Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Notices 74525

regarding Ohio’s request for approval of 

its sewage sludge management program.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Based on General Counsel Opinion 

78–7 (April 18, 1978), EPA has long 

considered a determination to approve 

or deny a State Clean Water Act (CWA) 

program submission to constitute an 

adjudication because an ‘‘approval,’’

within the meaning of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

constitutes a ‘‘licence,’’ which, in turn, 

is the project of an ‘‘adjudication.’’ For 

this reason, the statutes and Executive 

Orders that apply to rulemaking action 

are not applicable here. Among these 

are provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq. Under the RFA, whenever a Federal 

agency proposes or promulgates a rule 

under section 553 of the APA, after 

being required by that section or any 

other law to publish a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking, the Agency must 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for the rule, unless the Agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If the Agency 

does not certify the rule, the regulatory 

flexibility analysis must describe and 

assess the impact of a rule on small 

entities affected by the rule. Even if the 

CWA program approval were a rule 

subject to the RFA, the Agency would 

certify that approval of the State 

proposed CWA program would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

EPA’s action to approve a CWA program 

merely recognizes that the necessary 

elements of the program have already 

been enacted as a matter of State law; it 

would, therefore, impose no additional 

obligation upon those subject to the 

State’s program. Accordingly, the 

Regional Administrator would certify 

that this Ohio sewage sludge 

management program, even if a rule, 

would not have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (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, 

EPA generally must 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. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. Today’s 

decision includes no Federal mandates 

for State, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. The Act excludes 

from the definition of a ‘‘Federal 

mandate’’ duties that arise from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program, except in certain cases where 

a ‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’

affects an annual Federal entitlement 

program of $500 million or more which 

are not applicable here. Ohio’s request 

for approval of its sewage sludge 

management program is voluntary and 

imposes no Federal mandate within the 

meaning of the Act. Rather, by having 

its sewage sludge management program 

approved, the State will gain the 

authority to implement the program 

within its jurisdiction, in lieu of EPA, 

thereby eliminating duplicative State 

and Federal requirements. If a State 

chooses not to seek authorization for 

administration of a sewage sludge 

management program, regulation is left 

to EPA. EPA’s approval of State 

programs generally may reduce 

compliance costs for the private sector, 

since the State, by virtue of the 

approval, may now administer the 

program in lieu of EPA and exercise 

primary enforcement. Hence, owners 

and operators of sewage sludge 

management facilities or businesses 

generally no longer face dual Federal 

and State compliance requirements, 

thereby reducing overall compliance 

costs. Thus, today’s decision is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. The Agency 

recognizes that small governments may 

own and/or operate sewage sludge 

management facilities that will become 

subject to the requirements of an 

approved State sewage sludge 

management program. However, small 

governments that own and/or operate 

sewage sludge management facilities are 

already subject to the requirements in 

40 CFR parts 123 and 503 and are not 

subject to any additional significant or 

unique requirements by virtue of this 

program approval. Once EPA authorizes 

a State to administer its own sewage 

sludge management program and any 

revisions to that program, these same 

small governments will be able to own 

and operate their sewage sludge 

management facilities or businesses 

under the approved State program, in 

lieu of the federal program. Therefore, 

EPA has determined that this document 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments.

Authority for parts 123 and 501: Clean 

Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Dated: November 23, 2004. 

Norman Niedergang, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 04–27365 Filed 12–13–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting; Open 

Commission Meeting Wednesday, 

December 15, 2004 

December 8, 2004. 

The Federal Communications 

Commission will hold an Open Meeting 

on the subjects listed below on 

Wednesday, December 15, 2004, which 

is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. 

in Room TW–C305, at 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC.

74526 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Notices 

Item 

No. Bureau Subject 

1 Office of Engineering and Technology .......... Title: Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems (ET Docket No. 98–153). 

Summary: The Commission will consider a Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning unlicensed operation. This item responds to proposals made in the previous Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and addresses the petitions for reconsideration filed in response to the previous Memorandum Opinion and 

Order in this proceeding. 

2 International .................................................... Title: Procedures to Govern the Use of Satellite Earth Stations on Board Vessels in the 

5925–6425 MHz/3700–4200 MHz Bands and 14.0–14.5 GHz/11.7–12.2 GHz Bands (IB 

Docket No. 02–10). 

Summary: The Commission will consider a Report and Order establishing licensing and 

service rules for Earth Stations on Vessels operating in the 5925–6425 MHz/3700–4200 

MHz (C-Band) and 14.0–14.5/11.7–12.2 GHz (Ku-band) frequencies. 

3 Wireless Tele-Communications ..................... Title: Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules to Benefit the Consumers of AirGround Telecommunications Services (WT Docket No. 03–103); Biennial Regulatory 

Review-Amendment of Parts 1, 22, and 90 of the Commission’s Rules; Amendment of 

Parts 1 and 22 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Competitive Bidding Rules for Commercial and General Aviation Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service Mutually Exclusive 

Applications; and Application of Verizon Airfone Inc. for Renewal of 800 MHz AirGround Radiotelephone License, Call Sign KNKG804. 

Summary: The Commission will consider a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding commercial air-ground telecommunications service, Part 

22 non-cellular Public Mobile Service rules, and general aviation air-ground radiotelephone service mutually exclusive applications. The Commission also will consider 

the Application of Verizon Airfone for renewal of 800 MHz Air-Ground Radiotelephone license call sign KNKG804. 

4 Wireless Tele-Communications ..................... Title: Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Cellular Telephones 

and other Wireless Devices Aboard Airborne Aircraft. 

Summary: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding 

changes to the rule prohibiting the airborne use of cellular telephones. 

5 Wireline Competition ...................................... Title: Rural Health Care Support Mechanism (WC Docket No. 02–60). 

Summary: The Commission will consider a Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning modifications to the 

Commission’s rules to improve the effectiveness of the rural health care universal service support mechanism. 

6 Wireline Competition ...................................... Title: Unbundled Access to Network Elements (WC Docket No. 04–313) and Review of 

the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (CC 

Docket No. 01–338). 

Summary: The Commission will consider an Order on Remand concerning incumbent 

local exchange carriers’ obligations to make elements of their networks available on an 

unbundled basis. 

Additional information concerning 

this meeting may be obtained from 

Audrey Spivack or David Fiske, Office 

of Media Relations, (202) 418–0500; 

TTY 1–888–835–5322. Audio/Video 

coverage of the meeting will be 

broadcast live over the Internet from the 

FCC’s Audio/Video Events web page at 

http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio. 

For a fee this meeting can be viewed 

live over George Mason University’s 

Capitol Connection. The Capitol 

Connection also will carry the meeting 

live via the Internet. To purchase these 

services call (703) 993–3100 or go to 

http://www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu. 

Copies of materials adopted at this 

meeting can be purchased from the 

FCC’s duplicating contractor, Best Copy 

and Printing, Inc. (202) 488–5300; Fax 

(202) 488–5563; TTY (202) 488–5562. 

These copies are available in paper 

format and alternative media, including 

large print/type; digital disk; and audio 

and video tape. Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc. may be reached by e-mail at 

FCC@BCPIWEB.com.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–27435 Filed 12–10–04; 12:32 

pm] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice; 

Announcing a Closed Meeting of the 

Board of Directors

TIME AND DATE: The meeting of the Board 

of Directors is scheduled to begin at 10 

a.m. on Wednesday, December 15, 2004.

PLACE: Board Room, Second Floor, 

Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006.

STATUS: The entire meeting will be 

closed to the public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE

MEETING: Periodic Update of 

Examination Program Development and 

Supervisory Findings.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Shelia S. Willis, Paralegal Specialist, 

Office of General Counsel, by telephone 

at (202) 408–2876 or by electronic mail 

at williss@fhfb.gov.

Dated: December 9, 2004.

By the Federal Housing Finance Board. 

Mark J. Tenhundfeld, 

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 04–27403 Filed 12–9–04; 5:11 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6725–01–P