Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30347

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 99–NM–290–

AD.

Applicability: Model DC–9–10, –20, –30,

–40, and –50 series airplanes; and C–9

(military) airplanes; as listed in McDonnell

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9–33A114,

dated November 1, 1999; certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

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 (c) 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 overheating of the ballast

transformers due to aging fluorescent tubes

that cause a higher power demand on the

ballast transformers, which could result in

smoke in the cockpit, accomplish the

following:

Replacement

(a) Within 12 months after the effective

date of the AD, replace the transformer

ballast assembly from the first officer’s

console with a new, improved transformer

ballast assembly, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

DC9–33A114, dated November 1, 1999.

Spares

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install a transformer assembly,

part number BA170–1, –11, –21, or ‘‘MOD.B,

on any airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) 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.

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 Permit

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 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 May 29,

2001.

Vi L. Lipski,

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14144 Filed 6–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 934

[SPATS No. ND–042–FOR; North Dakota

State Program Amendment XXXI]

Permanent Program and Abandoned

Mine Land Reclamation Plan

Submissions; North Dakota

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment

period and opportunity for public

hearing on proposed amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

announcing receipt of a proposed

amendment to the North Dakota

regulatory program (hereinafter, the

‘‘North Dakota program’’) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).

North Dakota proposes very minor

revisions to its statute concerning

surface coal mining and reclamation

operations such as changing the name of

the ‘‘Superintendent of the State

Historical Board’’ to the ‘‘Director of the

State Historical Society,’’ and changing

some of the language in the statute to

make it plainer and easier to

understand.

DATES: We will accept written

comments on this amendment until 4

p.m., m.d.t. July 6, 2001. If requested,

we will hold a public hearing on the

amendment on July 2, 2001. We will

accept requests to speak until 4 p.m.,

m.d.t. on June 21, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You should mail or hand

deliver written comments and requests

to speak at the hearing to Guy Padgett

at the address listed below.

You may review copies of the North

Dakota program, this amendment, a

listing of any scheduled public hearings,

and all written comments received in

response to this document at the

addresses listed below during normal

business hours, Monday through Friday,

excluding holidays. You may receive

one free copy of the amendment by

contacting OSM’s Casper Field Office.

Guy Padgett, Casper Field Office

Director

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

100 East ‘‘B’’ Street

Federal Building, Room 2128

Casper, WY 82601–1918

James R. Deutsch, Director

Reclamation Division

North Dakota Public Service

Commission

30348 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

600 E. Boulevard Ave. Dept. 408

Bismarck, ND 58505–0480

Telephone: 701/328–2400

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy

Padgett, Casper Field Office Director,

Telephone: 307/261–6550. Internet:

gpadgett@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the North Dakota

Program.

II. Description of the Proposed

Amendment.

III. Public Comment Procedures.

IV. Procedural Determinations.

I. Background on the North Dakota

Program

On December 15, 1980, the Secretary

of the Interior conditionally approved

the North Dakota program. You can find

background information on the North

Dakota program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and conditions of approval

of the North Dakota program in the

December 15, 1980, Federal Register (45

FR 82214). You can also find later

actions concerning North Dakota’s

program and program amendments at 30

CFR 934.15 and 934.30.

II. Description of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated May 9, 2001, North

Dakota sent us a proposed amendment

to its program (North Dakota State

Program Amendment XXXI,

administrative record No. ND–FF–01)

under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).

North Dakota sent the amendment to

include changes made at its own

initiative. The full text of the program

amendment is available for you to read

at the locations listed above under

ADDRESSES.

Specifically, North Dakota proposes

very minor changes to that part of its

statute dealing with surface coal mining

and reclamation operations (North

Dakota Century Code 38–14.1).

Specifically, the ‘‘Superintendent of the

State Historical Board’’ has been

changed to the ‘‘Director of the State

Historical Society.’’ In addition, the

language in this statute was revised to

make it plainer and easier to

understand, such as deleting ‘‘thereby,’’

‘‘such,’’ ‘‘prior to,’’ etc.

III. Public Comment Procedures

Under the provisions of 30 CFR

732.17(h), OSM requests your comments

on whether the amendment satisfies the

applicable program approval criteria of

30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the

amendment, it will become part of the

North Dakota program.

Written Comments

Send your written comments to OSM

at the address given above. Your written

comments should be specific, pertain

only to the issues proposed in this

rulemaking, and include explanations in

support of your recommendations. In

the final rulemaking, we will not

necessarily consider or include in the

administrative record any comments

received after the time indicated under

DATES or at locations other than the

Casper Field Office.

Electronic Comments

Please submit Internet comments as

an ASCII, WordPerfect, or Word

avoiding file the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Please also include ‘‘Attn: SPATS No.

ND–042–FOR’’ and your name and

return address in your Internet message.

If you do not receive a confirmation that

we have received your Internet message,

contact the Casper Field Office at 307/

261–6550.

Availability of Comments

We will make comments, including

names and addresses of respondents,

available for public review during

normal business hours. We will not

consider anonymous comments. If

individual respondents request

confidentiality, we will honor their

request to the extent allowable by law.

Individual respondents who wish to

withhold their name or address from

public review, except for the city or

town, must state this prominently at the

beginning of their comments. We will

make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public review in their entirety.

Public Hearing

If you wish to speak at the public

hearing, contact the person listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4

p.m., m.d.t. on June 21, 2001. If you are

disabled and need special

accommodations to attend a public

hearing, contact the person listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We

will arrange the location and time of the

hearing with those persons requesting

the hearing. If no one requests an

opportunity to speak, we will not hold

the hearing.

To assist the transcriber and ensure an

accurate record, we request, if possible,

that each person who speaks at a public

hearing provide us with a written copy

of his or her comments. The public

hearing will continue on the specified

date until everyone scheduled to speak

has been heard. If you are in the

audience and have not been scheduled

to speak and wish to do so, you will be

allowed to speak after those who have

been scheduled. We will end the

hearing after everyone scheduled to

speak and others present in the

audience who wish to speak, have been

heard.

Public Meeting

If only one person requests an

opportunity to speak, we may hold a

public meeting rather than a public

hearing. If you wish to meet with us to

discuss the amendment, please request

a meeting by contacting the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. All such meetings are open to

the public and, if possible, we will post

notices of meetings at the locations

listed under ADDRESSES. We will make

a written summary of each meeting a

part of the administrative record.

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12630—Takings

This rule does not have takings

implications. This determination is

based on the analysis performed for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice

Reform

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and

has determined that, to the extent

allowable by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

This rule does not have Federalism

implications. SMCRA delineates the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30349

roles of the Federal and State

governments with regard to the

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations. One of the

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a

nationwide program to protect society

and the environment from the adverse

effects of surface coal mining

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of

SMCRA requires that State laws

regulating surface coal mining and

reclamation operations be ‘‘in

accordance with’’ the requirements of

SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that

State programs contain rules and

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary

pursuant to SMCRA.

National Environmental Policy Act

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a

proposed State regulatory program

provision does not constitute a major

Federal action within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)). A determination has been

made that such decisions are

categorically excluded from the NEPA

process (516 DM 8.4.A).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

that is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule: (a) Does not have an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million;

(b) Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, geographic

regions, or Federal, State or local

governmental agencies; and (c) Does not

have significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or the ability

of U.S. based enterprises to compete

with foreign-based enterprises. This

determination is based upon the fact

that the State submittal, which is the

subject of this rule, is based upon

counterpart Federal regulations for

which an analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the Federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 934

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 21, 2001.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 01–14227 Filed 6–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL–6992–5]

Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking

for the IBM Semiconductor

Manufacturing Facility in Hopewell

Junction, New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; Request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is today proposing this

rule to implement a pilot project under

the Project XL program that would

provide site-specific regulatory

flexibility under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

as amended, for the International

Business Machines Corporation (IBM)

East Fishkill semiconductor

manufacturing facility in Hopewell

Junction, New York. The principal

objective of this IBM East Fishkill XL

project is to determine whether the

wastewater treatment sludge resulting,

in part, from the treatment of

wastewaters from electroplating

operations (and therefore meeting the

listing description for F006 Hazardous

Waste) may be used as an ingredient in

the manufacture of cement in an

environmentally sound manner without

RCRA regulatory controls.

As a result of this XL project, the

Agency expects to receive data with

regard to the effectiveness and safety of

using IBM’s wastewater treatment

sludge as an ingredient in the

manufacture of cement. To gather the

information needed to make a

determination that IBM’s sludge need

not be regulated as a RCRA hazardous

waste in order to protect human health

and the environment when recycled as

an ingredient in cement, today’s

proposed rule, when finalized, will

provide a conditional exclusion for

IBM’s wastewater treatment sludge from

the definition of solid waste, thus

allowing for the recycling scenario to be

implemented. IBM will be required to

submit periodic reports containing

pertinent information regarding this XL

project. Such data could ultimately be

useful in supporting any future EPA

regulatory initiatives regarding the

recycling of F006 to make cement

products. EPA does not expect,

however, that this XL project alone will

generate substantial amounts of data on

the wide variety of other F006

wastestreams that could potentially be

used to make cement; such additional

data would be required before EPA

would be in a position to develop a

national rulemaking for this particular

recycling scenario.

DATES: Public Comments: Comments on

the proposed rule must be received on

or before July 6, 2001. All comments

should be submitted in writing to the

address listed below.

Public Hearing: Commenters may

request a public hearing by June 20,

2001 during the public comment period.

Commenters requesting a public hearing

should specify the basis for their

request. If EPA determines that there is

sufficient reason to hold a public

hearing, it will do so by June 27, 2001,

during the last week of the public

comment period. Requests for a public

hearing should be submitted to the

address below. If a public hearing is

scheduled, the date, time, and location

will be available through a Federal

Register notice or by contacting Mr.

Sam Kerns at the U.S. EPA Region 2

office.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Written

comments should be mailed to the

RCRA Information Center Docket Clerk

(5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection