SIUs. 

Upper Merion Municipal Utility Authority, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania ............................................... 6–20 SIUs. 

Stormwater Management Awards 

Category 

First Place: Sub-Category: 

Northrop Grumman/Newport News/Continental Maritime of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, California ...... Industrial. 

Dated: October 5, 2005. 

James A. Hanlon, 

Director, Office of Wastewater Management. 

[FR Doc. 05–20815 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

Farm Credit Administration Board; 

Regular Meeting 

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, 

pursuant to the Government in the 

Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), that 

the November 10, 2005 regular meeting 

of the Farm Credit Administration 

Board (Board) has been rescheduled. 

The regular meeting of the Board will be 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 60523 

held Tuesday, November 8, 2004 

starting at 9 a.m. An agenda for this 

meeting will be published at a later 

date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeanette C. Brinkley, Secretary to the 

Farm Credit Administration Board, 

(703) 883–4009, TTY (703) 883–4056. 

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit 

Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, 

McLean, Virginia 22102–5090. 

Dated: October 14, 2005. 

Jeanette C. Brinkley, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. 05–20957 Filed 10–14–05; 3:59 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Statement of Policy Regarding the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC). 

ACTION: Proposed Statement of Policy. 

SUMMARY: The FDIC is proposing to 

revise its Statement of Policy on the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 (NHPA). The revised Statement of 

Policy reflects the FDIC’s experience 

and practices in applying the current 

NHPA Statement of Policy and statutory 

changes to the NHPA and its 

implementing regulations. The revised 

Statement of Policy is relevant to 

applications for deposit insurance for de 

novo institutions, applications for the 

establishment of domestic branches, and 

applications for the relocation of 

domestic branches or main offices. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before December 19, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/ 

propose.html. Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: comments@fdic.gov. 

• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive 

Secretary, Attention: Comments/Legal 

ESS, Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20429. 

• Hand Delivered/Courier: The guard 

station at the rear of the 550 17th Street 

Building (located on F Street), on 

business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

• Public Inspection: Comments may 

be inspected and photocopied in the 

FDIC Public Information Center, Room 

100, 801 17th Street, NW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on 

business days. 

• Internet Posting: Comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/ 

federal/propose.html, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin W. Hodson, Section Chief, Risk 

Management and Applications Section, 

Division of Supervision and Consumer 

Protection (202) 898–6919, or Susan van 

den Toorn, Counsel, Legal Division 

(202) 898–8707; Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation, Washington, DC 

20429. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC 

has determined that its Statement of 

Policy on the NHPA (SOP) should be 

revised. See: 1 FDIC Law, Regulations, 

Related Acts 5175. The proposed SOP, 

in updating and clarifying the NHPA 

requirements relevant to applicants and 

the FDIC, will provide for more efficient 

processing and timely resolution of 

matters pertaining to the NHPA. The 

proposed SOP incorporates the role of 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers in 

the review process to take into account 

the responsibilities of the FDIC pursuant 

to a number of statutes relating to Indian 

Tribes and Native Hawaiian 

organizations. The proposed Statement 

of Policy continues to provide for public 

involvement in the FDIC’s NHPA 

compliance activities through the 

comment periods provided for relevant 

applications in 12 CFR part 303. 

The NHPA sets forth a national policy 

to promote the preservation of historic 

resources. It requires, in part, that all 

agencies of the Federal Government 

consider the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties. The 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (Advisory Council) has 

adopted regulations that implement this 

requirement. 36 CFR part 800. The FDIC 

considers applications for deposit 

insurance for de novo institutions, 

applications to establish a domestic 

branch, and applications to relocate a 

domestic branch or main office 

(collectively, ‘‘Covered Applications’’) 

to be undertakings for the purposes of 

section 106 of the NHPA. Because the 

NHPA has been amended and the 

Advisory Council has revised its 

regulations during the interim period, 

the FDIC is taking this opportunity to 

revise its SOP to conform to those 

amendments and revisions. 

Request for Public Comment as Part of 

EGRPRA 

Consistent with the spirit of section 

2222 of the Economic Growth and 

Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1996 (EGRPRA, 12 U.S.C. 3311), the 

FDIC requests public comment to 

identify any areas of the proposed SOP 

that are outdated, unnecessary, or 

unduly burdensome. 

The Board of Directors of the FDIC 

hereby proposes the revised Statement 

of Policy on the National Historic 

Preservation Act, as set forth below. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 Procedures Relating to Filings 

Made With the FDIC 

This Statement of Policy (SOP) 

addresses the FDIC’s compliance with 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. 

(NHPA), with respect to certain 

applications submitted to the FDIC in 

accordance with governing regulations 

at 12 CFR part 303. This SOP is relevant 

to applications for deposit insurance for 

de novo institutions, applications for 

the establishment of domestic branches, 

and applications for the relocation of 

domestic branches or main offices 

(collectively, ‘‘Covered Applications’’). 

Prior to an Applicant taking an action 

with respect to a property or site 

relevant to a Covered Application, the 

FDIC must consider the potential effects 

of the proposal on the property or site. 

Relevant sites include any property of 

historical, architectural, archeological, 

or cultural significance, including land 

and structures; such sites may be either 

included in the National Register of 

Historic Places (National Register) or 

eligible for inclusion. Further, 

properties relevant to a Covered 

Application include those properties 

owned or to be owned by the 

institution, as well as any property that 

is or will be leased from a third party. 

Applicants are cautioned that no action 

should be taken with respect to a 

property or site relevant to a Covered 

Application prior to obtaining consent 

from or entering into an alternative 

resolution with the FDIC and, as 

applicable, the appropriate State or 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO/THPO) and the Advisory 

Council. Such actions include: 

• Demolition of existing buildings or 

any change to the physical structure or 

use of the property, or of physical 

features within the property’s setting; 

• Excavation of the land, construction 

of any new structures, or the 

introduction of visual, atmospheric, or 

audible elements that diminish the 

integrity of the property’s significant 

historic features; 

• Neglect of a property that causes its 

deterioration; or 

• The transfer, lease, or sale of a 

property, or any portion of the property 

by the applicant without adequate and 

legally enforceable restrictions or 

conditions to ensure long-term