State Program Requirements; Revision of the Approved National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program in North Dakota, 54744-54746 [05-18422]

Download as PDF 54744 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Notices LIST OF PUMPOUTS IN THE PROPOSED AREA—Continued Name Andrews Marina ............ Hays Haven Marina ....... Chrisholm Marina .......... Chester Marina .............. Brewer Deep River Marina. Brewer Dauntless Shipyard. The Chandlery at Essex Connecticut Haddam. Connecticut Chester. Connecticut Chester. Connecticut Chester. Connecticut River. Connecticut Essex. Connecticut Essex. Hours of operation (call ahead to verify) River, East 860–345–2286 ............... River, VHF CH 9366. VHF CH 5147. VHF CH 2227. VHF CH 5580. VHF CH 0001. VHF CH 8257. May 1–Nov 30, daily 9 a.m.–6 p.m.. May 1–Oct 31, daily 8 a.m.–5 p.m.. Apr 1–Nov 30, daily 8 a.m.–5 p.m.. No data .......................... River, River, River, Deep River, River, 9, 860–526– 9, 860–526– 9, 860–526– 9, 860–526– 9, 860–767– 68, 860–767– Reynold’s Garage and Marine. Niantic Bay Marina ........ Hamburg Cove, Lyme ... 860–434–0028 ............... Niantic River, Waterford Port Niantic Marina ........ Niantic River, East Lyme VHF CH 9, 860–782– 3774. VHF CH 9, 860–739– 2155. Bayreuther’s Boat Yard, Inc. Niantic River Pumpout Boat. Smith Cove (Niantic), East Lyme. Niantic River, East Lyme, Waterford. VHF CH 8, 9, 860–739– 6264. VHF CH 68 .................... Niantic Dockominium ..... Niantic River, East Lyme 860–739–8585 ............... Burr’s Yacht Haven, Inc Thames River, New London. VHF CH 9, 78, 860– 443–8457. Thamesport Marina ....... Thames River, New London. Thames River, New London. Thames River, New London. VHF CH 9, 68, 860– 437–7022. VHF CH 9, 10, 860– 443–6304. VHF CH 72, 860–446– 4806. Thames River (Norwich Harbor), Norwich. VHF CH 68, 860–886– 6363. Crocker’s Boatyard, Inc City of Groton Wastewater Treatment Facility. Marina at American Wharf. Dated: August 31, 2005. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, New England Region. [FR Doc. 05–18014 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–7969–8] State Program Requirements; Revision of the Approved National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program in North Dakota Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Public notice; final approval of the revision of the North Dakota NPDES Program. AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:04 Sep 15, 2005 Mean low water depth (feet) Contact information Location Jkt 205001 May 1–Oct 31, daily 8 a.m.–4 p.m.. June 1–Sept 30, daily 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.. May 1–Oct 31, M–Th 8 a.m.–5 p.m., F–Sun 8 a.m.–6 p.m.. May 1–Oct 31 M–Sat 9– 5. May 1–Oct 31, M–Th 10 a.m.–4 p.m.. May 1–Oct 15, M–F 8 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Sat and Sun 8 a.m.–12 p.m.. May 1–Oct 31, daily 9 a.m.–4 p.m.. May 30–Nov 1, Sat, Sun and Monday holidays 9 a.m.–5 p.m.. May 15–Nov 15, 8 a.m.– 4 p.m.. May 1–Oct 31 M–Th 8:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m., F–Sun 8:30 a.m.–6:30 p.m.. Mar 1–Nov 30, daily 8 a.m.–8 p.m.. Mar 1–Nov 30, daily 7:30 a.m.–5 p.m.. May 1–Oct 31, M–F 7 a.m.–3 p.m., Sat–Sun 7 a.m.–10 p.m.. Apr 1–Nov 30, daily 8 a.m.–8 p.m.. SUMMARY: On September 9, 2005, the Regional Administrator for Region 8 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency approved a revision to the existing North Dakota Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program. With this revision, the State of North Dakota is now authorized to administer and enforce a pretreatment program where the State has jurisdiction. This program will be administered by the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH), Division of Water Quality Department. Curt McCormick (8P–W–P), U.S. EPA, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466; telephone number (303) 312–6377; e-mail address mccormick.curt@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Fee 5 Free. 6 Free. 6 Free. 6 No data. 10 $5. 12 Free / $5 for nonmembers. Free / $5 for nonmembers. 12 4–5 $5. 5 $5. 7 $5. 6 $0.50 per gallon. N/A Free. ...................... $5. 9 $5. 13 $5. 12 Free. 20+ 25 $5. $3 (portable), Free at gas dock. I. Background Under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1342, the EPA may issue permits allowing discharges of pollutants from point sources into waters of the United States, subject to various requirements of the CWA. These permits are known as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Section 402(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1342(b), allows states to apply to the EPA for authorization to administer their own NPDES permit programs. In June of 1975, North Dakota’s NPDES Program was approved by the EPA. Section 402(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1345(c), authorizes any state desiring to administer its own industrial pretreatment program to do so in accordance with section 402(b)(8) and (9) of the CWA, following the E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM 16SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Notices procedures and requirements set out in 40 CFR 403.10. On November 12, 2003, North Dakota submitted an application to EPA requesting that EPA consider a revision to the State’s NPDES program to include the pretreatment program. The EPA, having found that North Dakota’s application meets all pertinent requirements in the CWA and the EPA’s regulations, particularly 40 CFR parts 123 and 403, has approved North Dakota’s application for primary authority to administer a pretreatment program. II. Public Comments EPA provided a 30-day public comment period in the Federal Register notice dated March 29, 2004, and in three major newspapers in the State of North Dakota for any interested member of the public to comment on this application. In addition, individual mailings were sent to persons who would be interested in this action. No comments were received. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. III. Indian Country North Dakota is not authorized to carry out its industrial pretreatment program in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes, but is not limited to: 1. Lands within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian reservations located within the State of North Dakota: A. Fort Totten Indian Reservation, B. Standing Rock Indian Reservation, C. Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, and D. Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation, 2. Land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian Tribe, and 3. Other land which is ‘‘Indian country’’ within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151. IV. Administrative Requirements The EPA has long considered a determination to approve or deny a state NPDES program submission to constitute an adjudication, not a rulemaking. This is because an ‘‘approval,’’ as that term is used in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., constitutes a ‘‘license,’’ which, in turn, is the product of an ‘‘adjudication.’’ Therefore, the requirements for rules that are established by the statutes and Executive Orders mentioned below would not apply to this action. Even if this action were considered a rulemaking, the statutes and Executive VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:04 Sep 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 Orders discussed below would not apply for the following reasons. Paperwork Reduction Act The EPA has determined that there is no need for an Information Collection Request under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this action would not impose any new federal reporting or recordkeeping requirements. Because the State of North Dakota has adopted the EPA’s Industrial Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403.10(f)(1), the matters subject to reporting and recordkeeping requirements will remain the same after the EPA’s approval of North Dakota’s program. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As Regional Administrator for EPA Region VIII, I hereby certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the EPA is generally required to prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. The EPA’s approval of North Dakota’s program is not a ‘‘Federal mandate,’’ because there is no federal mandate for states to establish pretreatment programs. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113 section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 54745 inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards, e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices, that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This action does not involve the use of technical standards subject to the NTTAA. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must determine whether its regulatory actions are ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to review by the OMB. The EPA has determined that this approval action is not ‘‘significant’’ for purposes of Executive Order 12866 because, as mentioned above, North Dakota has adopted the EPA’s pretreatment regulations. Executive Order 12898—Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,’’ dated February 11, 1994, focuses federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority populations and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. Today’s action will not diminish the health protection to minority and low-income populations because, as mentioned above, it will not impose any different requirements than those already in effect for industrial pretreatment facilities. Executive Order 13045—Protection of Children Executive Order 13045, dated April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19885), applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined in Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13175—Consultation With Tribes Under Executive Order 13175, no Federal agency may issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM 16SEN1 54746 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Notices compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments or the agency consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This action will not significantly affect any Indian tribe. As indicated above, North Dakota is not authorized to implement its pretreatment program in Indian country. The EPA will continue to administer the existing pretreatment program in Indian country in North Dakota. Executive Order 13132—Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled ‘‘Federalism,’’ dated August 10, 1999 (64 FR 43255), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ The phrase ‘‘policies that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on States, on the relationship between the National Government and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have any substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between States and the National Government, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. It will merely put in place a state regulatory program that is identical to the existing federal program. Executive Order 13211—Energy Effects Because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Dated: September 9, 2005. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 05–18422 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:04 Sep 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 13, 2005. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528: 1. SCBT Financial Corporation, Columbia, South Carolina, to acquire 100% of the voting shares of Sun Bancshares, Inc., Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, and thereby indirectly acquire SunBank, National Association, Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: 1. Capitol Bancorp, Ltd., Lansing, Michigan, to acquire 100 percet of the voting shares of Capitol Development Bancorp Limited III, Lansing, Michigan, and thereby indirectly acquire Bank of Belleville (in organization), Belleville, Illinois. In connection with this application Capitol Development Bancorp Limited III has applied to become a bank holding company. C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 752012272: 1. FC Holdings, Inc., Houston, Texas, and FC Holdings of Delaware, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; to acquire 100 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 percent of the voting shares of Lake Area National Bank, Trinity, Texas. D. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Andre Anderson, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303: 1. Omni Bancshares, Inc., Metairie, Louisiana, to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Omni Bank, Baton Rouge, Louisiana (in organization). Comments on this application must be received by September 29, 2005. 2. West Alabama Capital Corp., Reform, Alabama, to merge with West Alabama Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Merchants and Farmers Bank, both of Millport, Alabama. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 13, 2005. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 05–18467 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210–01–S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 3, 2005. E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM 16SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54744-54746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18422]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7969-8]


State Program Requirements; Revision of the Approved National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program in North Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Public notice; final approval of the revision of the North 
Dakota NPDES Program.

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

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2005, the Regional Administrator for Region 8 
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency approved a 
revision to the existing North Dakota Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System program. With this revision, the State of North Dakota is now 
authorized to administer and enforce a pretreatment program where the 
State has jurisdiction. This program will be administered by the North 
Dakota Department of Health (NDDH), Division of Water Quality 
Department.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Curt McCormick (8P-W-P), U.S. EPA, 
Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466; 
telephone number (303) 312-6377; e-mail address mccormick.curt@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1342, the 
EPA may issue permits allowing discharges of pollutants from point 
sources into waters of the United States, subject to various 
requirements of the CWA. These permits are known as National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Section 402(b) of the 
CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1342(b), allows states to apply to the EPA for 
authorization to administer their own NPDES permit programs. In June of 
1975, North Dakota's NPDES Program was approved by the EPA.
    Section 402(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1345(c), authorizes any state 
desiring to administer its own industrial pretreatment program to do so 
in accordance with section 402(b)(8) and (9) of the CWA, following the

[[Page 54745]]

procedures and requirements set out in 40 CFR 403.10. On November 12, 
2003, North Dakota submitted an application to EPA requesting that EPA 
consider a revision to the State's NPDES program to include the 
pretreatment program.
    The EPA, having found that North Dakota's application meets all 
pertinent requirements in the CWA and the EPA's regulations, 
particularly 40 CFR parts 123 and 403, has approved North Dakota's 
application for primary authority to administer a pretreatment program.

II. Public Comments

    EPA provided a 30-day public comment period in the Federal Register 
notice dated March 29, 2004, and in three major newspapers in the State 
of North Dakota for any interested member of the public to comment on 
this application. In addition, individual mailings were sent to persons 
who would be interested in this action. No comments were received. No 
public hearing was requested, and none was held.

III. Indian Country

    North Dakota is not authorized to carry out its industrial 
pretreatment program in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. 
This includes, but is not limited to:
    1. Lands within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian 
reservations located within the State of North Dakota:
    A. Fort Totten Indian Reservation,
    B. Standing Rock Indian Reservation,
    C. Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, and
    D. Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation,
    2. Land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian Tribe, and
    3. Other land which is ``Indian country'' within the meaning of 18 
U.S.C. 1151.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    The EPA has long considered a determination to approve or deny a 
state NPDES program submission to constitute an adjudication, not a 
rulemaking. This is because an ``approval,'' as that term is used in 
the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., constitutes a 
``license,'' which, in turn, is the product of an ``adjudication.'' 
Therefore, the requirements for rules that are established by the 
statutes and Executive Orders mentioned below would not apply to this 
action. Even if this action were considered a rulemaking, the statutes 
and Executive Orders discussed below would not apply for the following 
reasons.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The EPA has determined that there is no need for an Information 
Collection Request under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., because this action would not impose any new federal reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements. Because the State of North Dakota has 
adopted the EPA's Industrial Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 
403.10(f)(1), the matters subject to reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements will remain the same after the EPA's approval of North 
Dakota's program.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    As Regional Administrator for EPA Region VIII, I hereby certify, 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA is generally required to prepare a written statement, including a 
cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year. The EPA's approval of North Dakota's 
program is not a ``Federal mandate,'' because there is no federal 
mandate for states to establish pretreatment programs.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether its regulatory actions are ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the OMB. The EPA has determined that 
this approval action is not ``significant'' for purposes of Executive 
Order 12866 because, as mentioned above, North Dakota has adopted the 
EPA's pretreatment regulations.

Executive Order 12898--Environmental Justice

    Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations,'' dated February 11, 1994, focuses federal attention on 
the environmental and human health conditions of minority populations 
and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental 
protection for all communities. Today's action will not diminish the 
health protection to minority and low-income populations because, as 
mentioned above, it will not impose any different requirements than 
those already in effect for industrial pretreatment facilities.

Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children

    Executive Order 13045, dated April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19885), applies 
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined in Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as 
defined in Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13175--Consultation With Tribes

    Under Executive Order 13175, no Federal agency may issue a 
regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and that is not 
required by statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct

[[Page 54746]]

compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments or the agency 
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. This action will not significantly affect any 
Indian tribe. As indicated above, North Dakota is not authorized to 
implement its pretreatment program in Indian country. The EPA will 
continue to administer the existing pretreatment program in Indian 
country in North Dakota.

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism,'' dated August 10, 
1999 (64 FR 43255), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process 
to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' The phrase ``policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on States, on the relationship 
between the National Government and States, or on the distribution of 
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' 
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have any 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
States and the National Government, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132. It will merely put in place a state 
regulatory program that is identical to the existing federal program.

Executive Order 13211--Energy Effects

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).

    Dated: September 9, 2005.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 05-18422 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.