16806 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

portion of an existing State program.

The U.S. EPA has determined that this

proposal would not contain any Federal

mandate that may result in expenditures

of $100 million or more for State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or the private sector in any one year.

Therefore, today’s proposal is not

subject to the requirements of section

202 of the UMRA.

Before the U.S. 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 the U.S. EPA

regulatory proposals with significant

Federal intergovernmental mandates,

and informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements. Because

today’s proposal would merely

acknowledge the adequacy of a portion

of an existing approved State program,

the U.S. EPA has determined that this

proposal contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regional Administrator today

certifies, pursuant to section 605(b) of

the RFA, that a determination of

adequacy for Michigan’s MSWLF permit

program financial assurance

requirements will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. It does not impose any new

burdens on small entities in the State of

Michigan. This rule, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the

U.S. EPA submitted a report containing

this rule and other required information

to the U.S. Senate, the House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of section 4005 of the Solid Waste

Disposal Act as amended; 42 U.S.C. 6946.

Dated: March 28, 1997.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8672 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5807–1]

Water Pollution Control; Program

Application by North Carolina 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 501.31,

the State of North Carolina has

submitted an application for EPA to

approve the existing North Carolina

Domestic Waste Permit program for

authorization to administer and enforce

the federal sewage sludge management

(biosolids) program. According to the

State’s proposal, this program would be

administered by the North Carolina

Department of Environment, Health and

Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).

The application from North Carolina

is complete and is available for

inspection and copying. Persons

wishing to comment upon or object to

any aspects of the application from

North Carolina or wishing to request a

public hearing, are invited to submit the

same in writing within thirty (30) days

of this notice to the Office of

Environmental Assessment,

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–3104,

ATTENTION: Ms. Lena Scott. The

public notice number and reference to

the program application by North

Carolina to administer the sludge

management (biosolids) program should

be included in the first page of

comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Roosevelt Childress, Chief, Surface

Water Permits Section, telephone (404)

562–9279, or Mr. Vince Miller, EPA

Region 4 Sludge Management

Coordinator, telephone (404) 562–9312,

or write to the following address: Water

Management Division, Surface Water

Permits Section, U.S. EPA, Region 4,

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–

3104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

405 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33

U.S.C. Section 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 the EPA

regulations implementing those

sections.

North Carolina’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,

the NCDEHNR Program Description,

and a draft NCDEHNR/EPA

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).

Septage

EPA understands that North

Carolina’s application is not intended to

include federal septage management

program activities within the State. EPA

will retain authority for administering

the federal septage management

program within the State of North

Carolina until such time that the State

receives federal authorization.

Indian Tribes

The term ‘‘Indian Tribe’’ is defined

under the Act as ‘‘any Indian Tribe,

band, nation, or other organized group

of community, including any Alaskan

Native village, which is federally

recognized as eligible for the special

programs, and services provided by the

United States to Indians because of their

status as Indians.’’ EPA notes that North

Carolina’s application does not, nor

does it intend to, include management

of sewage sludge on lands within Indian

Country. EPA will retain authority for

administering the federal sewage sludge

management program within Indian

Country.

Availability of State Submittal

North Carolina’s submittal may be

reviewed by the public from 8:00 a.m.

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

excluding holidays, at the North

Carolina Department of Environment,

Health, and Natural Resources, Division

of Water Quality; 512 North Salisbury

Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604–

1148 or at the EPA Regional Office in

Atlanta, Georgia, at the address

appearing earlier in this notice.

Copies of the submittal may be

obtained at a cost of $0.25 per page by

check made payable to the North

Carolina Department of Environment,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16807

Health and Natural Resources. Requests

for copies should be addressed to Mr.

Donald Safrit, North Carolina

Department of Environment, Health and

Natural Resources at the address

provided above or at telephone number

(919) 733–5083 ext. 519.

EPA’s Decision

After the close of the public comment

period, EPA will decide whether to

approve or disapprove North Carolina’s

sludge management program. The

decision will be based on the

requirements of Section 405 of the CWA

and EPA regulations promulgated

thereunder.

If the North Carolina program is

approved, EPA will so notify the State.

Notice will be published in the Federal

Register and, as of the date of program

approval, EPA will suspend issuance of

sludge management permits in North

Carolina (except, as discussed above, for

those dischargers in ‘‘Indian Country’’).

The State’s program will operate in lieu

of the EPA-administered program.

However, EPA will retain the right,

among other things, to object to Sludge

permits proposed to be issued by North

Carolina and to take enforcement

actions for violations.

If EPA disapproves North Carolina’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.

Review Under Regulatory Flexibility

Act and Executive Order 12866

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis for all rules that

may have a significant impact on a

substantial number of entities. The

proposed approval of the North Carolina

sludge management program does not

alter the regulatory control over any

industrial category. No new substantive

requirements are established by this

action. Therefore, I hereby certify that

because this notice does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities, a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis is not needed.

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to the

Office of Management and Budget’s

review.

Dated: March 26, 1997.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 97–8671 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 96–149; DA 97–666]

Comments Requested To Aid

Commission in Expedited

Reconsideration of Interpretation of

Section 272(e)(4)

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Commission released a

Public Notice which establishes a

pleading cycle for comments on specific

issues relating to the scope and nature

of the restrictions imposed by section

272(e)(4). Certain Bell Operating

Companies (BOCs) filed a motion with

the United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit seeking

summary reversal of the Commission’s

interpretation of section 272(e)(4) in its

First Report and Order and Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in this docket (62

FR 2927 (January 21, 1997) and 62 FR

2991 (January 21, 1997)). The

Commission asked that it be given the

opportunity to reconsider its

interpretation since some of the BOC

arguments advanced in their motion had

not been clearly presented to the

Commission in the rulemaking

proceeding. On March 31, 1997, the

court granted the Commission’s request

and directed it to reconsider its position

within 90 days. The Commission wishes

to build a complete record on these

issues.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

April 17, 1997, and reply comments are

due on or before April 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply

comments should be sent to Office of

the Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Room 222, Washington, DC 20554, with

a copy to Janice Myles of the Common

Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Room 544, Washington, DC 20554.

Parties should also file one copy of any

documents filed in this docket with the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Ellen, Common Carrier Bureau,

Policy and Program Planning Division,

(202) 418–1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Synopsis of Public Notice

1. In a recent rulemaking, the

Commission construed the scope of

section 272(e)(4) of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended by the

Telecommunications Act of 1996. The

Commission concluded that section

272(e)(4) is not a grant of authority for

a Bell Operating Company (BOC) to

provide interLATA services prior to

receiving section 271 authority. The

Commission further concluded that

section 272(e)(4) is not a grant of

authority for a BOC to provide

interLATA services, including

wholesale interLATA services provided

to its interLATA affiliate, after receiving

section 271 authority. Following the

rulemaking, certain BOCs filed a motion

with the United States Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit

seeking summary reversal of the

Commission’s interpretation of section

272(e)(4). The Commission responded

that, among other things, some of the

arguments that the BOCs advanced in

their motion for summary reversal had

not been clearly presented to the

Commission in the rulemaking

proceeding. The Commission, therefore,

asked that it be given the opportunity to

reconsider, in light of these arguments,

its interpretation of section 272(e)(4)

prior to judicial review of those

arguments. On March 31, 1997, the

court granted the Commission’s request,

concluding that ‘‘[t]he merits of the

parties’ positions are not so clear as to

warrant summary action.’’ The court

noted that it expects that ‘‘the

Commission will adhere to its proposal

to complete any further proceedings and

adopt a revised order within 90 days of

the date of this order.’’

2. In this Public Notice, to aid the

Commission in meeting its commitment

to reconsider promptly its interpretation

of section 272(e)(4), the Common Carrier

Bureau seeks comment on certain

specific issues relating to section

272(e)(4). Parties should feel free to

address any of the other issues

previously addressed before the

Commission or the court that are

relevant to this inquiry.

3. Section 272(a) states, among other

things, that BOCs ‘‘may not provide’’

directly ‘‘[o]rigination of [in-region]

interLATA telecommunications

services.’’ Before the court, the BOCs

argued that their reading of section

272(e)(4) does not conflict with section

272(a) because when a BOC provides inregion interLATA telecommunications

services on a wholesale basis, it does

not ‘‘[o]riginat[e]’’ such services. We

seek comment on what precisely it

means to ‘‘originate’’ an interLATA

telecommunications service. Is

‘‘origination’’ strictly a retail concept?

Commenting parties should also discuss

the legal implications, if any, of the fact

that section 271(b)(1), which prohibits a

BOC or its affiliate from providing