[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25718-25723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11792]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[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 [[Page 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 state-
issued 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 [[Page 25720]] 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 un-
biased 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
[[Page 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 phosphorus-laden
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 [[Page 25722]] 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved to Approved
Approved State regulate Approved State general
State NPDES permit federal pretreatment permits
program facilities program 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
[[Page 25723]]
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