Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 194 / Thursday, October 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 59385

determination was based in part on the

possibility of human error associated

with possible future reconnection of the

lights.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 22 airplanes

of U.S. registry that would be affected

by this proposed AD.

The modification that is proposed in

this AD action would take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. The

cost of the parts required for each

airplane are minimal. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the proposed

requirements of this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $2,640, or

$120 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or proposed requirements of

this AD action, and that no operator

would accomplish those actions in the

future if this AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial direct

effect on the 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. Therefore,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing Amendment 39–11519 (65 FR

3379, January 21, 2000), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):

Docket 2000–NM–80–AD. Supersedes

AD 2000–01–51, Amendment 39–11519.

Applicability: CL–604 Variant of

Bombardier Model Canadair CL–600–2B16

Series Airplanes Modified in Accordance

with Supplemental Type Certificate

SA8060NM–D, SA8072NM–D, or

SA8086NM–D

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent electrical sparks from a

grounded object from coming into contact

with the fuel port flood light housing of the

fuel service panel, which could result in a

fuel fire due to the close proximity of the fuel

service panel to the fuel port, accomplish the

following:

Modification

(a) Within 90 days after the effective date

of this AD, modify the wiring of the fuel port

flood light in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier

Service Bulletin TUC–33–30–01–1, dated

February 1, 2000, or Revision A, dated March

10, 2000.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b)(1) An alternative method of compliance

or adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Los Angeles ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

2000–01–51, amendment 39–11519, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with § 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

September 29, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–25535 Filed 10–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 123

[FRL–6874–1]

Water Pollution Control; Program

Modification Application by South

Dakota To Administer the Sludge

Management (Biosolids) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

application and public comment period.

SUMMARY: The State of South Dakota has

submitted an application to EPA to

revise the existing South Dakota

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(SDPDES) program to include

administration and enforcement of the

sludge management (biosolids) program.

According to the State’s proposal dated

March 23, 1998, this program would be

administered by the South Dakota

Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (SDDENR).

The application from South Dakota is

complete and is available for inspection

and copying. EPA has reviewed the

State’s request for delegation for

completeness and adequacy and has

found that the proposal meets Federal

equivalency regulations.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

received on or before November 20,

2000 will be considered before issuing

a final rule. Comments postmarked after

this date may not be considered.

ADDRESSES: You can view and copy

South Dakota’s application for

modification from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00

p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays, at the South Dakota

Department of Environment and Natural

Resources; Joe Foss Building, Pierre,

South Dakota or at the EPA Regional

59386 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 194 / Thursday, October 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Office at 999 18th Street, Denver,

Colorado. Requests for copies should be

addressed to Kelli Buscher, South

Dakota Department of Environment and

Natural Resources at the above address

or at telephone number 605–773–3351.

(There will be a $15 charge for copies.)

Electronic comments are encouraged

and should be submitted to

brobst.bob@epa.gov or send written

comments to Robert Brobst, U.S. EPA/

8P–WP, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,

Denver, Colorado 80202–2466.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Brobst at the above address by

phone at (303) 312–6129, or by e-mail

at brobst.bob@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

405 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33

U.S.C. 1345, created the 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.

South Dakota’s application for sludge

management program approval contains

a letter from the Governor requesting

program approval, an Attorney

General’s Statement, copies of pertinent

State statutes and regulations,

amendments to the SDPDES Program

Description, and amendments to the

SDDENR/EPA Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) executed by the

Regional Administrator, Region 8, EPA,

and the Secretary, Department of

Environment and Natural Resources.

The State of South Dakota has existing

environmental self-evaluation laws and

rules. These provide evidentiary

privilege and limited immunity for

certain disclosures made in an

environmental self-evaluation. SDCL

section 1–40–35 provides that no

privilege or immunity exists for

information required to be collected,

developed, maintained, or reported to

the department according to State law,

rule, regulation, or permit.

South Dakota has incorporated

Federal sludge management regulations

by reference into its State rules. These

rules require recordkeeping and

reporting for certain technical

monitoring and assessment,

management practices, and certain

certifications of compliance. Because

these requirements and any requirement

in sludge permits would be excluded

from the self-evaluation privilege, EPA

believes that South Dakota has the

authority necessary to administer the

sludge management program to assure

protection of public health and the

environment, and invites comment on

this issue.

EPA discussed the SDDENR program

application with the South Dakota

Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and received their concurrence

dated June 29, 2000 stating that the

proposed program authorization was

unlikely to jeopardize the continued

existence of any endangered species or

threatened species, or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of

habitat of such species.

By Letter dated October 20, 1999, EPA

discussed the program application with

the South Dakota State Historic

Preservation Officer and received

concurrence by letter dated November 5,

1999. The State Historic Preservation

Officer determined that no historic

properties would be affected by the

addition of the biosolids program.

What are biosolids? Biosolids are, in

effect, a slow release nitrogen fertilizer

with low concentrations of other plant

nutrients. In addition to significant

amounts of nitrogen, biosolids also

contain phosphorus, potassium, and

essential micronutrients such as zinc

and iron. Many western soils are

deficient in micronutrients. Biosolids

are rich in organic matter that can

improve soil quality by improving water

holding capacity, soil structure and air

and water transport. Proper use of

biosolids can ultimately decrease

topsoil erosion. When applied at

agronomic rates (the rates at which

plants require nitrogen during a defined

growth period), biosolids provide an

economic benefit in addition to their

environmental benefits.

How do biosolids differ from sewage

sludge? Most simply, biosolids is the

new name for what had previously been

referred to as sewage sludge. Biosolids

are primarily organic treated solids at

wastewater treatment plants—with the

emphasis on the word treated—that are

suitable for recycling as a soil

amendment. Sewage sludge now refers

to untreated primary and secondary

organic solids. This differentiates

biosolids that have received

stabilization treatment at a municipal

wastewater treatment plant from other

types of existing sludge (such as oil and

gas field wastes) that cannot be

beneficially recycled as soil

amendments.

What are the traditional practices in

this region? Until 25 years ago, the

traditional practice in this Region was to

landfill or incinerate what was then

called sewage sludge. During the past

quarter century the practice changed to

recycling biosolids as soil amendments.

States in Region 8 recycle 85% of the

biosolids generated in the six state

Region.

What are the Federal requirements?

The EPA in 1993 set forth requirements

for management of all biosolids

generated during the process of treating

municipal wastewater, commonly called

the 503 rule. The 503 rule encourages

the beneficial reuse of biosolids, and

establishes strict standards under which

wastewater residuals can be beneficially

recycled as soil amendments. The EPA

believes that biosolids are an important

resource that can and should be safely

recycled. The 503 rule is designed to

protect public health and the

environment. Most of the requirements

were based on the results of extensive

multimedia risk assessment and on

more that 25 years of independent

research. The 503 rule establishes

standards for pathogen destruction and

for levels of metals that can be present

in biosolids. It also governs the

agricultural practices, site restrictions,

and crop harvesting restrictions and the

stability of the materials by reducing the

attraction of disease vectors (such as

flies).

Indian Country

South Dakota is not authorized to

carry out its Biosolids program in Indian

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

This includes, but is not limited to:

Lands within the exterior boundaries of

the following Indian reservations

located within the State of South

Dakota:

A. Cheyenne River Indian Reservation,

B. Crow Creek Indian Reservation,

C. Flandreau Indian Reservation,

D. Lower Brule Indian Reservation,

E. Pine Ridge Indian Reservation,

F. Rosebud Indian Reservation,

G. Standing Rock Indian Reservation,

and

H. Yankton Indian Reservation.

EPA held a public hearing on

December 2, 1999, in Badlands National

Park, South Dakota, and accepted public

comments on the question of the

location and the extent of Indian

Country within the State of South

Dakota. In a forthcoming Federal

Register document, EPA will respond to

the comments that have been received

and more specifically identify Indian

Country areas in the State of South

Dakota.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 194 / Thursday, October 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 59387

Public Notice Procedures

Copies of all submitted statements

and documents shall become a part of

the record submitted to EPA. All

comments or objections presented in

writing to EPA Region 8 and

postmarked within 45 days of this

document will be considered by EPA

before it takes final action on South

Dakota’s request for program

modification approval. All written

comments and questions regarding the

sludge management program should be

addressed to Robert Brobst at the above

address. The public is also encouraged

to notify anyone who may be interested

in this matter.

EPA’s Decision

After the close of the public comment

period, EPA will decide whether to

approve or disapprove South Dakota’s

sludge management program. EPA will

consider and respond to all significant

comments received before taking final

action South Dakota’s request for Sludge

program approval. 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 South Dakota program

modifications are approved, EPA will so

notify the State and anyone who has

submitted significant comments. Notice

will be published in the Federal

Register and, as of the date of program

approval, EPA will suspend issuance of

federal NPDES sludge management

permits in South Dakota (except, as

discussed above, for those dischargers

in ‘‘Indian Country’’). The State’s

program will operate in lieu of the EPAadministered program. However, EPA

will retain the right, among other things,

to object to SDNPDES permits proposed

by South Dakota and to take

enforcement actions for violations, as

allowed by the CWA.

If EPA disapproves South Dakota’s

sludge management program, EPA will

notify the State and anyone who

submitted significant comments of the

reasons for disapproval and of any

revisions or modifications to the State

program that are necessary to obtain

approval.

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 NPDES 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 an

assess the impact of a rule on small

entities affected by the rule.

Even if the NPDES program approval

were a rule subject to the FRA, the

Agency would certify that approval of

the State proposed SDPDES program

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. EPA’s action to approve an

NPDES program merely recognizes that

the necessary elements of an NPDES

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

program, even if a rule, would not have

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

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 WPA to identify and consider

a reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives and adopt the least costly,

most cost-effective 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 lease

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.

South Dakota’s request for approval of

its budget management program is

voluntary and imposes no Federal

mandate within the meaning of the Act.

Rather, by having its 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 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 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

sludge management facilities that will

become subject to the requirements of

an approved State sludge management

program. However, small governments

that own and/or operate sludge

management facilities are already

subject to the requirements in 40 CFR

59388 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 194 / Thursday, October 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 sludge

management program and any revisions

to that program, these same small

governments will be able to own and

operate their 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.

Dated: September 26, 2000.

William P. Yellowtail,

Regional Administrator, Region 8.

[FR Doc. 00–25600 Filed 10–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2208, MM Docket No. 00–177, RM–

9954]

Digital Television Broadcast Service;

Rapid City, SD

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by

Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises,

licensee of Station KOTA–TV, NTSC

Channel 3, Rapid City, South Dakota.

Duhamel requests the substitution of

DTV Channel 2 for Station KOTA–TV’s

assigned DTV Channel. DTV Channel 2

can be allotted to Rapid City, South

Dakota, in compliance with the

principle community coverage

requirements of Section 73.625(a) at

reference coordinates (44–04–08 N. and

103–15–03 W.). As requested, we

propose to allot DTV Channel 2 to Rapid

City with a power of 8 and a height

above average terrain (HAAT) of 174

meters.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before November 24, 2000, and reply

comments on or before December 11,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Room TW–A325, Washington, DC

20554. In addition to filing comments

with the FCC, interested parties should

serve the petitioner, or its counsel or

consultant, as follows: Richard R.

Zaragoza, Colette M. Capretz, Shaw

Pittman, 2300 N Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20037–1128 (counsel

for Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

00–177, adopted September 29, 2000,

and released October 2, 2000. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street,

S.W., Washington, DC. The complete

text of this decision may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services, Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231

20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara A. Kreisman,

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–25529 Filed 10–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2209, MM Docket No. 00–178, RM–

9914]

Digital Television Broadcast Service;

Charlotte, NC

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public

Broadcasting Authority, licensee of

noncommercial educational station

WTVI–TV, NTSC Channel *42,

Charlotte, North Carolina, requesting the

substitution of DTV Channel *11 for its

assigned DTV Channel *24. DTV

Channel *11 can be allotted to

Charlotte, North Carolina, in

compliance with the principle

community coverage requirements of

section 73.625(a) at reference

coordinates (35–17–14 N. and 80–41–45

W.). As requested, we propose to allot

DTV Channel *11 to Charlotte, North

Carolina, with a power of 2.0 and a

height above average terrain (HAAT) of

387 meters.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before November 24, 2000, and reply

comments on or before December 11,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Room TW–A325, Washington, DC

20554. In addition to filing comments

with the FCC, interested parties should

serve the petitioner, or its counsel or

consultant, as follows: Lawrence M.

Miller, Schwartz, Woods & Miller, 1350

Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300,

Washington, DC 20036–1717 (counsel

for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public

Broadcasting Authority).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

00–178, adopted September 29, 2000,

and released October 2, 2000. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street,

S.W., Washington, DC. The complete

text of this decision may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services, Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231

20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara A. Kreisman,

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–25528 Filed 10–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P