31774 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices

ADDRESSES: Public comments should be

sent to: State Assistance Program (8P2–

SA); Attention: NPDES Permits; U.S.

EPA, Region VIII; 999 18th Street, Suite

500; Denver, CO 80202–2466.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

a copy of the draft permit and Fact

Sheet, please write William Kennedy at

the above address or telephone (303)

312–6285. Copies of the draft permit

and Fact Sheet may also be downloaded

from the EPA Region VIII web page at

http://www.epa.gov/region08/html/

npdes/lagoons.html. Questions

regarding the specific permit

requirements may be directed to Bruce

Kent, telephone (303) 312–6133.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It is

proposed that general permits be issued

for discharges from wastewater lagoon

systems located on the following Indian

Reservations:

Permit No. Indian Reservation

Montana:

MTG581### .. Blackfeet Indian Reservation;

MTG582### .. Crow Indian Reservation;

MTG583### .. Flathead Indian Reservation;

MTG584### .. Fort Belknap Indian Reservation;

MTG585### .. Fort Peck Indian Reservation;

MTG586### .. Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation; and,

MTG587### .. Rocky Boy’s Indian Reservation.

North Dakota:

NDG581### .. Fort Berthold Indian Reservation;

NDG582### .. Fort Totten Indian Reservation—Also known

as Devils Lake Indian

Reservation;

NDG583### .. Standing Rock Indian

Reservation—Includes

the entire Reservation,

which is located in both

North Dakota and

South Dakota; and,

NDG584### .. Turtle Mountain Indian

Reservation.

South Dakota:

SDG581### .. Cheyenne River Indian

Reservation;

SDG582### .. Crow Creek Indian Reservation;

SDG583### .. Flandreau Indian Reservation;

SDG584### .. Lower Brule Indian Reservation;

SDG585### .. Pine Ridge Indian Reservation—Includes the

entire Reservation,

which is located in both

South Dakota and Nebraska; and,

SDG586### .. Rosebud Indian Reservation.

Permit No. Indian Reservation

Utah:

UTG581### .. Northern Shoshoni Indian

Reservation;

UTG582### .. Paiute Indian Reservations—several very

small reservations, including Cedar City, Indian Peaks, Kanosh,

Koosharem, and

Shivwits, located in the

southwest quarter of

Utah;

UTG583### .. Skull Valley Indian Reservation; and,

UTG584### .. Uintah and Ouray Indian

Reservation.

Wyoming:

WYG581### Wind River Indian Reservation.

General permits are not being issued

for the portions of the Navajo Indian

Reservation and the Goshutes Indian

Reservation in Utah since the permitting

activities for these reservations are done

by Region IX of EPA. Also, general

permits are not being issued for the

Southern Ute Indian Reservation located

in the State of Colorado and the Ute

Mountain Indian Reservation located in

the States of Colorado, New Mexico, and

Utah because of water quality concerns

in the San Juan River Basin portion of

the Colorado River Basin.

Coverage under the general permits

will be limited to lagoon systems

treating primarily domestic wastewater

and will include the following three

categories: (1) lagoons where no

permission is required before starting to

discharge; (2) permission is required

before starting to discharge; and (3) the

lagoon system is required to have no

discharge. The effluent limitations for

lagoons coming under categories 1 and

2 are based on the Federal Secondary

Treatment Regulation (40 CFR part 133)

and best professional judgement (BPJ).

There are provisions in the general

permits for adjusting the effluent

limitations on total suspended solids

(TSS) and pH in accordance with the

provisions of the Secondary Treatment

Regulation. If more stringent and/or

additional effluent limitations are

considered necessary to comply with

applicable water quality standards, etc.,

those limitations may be imposed by

written notification to the permittee.

Lagoon systems under category 3 are

required to have no discharge except in

accordance with the bypass provisions

of the permit. Self-monitoring

requirements and routine inspection

requirements are included in the

permits.

With the exception of the Flathead

Indian Reservation and the Fort Peck

Indian Reservation, where the Tribes

have Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1)

certification authority, EPA intends to

certify that the permit complies with the

applicable provisions of the Clean Water

Act so long as the permittees comply

with all permit conditions. The permits

will be issued for a period of five years,

with the permit effective date and

expiration date determined at the time

of issuance.

Economic Impact (Executive Order

12866): EPA has determined that the

issuance of this general permit is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58

FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) and is

therefore not subject to formal OMB

review prior to proposal.

Paperwork Reduction Act: EPA has

reviewed the requirements imposed on

regulated facilities in these proposed

general permits under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq. The information collection

requirements of these permits have

already been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget in submissions

made for the NPDES permit program

under the provisions of the Clean Water

Act.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

(SBREFA): After review of the facts

present in the notice printed above, I

hereby certify pursuant to the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that these

general permits will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251

et seq.

Dated: June 3, 1998.

Kerrigan G. Clough,

Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of

Pollution Prevention, State and Tribal

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–15446 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, June 18, 1998

at 2 p.m. (Eastern Time).

PLACE: EEOC’s Baltimore District Office,

Conference Room on the fourth floor of

the City Crescent Building, 10 South

Howard Street, Baltimore, MD 21201.

STATUS: The meeting will be open to the

public.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31775

1Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service,

Report & Order, CC Docket No. 96–45, 12 FCC Rcd

8776, 8899 paras. 224–25, (1997) (Universal Service

Order) 62 FR 32862 (June 17, 1997).

2Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8888–

8951.

3Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8912

para. 248.

4Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8913–

8916 para. 250.

5State Forward-Looking Cost Studies for Federal

Universal Service Support, CC Docket Nos. 96–45,

97–160, DA 98–217, Public Notice (rel. Feb. 27,

1998) at 1.

6Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8914

para. 250.

7Ameritech Request for Waiver filed May 26,

1998 at 1–2. The Michigan Public Service

Commission noted that by approving the Ameritech

Michigan study, it was neither explicitly or

implicitly seeking a waiver of the criterion 5

requirement on behalf of Ameritech. In the matter

of application of Ameritech Michigan, Before the

Michigan Public Service Commission, Case No. U–

11635 at 5 (May 11, 1998).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Open Session

1. Announcement of Notation Votes,

2. Panel discussion on Charge

Processing and Mediation, and 3. Panel discussion on Outreach,

Education and Technical Assistance.

Note: Any matter not discussed or

concluded may be carried over to a later

meeting. (In addition to publishing notices

on EEOC Commission meetings in the

Federal Register, the Commission also

provides a recorded announcement a full

week in advance on future Commission

sessions.) Please telephone (202) 663–7100

(voice) and (202) 663–4074 (TTD) at any time

for information on these meetings. Contact

Person for More Information: Frances M.

Hart, Executive Officer on (202) 663–4070.

Dated: June 4, 1998.

Frances M. Hart,

Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 98–15365 Filed 6–8–98; 2:32 pm]

BILLING CODE 6750–06–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[CC Docket 96–45, 97–160; DA 98–1055;

APD No. 98–1]

Forward-Looking Cost Studies for

Universal Service Support; Request for

Comments

Released: June 4, 1998.

1. In the Universal Service Order, 62

FR 32862 (June 17, 1997), the

Commission determined that federal

universal service high cost support

should be based on forward-looking

economic cost.1 In this Public Notice,

we seek comment on whether the cost

studies submitted by individual states

meet the Commission’s specified

criteria. In addition, we seek comment

on Ameritech Michigan’s request for

waiver of the Commission’s authorized

ranges of economic lives and future net

salvage percentages used to calculate

depreciation expenses. Comments from

interested parties are due on or before

June 25, 1998, and reply comments are

due on or before July 9, 1998.

Background

2. In the Universal Service Order, the

Commission adopted a plan for

universal service support for rural,

insular, and high cost areas that will

replace existing implicit federal

subsidies with explicit, competitively

neutral federal universal service support

mechanisms.2 The Commission

determined that, beginning January 1,

1999, non-rural carriers will receive

support based on the forward-looking

economic cost of providing the

supported services. The Commission

concluded that states could submit

forward-looking economic cost studies

as the basis for calculating federal

universal service high cost support for

non-rural carriers in lieu of using the

federal mechanism selected by the

Commission.3 The Commission adopted

specific criteria to guide the states as

they conducted those studies.4 In a

Public Notice released February 27,

1998, the Commission stated its intent

to review each cost study submitted by

a state, along with all applicable

comments, in determining whether the

state cost study complies with the

criteria established in the Universal

Service Order.5

Issues for Comment

3. On May 26, 1998, the following

states submitted forward-looking cost

studies to be used in lieu of the federal

mechanism for determining federal

universal service high cost support:

Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota,

Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina,

Puerto Rico, and South Carolina. We

seek comment on whether these cost

studies meet the criteria specified in the

Universal Service Order and, therefore,

should be approved by the Commission

for use in calculating federal support for

non-rural carriers in rural, insular, and

high cost areas in those states. To the

extent that information and data relating

to the state cost studies has been

provided electronically to the

Commission, it will be available for

review via the Internet, beginning June

8, 1998, at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

costlstudies.

4. We also seek comment on the

request for waiver filed by Ameritech

Michigan relating to the cost study

submitted for use in Michigan.

Specifically, Ameritech Michigan

requests that the Commission waive the

requirement established in criterion 5 of

the Universal Service Order that

economic lives and future net salvage

percentages used to calculate

depreciation expenses must be within

Commission authorized ranges.6

Ameritech notes that ‘‘11 of the 15 plant

categories used in the [Michigan]

universal service cost study fall outside

the FCC life ranges.’’ 7

Procedure for Filing

5. Comments should reference CC

Docket Nos. 96–45, 97–160 and must

include the DA number and APD

number shown on this Public Notice.

Interested parties must file an original

and five copies of their comments with

the Office of Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

222, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20554. Parties should send three

copies of their comments to Sheryl

Todd, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal

Communications Commission, 2100 M.

St, NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC

20554. Parties should send one copy of

their comments to the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, 1231 20th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

6. Commenters may also file informal

comments or an exact copy of formal

comments electronically via the Internet

at <bclopton@fcc.gov>. Only one copy

of electronically-filed comments must

be submitted. A commenter must note

whether an electronic submission is an

exact copy of formal comments on the

subject line. A commenter also must

include its full name and Postal Service

mailing address in its submission.

7. Parties are also asked to submit

their comments and reply comments on

diskette. Such diskette submissions are

in addition to and not a substitute for

the formal filing requirements addressed

above. Parties submitting diskettes

should submit them to Bryan Clopton of

the Accounting Policy Division,

Common Carrier Bureau, 2100 M Street,

NW, 8th floor, Washington, DC 20554.

Such a submission should be on a 3.5

inch diskette formatted in an IBM

compatible form using WordPerfect 5.1

for Windows or compatible software.

The diskette should be submitted in

‘‘read only’’ mode. The diskette should

be clearly labelled with the party’s

name, proceeding, type of pleading

(comment or reply comments) and date

of submission. Each diskette should

contain only one party’s comments in a

single electronic file. The diskette

should be accompanied by a cover

letter.