Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26607

takes the spent pulping or black liquor,

reduces it through evaporation, and

flame combusts the resultant

concentrated liquor in two ‘‘smelters,’’

also called ‘‘recovery furnaces.’’ The

smelters recover the sodium carbonate

in a molten smelt that is then dissolved

in water to produce new pulping liquor.

Due to the age and physical condition

of the existing smelters at the Mill, to

comply with MACT II Georgia-Pacific

would have to substantially upgrade or

rebuild these units and add additional

emission control devices. Alternatively,

they would need to replace the smelters

with a new recovery boiler that uses

conventional technology. GeorgiaPacific has investigated, and proposes to

install, a third alternative for recovering

pulping chemicals at its facility, using

an innovative black liquor gasification

system. Under this alternative, the

concentrated black liquor would be

pyrolyzed (thermal conversion of

organic compounds) to liberate a

combustible gas (primarily hydrogen),

which in turn would be burned as an

energy source to drive the pyrolysis and

to produce steam to be used elsewhere

in the Big Island facility. Sodium

carbonate pellets would be recovered

during this process for reuse in fresh

pulping liquor.

Georgia-Pacific’s proposed

installation of a black liquor gasification

system would be the first commercial

application of this innovative

gasification technology in the United

States. Deployment of the proposed

gasification technology promises

reduced consumption of fossil fuel,

increased efficiency in energy

conversion and chemical recovery,

elimination of the smelt-water explosion

hazard (inherent to the operation of

conventional recovery boilers), reduced

maintenance costs, and significantly

lower environmental emissions of

criteria pollutants (particulate, sulfur

dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile

organic compounds precursors to

ozone), carbon monoxide), hazardous

air pollutants, and greenhouse gases. If

Georgia-Pacific experiences no problems

or delays in construction and testing of

the gasification technology, GeorgiaPacific expects that its gasifier could be

operational in time to meet the MACT

II standards when they become

effective. However, Georgia-Pacific is

pursuing an XL Project for its Mill for

the following reasons:

(1) to be able to operate the existing

smelters past the otherwise applicable

MACT II compliance date, if necessary,

while the gasification system is brought

on line and during a limited trial of the

gasification system using black liquor

from Kraft pulp mills;

(2) to assure that if the gasification

system fails, Georgia-Pacific would be

allowed to operate its existing smelters,

as necessary, past the otherwise

applicable MACT II compliance date

while it constructs a conventional

recovery boiler; and

(3) to allow the steam generated by

the new process to be utilized elsewhere

at the Mill.

This project does not include

modifications to production areas of the

Mill. This project is not intended to

increase pulp or paper production. The

new gasification system will be similar

in capacity to the existing smelters. Due

to the extensive nature of the

stateholder process conducted by

Georgia-Pacific on this project, the

comment period will be 14 days.

DATES: The period for submission of

comments ends on May 22, 2000.

ADDRESSEES: All comments on the

proposed Final Project Agreement

should be sent to: Steven Donohue, EPA

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, or David

Beck, Mail Drop 10 EPA Research

Triangle Park, NC 27711. Comments

may also be faxed to Mr. Donohue at

(215) 814–2783 or to Mr. Beck at (919)

541–2464. Comments may also be

received via electronic mail sent to:

donohue.steve@epa.gov or

beck.david@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To

obtain a copy of the proposed Final

Project Agreement or a Fact Sheet,

contact: Steven Donohue, EPA Region

III 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19103–2029, or David

Beck, Mail Drop 10 EPA Research

Triangle Park, NC 27711. The FPA and

related documents are also available via

the Internet at the following location:

http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL. In

addition, public files on the project,

including the FPA, are located in the

Big Island Public Library, 1111

Schooldays Road, Big Island, VA 24526

(804) 299–5604 and in the Amherst

County Public Library, P.O. Box 370,

Amherst, Virginia 24521 (804) 946–

9388. Questions to EPA regarding the

documents can be directed to Steven

Donohue at (215) 814–3215 or David

Beck at (919) 541–5421. To be included

on the Georgia-Pacific Project XL

mailing list for information about future

public meetings, XL progress reports

and other mailings from Georgia-Pacific

on the XL project, contact Pat Moore,

Georgia-Pacific Corporation, P.O. Box 40

Highway 501 North, Big Island, Virginia

24526 (804) 299–5911 ext. 286. For

information on all other aspects of the

XL Program contact Christopher Knopes

at the following address: Office of

Policy, Economics and Innovation,

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW Room M3802

(Mail Code 1802), Washington, DC

20460. Additional information on

Project XL, including documents

referenced in this notice, other EPA

policy documents related to Project XL,

regional XL contacts, application

information, and descriptions of

existing XL projects and proposals, is

available via the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/ProjectXL.

Dated: May 2, 2000.

Elizabeth A. Shaw,

Deputy Associate Administrator for

Reinvention Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–11428 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6586–7]

Water Pollution Control; Program

Modification Application by Wisconsin

to Administer the Sludge Management

(Biosolids) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of application and public

comment period.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 40 CFR 123.62

and 40 CFR part 501, the State of

Wisconsin has submitted to EPA an

application to modify the existing

Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (WPDES) program

to include administration and

enforcement of the sludge management

(biosolids) program where it has

jurisdiction. Specifically, the State is

seeking approval of a sludge

management program which addresses

the land application of sludge, surface

disposal of sludge, and the landfilling of

sludge. Wisconsin is not seeking

approval for the incineration of sludge

or the land application of septage. The

state’s sludge management program will

not extend to ‘‘Indian Country’’ as

defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, and will not

include lands within the exterior

boundaries of Indian reservations

within or abutting the State of

Wisconsin, as they are not seeking

approval for these areas at this time.

According to the state’s proposal, this

program would be administered by the

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources (WDNR).

The application from Wisconsin is

complete and is available for inspection

and copying. Public comments are

requested and encouraged.

26608 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

DATES: Public comments are to be

received or postmarked on or before

June 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Rebecca Harvey, Chief, NPDES Support

and Technical Assistance Branch (WN–

16J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604–

3590.

You may inspect, and copy at a

minimal charge, the documents relevant

to Wisconsin’s submittal at the

following addresses from 8:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding holidays, at the: WDNR,

Bureau of Watershed Management, 101

South Webster Street, Madison,

Wisconsin 53707, contact: Greg Kester,

(608) 267–7611; WDNR-Southeast

Region, 2300 North Martin Luther King

Jr. Dr., P.O. Box 12436, Milwaukee, WI

53212, contact: Jim Fratrick, (414) 263–

8632; WDNR-Northeast Region, 1125

North Military, P.O. Box 10448, Green

Bay, WI 54307, contact: Jeff Haack, (920)

492–5811; WDNR-Northern Region-Park

Falls, 875 South 4th Ave., P.O. Box 220,

Park Falls, WI 54552, contact: Jim

Hansen, (715) 762–4684 ext. 120;

WDNR-South Central Region, 3911 Fish

Hatchery Rd., Fitchburg, WI 53711,

contact: Roy Lembcke, (608) 275–3283;

WDNR-West Central Region, 1300 W.

Clairemont St., P.O. Box 4001,Eau

Claire, WI 54702–4001, contact: Paul

LaLiberte, (715) 839–3724; and at the

EPA Regional Office in Chicago at the

address appearing earlier in this notice,

contact: David Soong, (312) 886–0136.

Copies of the complete submittal can be

obtained at a cost of 10 cents per page

(roughly $280.00 for the complete

submittal) from WDNR. Requests for

copies should be addressed to Greg

Kester, Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources at the address

provided above or at telephone number

(608) 267–7611.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Soong, NPDES Support and

Technical Assistance Branch, (WN–16J),

EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604–

3590, phone number: (312) 886–0136.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document ‘‘we’’,

‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ means EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. What was submitted in Wisconsin’s

application for sludge management

program approval?

III. Are there variations between Wisconsin’s

sludge management program regulations

and the federal sludge regulations, 40

CFR Part 503?

IV. Can the public comment on Wisconsin’s

program submittal?

V. Is a public hearing scheduled?

VI. Has a decision been made regarding

Wisconsin’s program?

VII. If EPA approves Wisconsin’s WPDES

program modification, what is the effect

of that decision?

VIII. Would EPA’s Approval Affect Indian

Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Wisconsin?

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Executive Order 13045: Children’s

Health Protection

C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Introduction

Wisconsin has regulated sewage

sludge quality and beneficial reuse

under state authority since 1977.

Section 405 of the Clean Water Act

(CWA or Act), 33 U.S.C. 1345, created

the federal sludge management program,

allowing EPA to issue permits for the

disposal of sewage sludge under

conditions required by the CWA.

Section 405(c) of the CWA provides that

a state may submit an application to

EPA for administering its own program

for issuing sewage sludge permits

within its jurisdiction. EPA is required

to approve each such submitted state

program unless EPA determines that the

program does not meet the requirements

of Sections 304(i) and/or 402(b) of the

CWA or the EPA regulations

implementing those sections. To obtain

such approval, the state must show,

among other things, that it has authority

to issue permits which comply with the

Act, authority to impose civil and

criminal penalties for permit violations,

and authority to ensure that the public

is given notice and opportunity for a

hearing on each proposed permit. The

requirements for state sludge

management program approval are

listed in 40 CFR part 501.

II. What Was Submitted in Wisconsin’s

Application for Sludge Management

Program Approval?

Wisconsin’s application for sludge

management program approval contains

a letter from the Secretary of WDNR

requesting program approval, an

Attorney General’s Statement, copies of

pertinent state statutes and regulations,

amendments to the WPDES Program

Description, and proposed amendments

to the WDNR/EPA Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) to be executed by the

Regional Administrator, Region 5, EPA,

and the Secretary, Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources.

The Secretary’s letter of May 26, 1998,

requested that EPA approve the state’s

sludge management program as a

modification to their WPDES program.

On March 8, 1999, the Secretary limited

the state’s request to all sludge activities

within the State except for those

activities occurring within Indian

Country.

The Attorney General’s Statement

includes citations to specific statutes,

administrative regulations, and judicial

decisions which demonstrate adequate

authority to carry out the state’s sludge

management program. State statutes and

regulations cited in the Attorney

General’s Statement are also included in

the application.

The amendments to the WPDES

Program Description include a

description of the scope and

organizational structure of the sludge

management program, including a

description of the general duties and the

total number of state staff carrying out

the program, a description of applicable

state procedures, including permitting

procedures, and administrative and

judicial review procedures, and a

description of the state’s compliance

tracking and enforcement program. It

also includes an inventory of the

facilities that are subject to regulations

promulgated pursuant to 40 CFR part

503 and subject to the state’s sludge

management program.

The proposed amendments to the

WDNR/EPA MOA include provisions

for permit administration, enforcement

and compliance monitoring, and annual

reporting. The MOA has been signed by

the Secretary of WDNR and will become

effective upon the signature of the

Regional Administrator of EPA, Region

5. The MOA does not limit the authority

of EPA to take actions pursuant to its

powers under the CWA, nor does it

limit EPA’s oversight responsibilities

with respect to sludge management

program administration.

III. Are There Variations Between

Wisconsin’s Sludge Management

Program Regulations and the Federal

Sludge Regulations, 40 CFR Part 503?

Following is a brief summary of and

rationale for the main points of variance

between Wisconsin’s sludge

management program and the 40 CFR

part 503 sludge rules.

1. Wisconsin restricts application of

sludge on agricultural land when it is

frozen or snow covered. 40 CFR part 503

restricts sludge application on frozen or

snow covered ground if there is a

likelihood of sludge entering any waters

or wetlands. Wisconsin believes that the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26609

likelihood of runoff exists on most sites

in Wisconsin which are frozen or snow

covered. Therefore, winter land

application is restricted pursuant to

Wisconsin regulations.

2. Wisconsin regulations require that

sludge must be land applied at the

agronomic rate for the crop grown

taking all sources of nitrogen into

account. This is required to preclude

over application of nitrogen which

could result in groundwater

contamination through the leaching of

nitrates. 40 CFR part 503 requires

application at the agronomic rate but is

silent about how to take other nitrogen

sources into account. Wisconsin

requires disclosure at the time of soil

sampling of the anticipated rate and

type of manure application, percent of

legume forage left standing, and

projected options of crops to be grown.

3. Wisconsin regulations establish

more stringent site restrictions regarding

the land application of sludge than

federal requirements. Wisconsin

regulations address additional

environmental and public concerns

such as setback distances from

residences, public and private wells,

property lines, waterways of various

kinds, rural schools, and rural health

care facilities. Separation distances to

bedrock and groundwater, allowable

slopes and soil permeability are also

addressed.

4. Wisconsin regulates radium-226 in

communities which have elevated

concentrations of radium-226 in their

water supply system, while 40 CFR part

503 does not specifically regulate

radium-226. Wisconsin’s concern with

the land application of sludge with

radium-226 is twofold. First, Wisconsin

is concerned that the decay of radium226 to radon gas could pose a problem

if construction were to occur in the

future on a site which had an

unacceptably high soil concentration.

Second, Wisconsin is concerned that

radium may leach to groundwater if the

soil concentration of radium-226 is

elevated.

5. Sludge management plans, which

are required by Wisconsin regulations,

are intended to allow facilities some

flexibility in how they comply with the

administrative rules. WDNR encourages

innovative alternate beneficial uses of

sludge such as mine reclamation,

silviculture, and other projects which

are shown to be environmentally sound.

Sludge management plans provide the

forum for such proposals to be

presented. 40 CFR part 503 does not

specifically require the use of sludge

management plans.

6. State regulations prohibit ‘‘Surface

Disposal’’ as a sludge management

option, even though 40 CFR part 503

allows surface disposal. The State

believes that surface disposal is not an

environmentally acceptable alternative

because it may threaten groundwater

quality and contradicts the beneficial

reuse policy WDNR promotes.

7. Bulk exceptional quality sludge is

exempt from most of the management

requirements of Wisconsin’s

regulations. However, application on

frozen or snow covered ground is

restricted and the storage requirement,

which is not federally required, applies

to this material.

IV. Can the Public Comment on

Wisconsin’s Program Submittal?

It is requested and encouraged that

the public comment on the state’s

sludge management program submittal.

Copies of all submitted statements and

documents will become a part of the

record submitted to EPA. All comments

or objections presented in writing and

postmarked within 45 days of this

notice to EPA, Region 5, will be

considered by EPA before it takes final

action on Wisconsin’s request for

program modification approval. Written

comments should be submitted to

Rebecca Harvey at the address given

above.

The public is also encouraged to bring

the foregoing to the attention of anyone

interested in this matter.

V. Is a Public Hearing Scheduled?

At the time of this notice, a decision

has not been made as to whether a

public hearing will be held on

Wisconsin’s request for program

modification. During the comment

period, any interested person may

request a public hearing by filing a

written request which must state the

issues to be raised to EPA, Region 5. The

last day for filing a request for a public

hearing is 45 days from the date of this

notice and should be submitted to

Rebecca Harvey at the above address. In

appropriate cases, including those

where there is significant public

interest, EPA may hold a public hearing.

Public notice of such a hearing will

occur in the Federal Register and in

enough of the largest newspapers in

Wisconsin to provide statewide

coverage and will be mailed to

interested persons at least 30 days prior

to the hearing.

VI. Has a Decision Been Made

Regarding Wisconsin’s Program?

The only decision that has been made

is that Wisconsin has submitted a

complete application. EPA sent a letter

to the Secretary of the WDNR on March

14, 2000, stating that the state’s

application to modify the WPDES

program to include a state sludge

management program was complete.

EPA has 90 days from the date of that

letter to approve or disapprove

Wisconsin’s Sludge management

program. The decision will be based on

the requirements of Sections 405, 402

and 304(i) of the CWA and EPA

regulations promulgated thereunder. If

the Wisconsin program modifications

are approved, EPA will notify the State

of the approval. Notice will be

published in the Federal Register and,

as of the date of program approval, EPA

will suspend issuance of NPDES sludge

management permits in Wisconsin

(except, as discussed below, for those in

‘‘Indian Country’’). The state’s program

will operate in lieu of the EPAadministered program where the State

has authority. However, EPA will retain

the right, among other things, to object

to WPDES permits proposed to be

issued by Wisconsin and to take

enforcement actions for violations, as

allowed under the CWA. If EPA

disapproves Wisconsin’s sludge

management program, EPA will notify

the State of the reasons for disapproval

and of any revisions or modifications to

the state program that are necessary to

obtain approval.

VII. If EPA Approves the Wisconsin’s

WPDES Program Modification, What Is

the Effect of That Decision?

If the Wisconsin program

modification is approved, as of the date

of program approval, there will be

virtually no change in the program since

Wisconsin has been regulating sludge

management under state authority

through its WPDES program. EPA will

suspend issuance of NPDES sludge

management permits in Wisconsin

(except, as discussed below, for those in

‘‘Indian Country’’). The state’s program

will operate in lieu of the EPAadministered program where the State

has authority. Wisconsin will issue and

administer permits for all the provisions

for which it is authorized. After

approval, EPA will transfer any pending

sludge permit applications, completed

permits, or pertinent file information to

Wisconsin upon request. However, EPA

will retain the right, among other things,

to object to WPDES permits proposed to

be issued by Wisconsin and to take

enforcement actions for violations, as

allowed under the CWA.

Approval will not impose additional

requirements on the regulated

community because the regulations by

which Wisconsin will be implementing

the sludge management program are

already effective and will not be

changed by EPA’s approval.

26610 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

VIII. Would EPA’s Approval Affect

Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in

Wisconsin?

Wisconsin is not authorized to carry

out its WPDES program in Indian

Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.

This includes:

1. Lands within the exterior

boundaries of the following Indian

Reservations within or abutting the

State of Wisconsin:

a. Bad River Indian Reservation.

b. Forest County Indian Reservation.

c. Ho-Chunk Nation Indian

Reservation.

d. Lac Courte Oreilles Indian

Reservation.

e. Lac Du Flambeau Indian

Reservation.

f. Menominee Indian Reservation.

g. Oneida Indian Reservation.

h. Red Cliff Indian Reservation.

i. Sokaogon (Mole Lake) Indian

Reservation.

j. St. Croix Indian Reservation.

k. Stockbridge-Munsee Indian

Reservation.

2. Any land held in trust by the U.S.

for any Indian tribe, and

3. Any other land, whether on or off

a reservation that qualifies as Indian

Country.

Therefore, if EPA approves the state’s

sludge management program, it will

have no effect in Indian Country where

EPA will continue to implement and

administer the NPDES program.

In excluding Indian Country from the

approval, we would not be making a

determination that the State either has

adequate jurisdiction or lacks

jurisdiction over sources in Indian

Country. The state’s application does

not include a request for approval

within Indian Country at this time.

Should the State of Wisconsin choose to

seek program approval within Indian

Country, it may do so without prejudice.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from the requirements of

Executive Order 12866, entitled

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13045: Children’s

Health Protection

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

If EPA approves the program

modification, the action would not be

subject to Executive Order 13045

because it does not involve decisions

based on environmental health or safety

risks.

C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

If EPA approves the program

modification, the action would not be

subject to Executive Order 13084

because it would not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. Wisconsin is

not authorized to implement the NPDES

program in Indian Country. Therefore,

the action would have no effect on

Indian Country within the State.

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires 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.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among

various levels of government.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

impose substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by state and

local governments, or EPA consults with

state and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts state

law unless the Agency consults with

state and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

If EPA approves the program

modification, it will not have federalism

implications. It will not have a

substantial direct effect on states, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because this

rule only effects one State. The approval

would simply modify Wisconsin’s

existing program that they have

voluntarily chosen to operate. Further,

as a result of the approval, provisions of

Wisconsin’s sludge management

program would apply in lieu of the

equivalent federal program provisions

implemented by EPA under CWA.

Affected parties will be subject only to

those authorized state program

provisions, as opposed to being subject

to both federal and state regulatory

requirements. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements under the

Administrative Procedures 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. Small entities

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26611

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

If EPA approves the program

modifications, the action will not have

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not impose any new requirements on

small entities because small entities that

generate or prepare sewage sludge for

land application, landfilling, or surface

disposal are already subject to the

regulatory requirements under state and

federal laws. With approval of the

program modification, the state’s

program would apply in lieu of the

equivalent federal program. Therefore,

because the approval will not create any

new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a federal

mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under Section 205, EPA must select the

most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a

plan for informing and advising any

small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by

the rule.

EPA has determined that this notice

does not include a federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs of

$100 million or more to either state,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This

federal action provides notice of

availability of the state’s submittal and

requests comments on the state’s desire

to modify its WPDES program to

include a state sludge management

program. If EPA approves the program

modification, the state’s program would

apply in lieu of the equivalent federal

program, therefore, imposing no new

requirements under state or local law.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

state, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not involve technical

standards.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., federal agencies

must consider the paperwork burden

imposed by any informational request

contained in a proposed rule or a final

rule. Today’s action will not impose any

information requirements upon the

regulated community.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 123 and

501

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedures,

Indian lands, Intergovernmental

relations, Waste treatment and disposal,

Water pollution control.

Authority for parts 123 and 501: Clean

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

Dated: April 14, 2000.

Elissa Speizman,

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 00–11280 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE

PRESIDENT

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Designation of Forty (40) Counties as

Part of the High Intensity Drug

Trafficking Area

AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control

Policy, Executive Office of the

President.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice lists forty (40)

counties as additions to various High

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)

programs. These new counties are:

Mohave in the Arizona HIDTA; the

Colorado counties of Boulder, Larimer,

Weld, Pueblo, Grand, Routt and Moffatt,

the Utah county of Davis and the

Wyoming counties of Campbell and

Unita in the Rocky Mountain HIDTA;

the Iowa counties of Appanoose, Black,

Hawk, and Marshall, the Kansas

counties of Barton, Finney, Franklin,

Miami, Sedgewick and Shawnee, the

Missouri counties of Benton, Buchanan,

Greene, Jasper, Marion, Platte and

Texas, the Nebraska counties of Dodge,

Gage, Jefferson, Madison and Platte as

well as the South Dakota counties of

Beadle, Brookings and Brown in the

Midwest HIDTA; the Texas counties of

Smith in the North Texas HIDTA and

the Texas counties of Hardin, Jefferson,

Liberty and Orange in the Houston

HIDTA. HIDTAs are domestic regions

identified as having the most critical

drug trafficking problems that adversely

affect the United States. These new

counties are designated in an effort to

promote more effective coordination of

drug control efforts. This action will

support local, state and federal law

enforcement officers in assessing

regional drug threats, designing

strategies to combat the threats,

developing initiatives to implement the

strategies, and evaluating the

effectiveness of their coordinated

efforts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Comments and questions regarding this

notice should be directed to Mr. Kurt

Schmid, National HIDTA Director,

Office of National Drug Control Policy

(ONDCP), Executive Office of the

President, Washington, DC 20503; 202–

395–6692.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1990,

the Director of ONDCP designated the

first five HIDTAs. These original

HIDTAs, areas through which most

illegal drugs enter the United States, are

the Southwest Border, Houston, Los

Angeles, New York/New Jersey, and

South Florida. In 1994, the Director

designated the Washington/Baltimore

HIDTA to address the extensive drug

distribution networks serving hardcore

drug users and the Puerto Rico/U.S.

Virgin Islands HIDTA based upon the

significant amount of drugs entering the

United States through this region. In

1995, HIDTAs were designated in

Atlanta, Chicago, and Philadelphia/

Camden to target drug abuse and drug

trafficking in those areas. In 1997, the

Gulf Coast HIDTA (includes parts of

Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi),

the Lake County HIDTA, the Midwest

HIDTA (includes parts of Iowa, Kansas,

Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota,

with the focus on methamphetamine),

the Northwest HIDTA (includes seven

counties of Washington State), the

Rocky Mountain HIDTA (includes parts

of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming), and

the San Francisco HIDTA were

designated. In 1998, new HIDTAs were

designated in Appalachia (includes

parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, and West

Virginia), Central Florida, Milwaukee,

North Texas, and Southeast Michigan.