Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65957

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–7121–6]

Notice of Availability and Request for

Public Comment: Proposed National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) General Permit for

Discharges of Storm Water Discharges

From Construction Activities in Indian

Country Within the State of Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5 (EPA).

ACTION: Notice and request for public

comment.

SUMMARY: Today’s notice announces

EPA’s intention to issue a National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) general permit for storm water

discharges from construction activities

in Indian country within the State of

Wisconsin. The general permit is

proposed to cover discharges within

Indian country, including the following

areas: Bad River Indian Reservation,

Forest County Potawatomi Indian

Reservation, Ho-Chunk Nation Indian

Reservation, Lac Courte Oreilles Indian

Reservation, Lac Du Flambeau Indian

Reservation, Menominee Indian

Reservation, Oneida Indian Reservation,

Red Cliff Indian Reservation, Sokaogon

(Mole Lake) Indian Reservation, St.

Croix Indian Reservation, and the

Stockbridge-Munsee Indian Reservation.

Section 402(p)(2)(B) of the 1987 Clean

Water Act requires NPDES permits for

storm water discharges associated with

industrial activity. Sources regulated

include discharges from municipal

separate storm sewer systems with

populations of generally 100,000 or

more and 11 categories of industrial

activity. EPA has defined storm water

discharges associated with industrial

activity to include storm water

discharges from construction sites

which disturb 5 or more acres (see 40

CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x)). This formed the

basis of Phase I of the national storm

water regulations.

On December 8, 1999, EPA published

Phase II of the national storm water

regulations. Phase II regulates storm

water discharges from small municipal

separate storm sewer systems and

discharges associated with small

construction activity, including

construction sites which disturb

between 1 and 5 acres (40 CFR

122.26(b)(15)(i)). The proposed permit

will address construction sites regulated

under both the Phase I and Phase II

Rules. However, the requirements for

small construction sites will not be

effective until March 10, 2003, the date

by which these sources are to comply

with the Phase II storm water

regulations. The Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)

of 1991 postponed the Phase I

permitting deadline for any storm water

discharge associated with industrial

activity (which includes construction

activity) that is owned or operated by

any municipality with populations less

than 100,000, except for a discharge

from an airport, powerplant, or

uncontrolled sanitary landfill.

Originally, EPA codified the ISTEA

amendments by ‘‘reserving’’ permit

application requirements. In the Phase II

rules, however, EPA established that

deadline as March 10, 2003.

Construction storm water discharges

that are owned or operated by Indian

tribes are included in the ISTEA

exemption because CWA section 502(4)

defines ‘‘municipality’’ to include ‘‘an

Indian tribe or an authorized Indian

tribal organization.’’ Thus, Tribes are

not required to apply for permits for

their construction activities until the

March 10, 2003 deadline.

EPA invites public comment on the

provisions of the draft permit within the

public notice period established by this

notice. In addition, EPA will hold

several public meetings and a public

hearing to discuss the proposed permit.

The dates and locations are listed

below:

Date: January 9, 2002.

Location: University of Wisconsin,

Director’s Room 4151, Grainger Hall,

975 University Avenue, Madison, WI

53706.

Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Date: January 17, 2002.

Location: Bay Beach Wildlife

Sanctuary, Auditorium, 1660 East Shore

Drive, Green Bay, WI.

Time: 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Date: January 29, 2002.

Location: Marathon County Public

Library, Wausau Room, 300 First Street,

Wausau, WI 54403.

Time: Public Meeting 3:00 p.m. to

5:00 p.m.; Public Hearing 6:00 p.m. to

8:00 p.m.

If the library is closed due to bad

weather, the public meeting and public

hearing will be rescheduled for

February 5, 2002, at the same times as

listed above.

These meetings will also be posted on

the Region 5 Storm Water Website

(www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/

npdstma.htm) and in one or more

newspapers of general circulation

within the state. Copies of the draft

general permit and an accompanying

fact sheet may be obtained by contacting

EPA at the following telephone number

or mailing address: Brian Bell, (312)

886–0981, NPDES Programs Branch

(WN–16J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604.

Electronic copies of the draft permit and

fact sheet may be viewed at the Region

5 Public Notice Page (www.epa.gov/

r5water/npdestek/npdcfrp.htm) or the

NPDES Page (www.epa.gov/r5water/

npdestek/npdnpda.htm). Users with

appropriate software capabilities may

also download electronic versions of

these documents.

DATES: Comments on the draft permit

must be received by February 5, 2002.

EPA will accept comments submitted in

writing or transmitted electronically.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the draft

permit may be sent to: Brian Bell,

NPDES Programs Branch (WN–16J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, IL 60604. Comments may also

be transmitted electronically to

bell.brianc@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Bell, at the above address or, via

telephone at 312–886–0981.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The State of Wisconsin has previously

been authorized by EPA to issue NPDES

permits outside of Indian country, and

has issued general permits to regulate

the vast majority of construction site

storm water discharges outside Indian

country within the State of Wisconsin.

USEPA retains the authority to issue

NPDES permits within Indian country

within the State of Wisconsin. Indian

country means (a) All land within the

limits of any Indian reservation under

the jurisdiction of the United States

Government, notwithstanding the

issuance of any patent, and, including

rights-of-way running through the

reservation, (b) all dependent Indian

communities within the borders of the

United States whether within the

original or subsequently acquired

territory thereof, and whether within or

without the limits of the State, and (c)

all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to

which have not been extinguished,

including rights-of-way running through

the same. See 18 U.S.C. 1151.

II. National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation

Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470a et seq.,

generally requires, among other things,

that Federal agencies take into account

the effects of their undertakings on

historic properties. Section 106 of

NHPA seeks to accommodate historic

preservation concerns with the needs of

Federal undertakings through

65958 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

consultation among the agency official

and other parties with an interest in the

effects of the undertaking on historic

properties. The goal of this consultation

process is to identify historic properties

potentially affected by the undertaking,

assess its effects and seek ways to avoid,

minimize or mitigate any adverse effects

on historic properties. See 65 FR 77698,

77725 (December 12, 2000).

Under Section 106, EPA must

complete the consultation process

‘‘prior to the issuance of any license.’’

See 36 CFR 800.1(c). EPA has

interpreted this language to apply this

requirement to the issuance of today’s

proposed general NPDES permit for

Indian country in Wisconsin. EPA is,

therefore, conducting a Section 106

consultation regarding issuance of the

proposed general permit.

Several parties have consultative roles

in the Section 106 process that EPA is

conducting for this proposed permit for

Indian country in Wisconsin. These

include (1) The Tribal historic

preservation officer (THPO), for a tribe

that has assumed such responsibilities

under section 101(d)(2) of the NHPA, 16

U.S.C. 470a(d)(2); (2) the State historic

preservation officer (SHPO); (3)

designated representative(s) of an Indian

tribe where a tribe has not assumed

responsibilities of a SHPO.

In the process of preparing the

proposed permit for Indian country in

Wisconsin, EPA considered several

possible options for meeting Section 106

of the NHPA. EPA conducted a series of

consultations with the Wisconsin tribes

(including THPOs and designated tribal

government officials) and the Wisconsin

SHPO. The consultation was conducted

in a series of telephone conference calls

held on February 13, February 22,

March 13, and March 29, 2001.

During the consultation process,

participants raised several concerns.

These concerns included (1) The need

for an understanding of technical and

operational aspects of NPDES general

permits; (2) the need for timely notice

in advance of planned development

projects; (3) the need for sufficient time

and resources to complete historic

property surveys; (4) the need to define

the role of the SHPO, Tribe or THPO in

the process for addressing effects on

historic properties as applicants seek

coverage under this NPDES general

permit; (5) the need for a defined

process to address potential effects on

historic properties in the event of

inadvertent discovery of historic

properties after construction of a

particular project covered under this

general permit has begun; (6) the need

for a consistent process to document

how effects on historic properties have

been addressed; (7) the need to

streamline the coordination process for

addressing effects on historic properties

consultation across multiple, similar

projects and similar geographic

locations.

During the consultation, EPA

explained the technical and operational

requirements of the general permit, and

stated that EPA is seeking information

to develop a systematic process that

would allow for comprehensive

screening for historic properties, but

also that would be sensitive to the

different processes used by the THPOs,

Tribal officials, and the SHPO.

Participants were concerned about an

initial option proposed by EPA which

would have included in the proposed

general permit a precondition for

coverage against discharges impacting

historic sites, but without a requirement

that the permit applicant seek a

certification from the THPO or SHPO.

Participants were also concerned

about a second option proposed by EPA

which would have included in the

proposed general permit a precondition

for coverage against discharges

impacting historic sites, but including a

certification from the THPO, Tribe or

SHPO. The concerns focused on the lack

of a defined process and whether there

would be sufficient time and resources

to conduct site surveys to identify

historic properties.

Participants also reviewed a third

option proposed by EPA, which would

provide a choice of means to provide

certification, similar to the approach

used in EPA’s Region 4 general permit.

See 63 FR 15622 (March 31, 1998).

Concerns raised by participants on this

approach focused on how the different

options for meeting historic property

review eligibility requirements could be

most clearly defined so that permit

applicants would be able to easily

understand and meet these

requirements.

As a result of the concerns raised

during the consultation process, EPA

proposed that the general permit

include a performance-based standard

that the applicant would not be eligible

to apply for permit coverage until the

applicant had coordinated with the

appropriate official(s) (THPO, SHPO

and/or tribes) to identify historic

properties and to assess and attempt to

resolve any adverse effects. This precertification provision was designed to

address the THPO, SHPO, and tribes’

concerns that they generally lacked

sufficient notice of a proposed

development project to conduct the

necessary review and coordination on

impacts to historic properties. Concerns

were also raised during consultation

that applicants be informed of the

appropriate procedures that would

apply to coordinating the review of

effects on historic properties in this

option. In response to these concerns,

EPA proposed that the general permit

would include specific references to

relevant provisions of the Section 106

regulations (36 CFR 800.4–800.6,

800.13) to ensure that the regulated

community was specifically informed of

the pre-certification procedures they

would need to meet in order to be

eligible for coverage under the general

permit. Under this option, the relevant

procedures in the referenced provisions

regarding coordination with local

officials would guide applicants in

coordinating with the THPO, SHPO

and/or tribes to identify historic

properties and to assess and attempt to

resolve any adverse effects on such

properties. The proposed permit would

authorize such activities so long as the

proper pre-certification procedures had

been followed by the applicant.

In this option, which is the option

included in today’s proposed general

permit, in order to be eligible for

coverage under the general permit,

applicants would need to certify that

they had coordinated with the

appropriate THPO, SHPO and/or tribal

official consistent with the relevant

procedures of the Section 106

regulations. The proposed permit would

require that the applicant provide

evidence of prior screening for the

presence of historic properties and

develop a mitigation plan, as needed, in

coordination with the appropriate

officials consistent with the relevant

provisions of the Section 106

regulations. Finally, in the event of an

inadvertent discovery of an historic

property on the site during construction,

the permittee would be required to

immediately stop construction activity

and coordinate with the appropriate

THPO, SHPO and/or tribal official

consistent with 36 CFR 800.13.

As part of its Section 106 consultation

process on this proposed general permit,

EPA invites all interested parties to

comment on this option. Information

regarding EPA’s consultation process

and the other options generally

described above, is available on request

from the address at the beginning of this

notice.

III. Coastal Zone Management Act

(CZMA)

The Coastal Zone Management Act

(CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.,

establishes a scheme whereby states

develop a Coastal Zone Management

Plan to protect coastal areas within their

jurisdiction. Section 307(c) of the CZMA

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65959

requires that Federal agencies determine

that various Federal activities are

‘‘consistent with the enforceable

policies of approved State management

programs’’ to the maximum extent

possible. See 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(1)(A).

The CZMA and its implementing

regulations distinguish between

different kinds of Federal activities.

Section 307(c)(3) of the CZMA requires

a consistency determination for a

Federal ‘‘license or permit.’’ See 16

U.S.C. 1456(c)(3). The CZMA

implementing regulations promulgated

on December 8, 2000 (65 FR 77124),

provide that a general permit program,

which does not involve case-by-case

approval by the Federal agency, can be

addressed as a ‘‘federal activity’’ under

Section 307(c)(3) of the CZMA. See 15

CFR 930.31(d).

Pursuant to these regulations, ‘‘When

proposing a general permit program, a

Federal agency shall provide a

consistency determination to the

relevant management programs and

request that the State agency(ies)

provide the Federal agency with

conditions that would permit the State

agency (defined at 15 CFR 930.18) to

concur with the Federal agency’s

consistency determination. State

concurrence shall remove the need for

the State agency to review future caseby-case uses of the general permit for

consistency with the enforceable

policies of management programs.’’ See

15 CFR 930.31(d).

The regulations further provide that

should the State object to the general

permit or should the general permit not

incorporate State conditions to the

maximum extent practicable, the

Federal agency shall notify potential

users of the general permit that the

general permit is not authorized for that

State unless the State agency concurs

that the activity is consistent with the

State’s management program. In that

case, applicants would provide the State

agency with their own consistency

certification under the CZMA. See 15

CFR.930.31(d).

According to NOAA regulations and

Wisconsin’s Coastal Management

Program, lands held in trust by the

United States are excluded from the

coastal zone area. See 16 U.S.C. 1453(l);

15 CFR 923.33(a); Wisconsin

Department of Administration,

Wisconsin Coastal Management

Program: Strategic Vision for the Great

Lakes, [WCMP], June 1999, Section C,

Federal Consistency. Issuance of NPDES

permits currently is not included in

Wisconsin’s list of federal permits

requiring consistency certification. See

WCMP, Section E. However, the

regulations provide that a consistency

determination is still required when any

‘‘spillover’’ impacts may affect the

coastal zone.

EPA believes that today’s proposed

permit is unlikely to have spillover

impacts that may affect the coastal zone

as defined in the WCMP. See WCMP at

Section C.1(a). Permittees would be

required to follow their storm water

management plan, which includes

erosion and sediment control best

management practices and perimeter

controls tailored for the particular

construction site. These controls are

supposed to bring discharges into

compliance with applicable water

quality standards within Indian country

and state water quality standards when

discharges leave Indian country. The

proposed general permit is consistent

with the technical and operational

standards of the State’s WPDES permit

program. Based on EPA’s analysis of the

WPDES permit requirements, and the

WCMP, EPA believes that the proposed

permit would be ‘‘consistent to the

maximum extent practicable with the

enforceable policies of approved State

management programs’’ as specified in

Section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA. See also

15 CFR 930.32(a)(1).

Under 15 CFR 930.41, the State

agency has 60 days from today’s notice

to inform EPA of its agreement or

disagreement with this consistency

determination. EPA invites comments

on its application of the CZMA to

today’s proposed permit.

IV. Economic Impact (Executive Order

12866)

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may have an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or adversely affect in a material

way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; create a

serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; materially

alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or raise novel legal or

policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order. EPA has determined that the

issuance of this general permit is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

the terms of Executive Order 12866 and

is therefore not subject to formal OMB

review prior to proposal.

V. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments)

Executive Order 13175, entitled

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications.’’ The term ‘‘policies that

have tribal implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include Agency

actions that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on one or more Indian tribes, on

the relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes.’’

EPA has concluded that this proposed

general permit may have tribal

implications within the meaning of

Executive Order 13175. EPA believes

that the proposed general permit,

however, does not impose substantial

direct compliance costs on tribal

governments or preempt tribal law.

Overall, EPA expects that the impact of

the proposed general permit on tribes

will be positive. EPA’s current NPDES

permitting option for Indian country

within Wisconsin is to issue individual

permits. Issuance of this proposed

general permit will provide EPA another

NPDES permitting option for discharges

of storm water associated with

construction activity in Indian country.

EPA anticipates that the availability of

the general permit will promote better

compliance with NPDES requirements

in Indian country, thus improving water

quality. Moreover, beginning in March

of 2003, tribes will be required to

comply with existing NPDES permit

requirements. The proposed general

permit will, in some situations, allow

tribes to obtain a permit for discharge of

storm water from construction sites

more easily and quickly.

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA

consulted with tribal leaders to ensure

that they had meaningful and timely

input into the development of this

proposed general permit, as well as to

provide comments to EPA on particular

provisions in the proposed draft permit.

EPA consulted with representatives

from tribes located in Wisconsin on

December 19, 2000, February 13,

February 22, March 13, and March 29,

2001. During the consultation process,

participants raised several concerns.

65960 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

These concerns included (1) The need

for an understanding of technical and

operational aspects of NPDES general

permits; (2) the relationship of the

proposed general permit with other

federal general permits issued by EPA;

(3) the need for timely notice in advance

of planned development projects; (4) the

need for timely inspections and

enforcement for potential violations of

NPDES permit requirements; (5) the

need for greater tribal involvement in

permit issuance in Indian country; (6)

the need for sufficient time, resources,

and efficient process to undertake

historic property surveys and otherwise

ensure that permit applicants would

comply with regulations protecting

historic properties.

During this consultation, EPA

explained the function and provisions

of the proposed general permit, and

explained the relationship between the

proposed general permit and other

federal general permits issued by EPA.

EPA also explained the technical

provisions of the proposed permit,

including requirements which

applicants would need to complete

prior to filing a Notice of Intent and

certification that pre-application

requirements had been met. EPA also

considered tribes’ desire to obtain more

timely notice of proposed construction

projects within Indian country, and

included in the draft permit a provision

that would require permit applicants to

send copies of the Notice of Intent form

to both EPA’s Region 5 office as well as

the environmental department of the

relevant tribe, in addition to mailing the

notice to EPA’s national office. EPA also

included a recommendation in its fact

sheet for the proposed permit that

encouraged applicants to contact the

relevant tribal environmental

department as early in the planning

stage as possible, with 90 days being the

suggested minimum. EPA also

addressed tribes’ general concerns for

greater tribal involvement in NPDES

permitting by discussing how tribes

could apply for and obtain federally

authorized permitting authorities on

their own through the ‘‘treatment as

state’’ or tribal eligibility process

outlined in Section 518 of the Clean

Water Act. EPA explained that the

proposed general federal permit was

designed to provide direct

implementation of the federal NPDES

permit program in Indian country until

such time as each tribe in Wisconsin

could obtain a federally authorized

permitting program of their own, if they

so wished. Specific concerns raised by

tribes regarding how regulations

protecting historic properties may apply

to the proposed general permit, as well

as EPA’s consultation with state and

tribal officials on the application of the

NHPA to today’s action, are specifically

discussed in this notice in the National

Historic Preservation Act section.

EPA specifically solicits additional

comment on this proposed general

permit from tribal officials.

VI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 201 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Pub L.

104–4, generally requires Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

‘‘regulatory actions’’ on State, local, and

tribal government and the private sector.

UMRA uses the term ‘‘regulatory

action’’ to refer to regulations. (See, e.g.,

UMRA section 201, ‘‘Each agency shall

. . . assess the effects of Federal

regulatory actions . . . (other than to the

extent that such regulations incorporate

requirements specifically set forth in

law)’’ (emphasis added)). UMRA section

102 defines ‘‘regulation’’ by reference to

2 U.S.C. 658 which in turn defines

‘‘regulation’’ and ‘‘rule’’ by reference to

section 601(2) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA). That section of

the RFA defines ‘‘rule’’ as ‘‘any rule for

which the agency publishes a notice of

proposed rulemaking pursuant to

section 553(b) of (the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA)), or any other law

* * *.’’

As discussed in the RFA section of

this notice, NPDES general permits are

not ‘‘rules’’ under the APA and thus are

not subject to the APA requirement to

publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking. NPDES general permits are

also not subject to such a requirement

under the CWA. While EPA publishes a

notice to solicit public comment on

proposed general permits, it does so

pursuant to the CWA section 402(a)

requirement to provide ‘‘an opportunity

for a hearing.’’ Thus, NPDES general

permits are not ‘‘rules’’ for RFA or

UMRA purposes.

Nevertheless, EPA has considered the

proposed general permit in light of

UMRA’s requirements. As noted

elsewhere in today’s notice, the

proposed general permit is virtually the

same as the NPDES general permits for

construction that many construction

operators have used over the past three

years. EPA has determined that the

proposed permit would not contain a

Federal requirement that would 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.

The Agency also believes that the

proposed general permit will not

significantly nor uniquely affect small

governments. For UMRA purposes,

‘‘small governments’’ is defined by

reference to the definition of ‘‘small

governmental jurisdiction’’ under the

RFA. (See UMRA section 102(1),

referencing 2 U.S.C. 658, which

references section 601(5) of the RFA.)

‘‘Small governmental jurisdiction’’

means governments of cities, counties,

towns, etc., with a population of less

than 50,000, unless the agency

establishes an alternative definition.

Under existing regulations, a permit

application is not required until March

10, 2003, for a storm water discharge

associated with construction activity

where the construction site is owned or

operated by a municipality with a

population of less than 100,000. See 64

FR 68780 (December 8, 1999). In any

event, the requirements of the proposed

general permit would not significantly

affect small governments because most

State laws outside Indian country

already provide for the control of

sedimentation and erosion in a similar

manner as today’s proposed general

permit. The proposed general permit

also will not uniquely affect small

governments because compliance with

the proposed permit conditions affects

small governments in the same manner

as any other entities seeking coverage

under the proposed permit.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

EPA has reviewed the requirements

imposed on regulated facilities resulting

from the proposed general permit under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. In a separate

Federal Register Notice, EPA will

propose, a revision to the current

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document (Approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) OMB

No. 2040–0188, expiration date of

March 31, 2003) to account for the

increased information requirements

proposed in today’s permit. EPA will

publish the proposed ICR revisions in a

separate Federal Register notice and

EPA will submit the revisions to OMB

for approval prior to issuance of the

final permit.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

(SBREFA)

The Agency has determined that the

proposed general permit being

published today is not subject to the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’),

which generally requires an agency to

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis

of any significant impact the rule will

have on a substantial number of small

entities. By its terms, the RFA only

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65961

applies to rules subject to notice-andcomment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

(‘‘APA’’) or any other statute. Today’s

proposed general permit is not subject

to notice and comment requirements

under the APA or any other statute

because the APA defines ‘‘rules’’ in a

manner that excludes permits. See APA

section 551(4),(6), and (8).

APA section 553 does not require

public notice and opportunity for

comment for interpretative rules or

general statements of policy. In addition

to proposing the new general permit,

today’s notice repeats an interpretation

of existing regulations promulgated

almost twenty years ago. The action

would impose no new or additional

requirements.

Nevertheless, the Agency has

considered and addressed the potential

impact of the proposed general permit

on small entities in a manner that meets

the requirements of the FRA. EPA took

such action based on the likelihood that

a large number of small entities may

seek coverage under the general permit

if finalized as proposed. The proposed

general permit would make available to

many small entities, particularly

operators of construction sites, a

streamlined process for obtaining

authorization to discharge. Of the

possible permitting mechanisms

available to dischargers subject to the

CWA, NPDES general permits are

designed to reduce the reporting and

monitoring burden associated with

NPDES permit authorization, especially

for small entities with discharges having

comparatively less potential for

environmental degradation than

discharges regulated under individual

NPDES permits. Thus, general permits

provide small entities with a permitting

application option that is much less

burdensome than NPDES individual

permit applications.

IX. Official Signatures

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: December 14, 2001.

Jo Lynn Traub,

Director, Water Division, Region V.

[FR Doc. 01–31492 Filed 12–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission,

Comments Requested

December 11, 2001.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid control

number. No person shall be subject to

any penalty for failing to comply with

a collection of information subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that

does not display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before February 19,

2002. If you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Les

Smith, Federal Communications

Commissions, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Room 1-A804, Washington, DC 20554 or

via the Internet to lesmith@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collections contact Les

Smith at (202) 418–0217 or via the

Internet at lesmith@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control Number: 3060–0644.

Title: Establishing Maximum

Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable

Services on Small Cable Systems.

Form Number: FCC Form 1230.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities; State, Local and Tribal

Governments.

Number of Respondents: 5.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2.25

hours.

Total Annual Burden to Respondents:

11.25 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $5,281.85.

Needs and Uses: On May 5, 1995, the

Commission adopted rules that allow a

small cable system owned by a small

cable company to use a simplified costof-service procedure to set its maximum

permitted rate. Pursuant to these rules,

a cable system is eligible to set its

maximum permitted rate with the FCC

form 1230 if it is a system with 15,000

or fewer subscribers, and it is not owned

by a cable company with more than

400,000 subscribers. The data collected

are used by the Commission and local

franchise authorities to determine

whether cable rates for basic service,

cable programming service, and

associated equipment are reasonable

under Commission regulations.

OMB Control Number: 3060–0433.

Title: Basic Signal Leakage

Performance Report.

Form Number: FCC Form 320.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities.

Number of Respondents: 33,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 20

hours.

Total Annual Burden to Respondents:

660,000 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $3,750.

Needs and Uses: Cable television

system operators who use frequencies in

the bands 108–137 and 225–400 MHz

(aeronautical frequencies) are required

to file a cumulative leakage index (CLI)

derived under section 76.611(a)(1) or

the results of airspace measurements

derived under section 76.611(a)(2). This

filing must include a description of the

method by which compliance with basic

signal leakage criteria is achieved and

the method of calibrating the

measurement equipment. This yearly

filing is done in accordance with section

76.615 with the use of FCC Form 320.

The data collected on the FCC Form 320

are used by the Commission staff to

ensure the safe operation of aeronautical

and marine radio services, and to

monitor for compliance of cable

aeronautical usage in order to minimize

future interference to these safety of life

services.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–31413 Filed 12–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P