Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Notices 64977

OTHER#S RP01–278, 002, Texas Gas

Transmission Corporation

Energy Projects—Hydro

H–1.

DOCKET# P–11393, 009, City of Saxman,

Alaska

H–2.

DOCKET# P–2069, 006, Arizona Public

Service Company

H–3.

DOCKET# P–2342, 012, PacifiCorp

H–4.

DOCKET# P–137, 030, Pacific Gas and

Electric Company

H–5.

DOCKET# P–2114, 102, Public Utility

District No. 2 of Grant County,

Washington

Energy Projects—Certificates

C–1.

DOCKET# CP01–4, 000, Maritimes &

Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.

OTHER#S CP01–5, 000, Algonquin Gas

Transmission Company

CP01–5 001 Algonquin Gas Transmission

Company

C–2.

DOCKET# CP01–87, 000, Dominion

Transmission, Inc.

OTHER#S CP01–87, 002, Dominion

Transmission, Inc.

C–3.

DOCKET# CP01–384, 000, Islander East

Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

OTHER#S CP01–387, 000, Algonquin Gas

Transmission Company

CP01–385, 000, Islander East Pipeline

Company, L.L.C.

CP01–386, 000, Islander East Pipeline

Company, L.L.C.

C–4.

DOCKET# CP01–406, 000, Transok, LLC

OTHER#S CP01–407, 000, Ozark Gas

Transmission, L.L.C.

C–5.

DOCKET# CP01–375, 000, East Tennessee

Natural Gas Company

C–6.

DOCKET# CP98–150, 000, Millennium

Pipeline Company, L.P.

OTHER#S CP98–150, 002, Millennium

Pipeline Company, L.P.

CP98–154, 000, Millennium Pipeline

Company, L.P.

CP98–155, 000, Millennium Pipeline

Company, L.P.

CP98–156, 000, Millennium Pipeline

Company, L.P.

CP98–151, 000, Columbia Gas

Transmission Corporation

C–7.

DOCKET# CP01–376, 000, Intermountain

Municipal Gas Agency v. Questar Gas

Company

C–8.

OMITTED

C–9.

DOCKET# CP01–103, 001,

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation

OTHER#S CP01–104, 001, Williams Gas

Processing-Gulf Coast Company, L.P.

C–10.

DOCKET# CP01–368, 001,

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation

OTHER#S RP01–245, 004,

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation

CP01–369, 000, Williams Gas ProcessingGulf Coast Company, L.P.

C–11.

DOCKET# CP01–34, 002, Transcontinental

Gas Pipe Line Corporation

OTHER#S CP01–32, 001, Williams Gas

Processing-Gulf Coast Company, L.P.

C–12.

DOCKET# CP01–76, 001, Cove Point LNG

Limited Partnership

OTHER#S CP01–156, 001, Cove Point LNG

Limited Partnership

CP01–77, 001, Cove Point LNG Limited

Partnership

RP01–217, 001, Cove Point LNG Limited

Partnership

C–13.

DOCKET# CP97–315, 006, Independence

Pipeline Company

OTHER#S CP97–319, 004, ANR Pipeline

Company

C–14.

DOCKET# CP00–232, 000, Iroquois Gas

Transmission System, L.P.

OTHER#S CP00–232, 001, Iroquois Gas

Transmission System, L.P.

CP00–232, 002, Iroquois Gas Transmission

System, L.P.

Administrative Agenda

A–1.

DOCKET# AD02–1, 000, Agency

Administrative Matters

A–2.

DOCKET# AD02–7, 000, Customer Matters,

Reliability, Security and Market

Operations

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–31059 Filed 12–13–01; 10:13

am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–7118–8]

State Program Requirements; Revision

of the Approved National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Program in South Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; Approval of revision of

the South Dakota NPDES Program under

the Clean Water Act.

SUMMARY: On October 22, 2001, the

Acting Regional Administrator for

Region VIII of the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) approved a

revision to the existing South Dakota

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

program. With this revision, the State of

South Dakota is now authorized to

administer and enforce a sludge

management (biosolids) program where

the State has jurisdiction. This program

will be administered by the South

Dakota Department of Environment and

Natural Resources (SDDENR).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob

Brobst, Water Permits Team (8P–W–P),

US EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street,

Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202–

2466; telephone number (303) 312–

6129; email address

brobst.bob@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Under Section 402 of the Clean Water

Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1342, the EPA

may issue permits allowing discharges

of pollutants from point sources into

waters of the United States, subject to

various requirements of the CWA. These

permits are known as National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permits. Section 402(b) of the CWA, 33

U.S.C. 1342(b), allows states to apply to

the EPA for authorization to administer

their own NPDES permit programs. In

1993, South Dakota applied to the EPA

for authority to administer the South

Dakota Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (SDPDES) program. The EPA

approved South Dakota’s application on

December 30, 1993, as described in a

January 11, 1994 Federal Register notice

(59 FR 1535).

Section 405 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.

1345, authorizes the EPA to issue

permits for the disposal of sewage

sludge. Section 405(c) of the CWA, 33

U.S.C. 1345(c), authorizes any state

desiring to administer its own permit

program for the sludge disposal to do so

in accordance with Section 402 of the

CWA. On August 12, 1998, South

Dakota submitted such an application to

the EPA, requesting that the State’s

original NPDES authorization be

amended to include a state sludge

management program described in an

accompanying proposal dated March 23,

1998.

The EPA, having found that South

Dakota’s application meets all pertinent

requirements in the CWA and the EPA’s

regulations, particularly 40 CFR parts

123 and 501, has approved South

Dakota’s application for primary

authority to administer a sludge

management program.

II. Public Comments

The EPA provided two periods for

any interested member of the public to

comment on this application. No

comments were received.

64978 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Notices

Initially, the EPA described this

application in a Federal Register notice

dated October 5, 2000 (65 FR 59385), in

notices published in the Rapid City

Journal and the Sioux Falls ArgusLeader on October 20, 2000, and in

individual mailings to persons known to

be interested in such matters. In the

October 5, 2000 Federal Register notice,

the EPA stated it would consider any

comments received on or before

November 20, 2000. In a second Federal

Register notice, which was dated

January 18, 2001, the EPA extended the

public comment period to March 5,

2001, because the first Federal Register

notice had omitted mention of the fact

that a public hearing could be requested

on the application. No public hearing

was requested, and none was held.

III. Threatened and Endangered

Species

On June 29, 2000, following

discussions with representatives of the

EPA, the Field Supervisor of the South

Dakota Field Office of the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service concurred

with the EPA’s determination that

approving South Dakota’s biosolids

program application was unlikely either

to jeopardize the continued existence of

any species listed as threatened or

endangered under the Endangered

Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., or

to result in the adverse modification of

any designated critical habitat for any

such species.

IV. Historic Preservation

On November 5, 1999, the South

Dakota State Historical Society provided

the EPA with a written determination

that the addition of the biosolids

program to the SDPDES program would

have no effect on historic properties in

South Dakota.

V. 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.

VI. Administrative Requirements

The EPA has long considered a

determination to approve or deny a

State NPDES program submission to

constitute an adjudication, not a

rulemaking. This is because an

‘‘approval,’’ as that term is used in the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

551 et seq., constitutes a ‘‘license,’’

which, in turn, is the product of an

‘‘adjudication.’’ Therefore, the

requirements for rules that are

established by the statutes and

Executive Orders mentioned below

would not apply to this action. Even if

this action were considered a

rulemaking, the statutes and Executive

Orders discussed below would not

apply for the following reasons.

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

The EPA has determined that there is

no need for an Information Collection

Request under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this

action would not impose any new

federal reporting or record-keeping

requirements. Because the State of

South Dakota has adopted the EPA’s

sludge management regulation at 40

CFR part 503 by reference, the matters

subject to reporting and record-keeping

requirements will remain the same after

the EPA’s approval of South Dakota’s

program.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,

generally requires an agency to prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act or any

other statute unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

As Acting Regional Administrator for

EPA Region VIII, I hereby certify,

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (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,

the EPA is generally required to prepare

a written statement, including a costbenefit 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. The EPA’s

approval of South Dakota’s program is

not a ‘‘Federal mandate,’’ because there

is no federal mandate for states to

establish sludge management programs.

D. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113 section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),

directs the EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards, e.g., material specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices, that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. This action does not

involve the use of technical standards

subject to the NTTAA.

E. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether its regulatory actions

are ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the OMB. The EPA has

determined that this approval action is

not ‘‘significant’’ for purposes of

Executive Order 12866 because, as

mentioned above, South Dakota has

adopted the EPA’s sludge management

regulations.

F. Executive Order No. 12898—

Environmental Justice

Executive Order No. 12898, entitled

‘‘Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income

Populations,’’ dated February 11, 1994,

focuses federal attention on the

environmental and human health

conditions of minority populations and

low-income populations with the goal of

achieving environmental protection for

all communities. Today’s action will not

diminish the health protection to

minority and low-income populations

because, as mentioned above, it will not

impose any different requirements than

those already in effect for sludge

management facilities.

G. Executive Order No. 13045—

Protection of Children

Executive Order No. 13045, dated

April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19885), applies to

any rule that (1) is determined to be

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined in

Executive Order No. 12866, and (2)

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Notices 64979

concerns an environmental health or

safety risk that the EPA has reason to

believe may have a disproportionate

effect on children. This action is not

subject to Executive Order No. 13045

because it is not economically

significant as defined in Executive

Order No. 12866.

H. Executive Order No. 13175—

Consultation with Tribes

Under Executive Order No. 13175, no

federal agency may issue a regulation

that has tribal implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on Indian tribal governments, and

that is not required by statute, unless

the federal government provides the

funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by the tribal

governments or the agency consults

with tribal officials early in the process

of developing the proposed regulation.

This action will not significantly affect

any Indian tribe. As indicated above,

South Dakota is not authorized to

implement its sludge management

program in Indian Country. The EPA

will continue to administer the existing

sludge management program in Indian

Country in South Dakota.

I. Executive Order No. 13132—

Federalism

Executive Order No. 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism,’’ dated August 10, 1999

(64 FR 43255), requires the EPA to

develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

State and local officials in the

development of regulatory policies that

have federalism implications.’’ The

phrase ‘‘policies that have federalism

implications’’ is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on

States, on the relationship between the

national government and States, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.’’ This action does

not have federalism implications. It will

not have any substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between States and the national

government, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order No. 13132.

It will merely put in place a State

regulatory program that is identical to

the existing federal program.

J. Executive Order No. 13211—Energy

Effects

Because it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order No. 12866, this action is not

subject to Executive Order No. 13211,

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations that

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May

22, 2001).

Dated: December 4, 2001.

Kerrigan Clough,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 01–31011 Filed 12–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1396–DR]

Puerto Rico; Major Disaster and

Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the

Presidential declaration of a major

disaster for the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico (FEMA–1396–DR), dated

November 28, 2001, and related

determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Readiness, Response and

Recovery Directorate, Federal

Emergency Management Agency,

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705

or madge.dale@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given that, in a letter dated

November 28, 2001, the President

declared a major disaster under the

authority of the Robert T. Stafford

Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121–5206

(the Stafford Act), as follows:

I have determined that the damage in

certain areas of the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, resulting from severe storms, flooding,

mudslides and landslides on November 7,

2001, and continuing, is of sufficient severity

and magnitude to warrant a major disaster

declaration under the Robert T. Stafford

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121–5206 (the Stafford

Act). I, therefore, declare that such a major

disaster exists in the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico.

In order to provide Federal assistance, you

are hereby authorized to allocate from funds

available for these purposes, such amounts as

you find necessary for Federal disaster

assistance and administrative expenses.

You are authorized to provide Public

Assistance in the designated areas and

Hazard Mitigation throughout the

Commonwealth, and any other forms of

assistance under the Stafford Act you may

deem appropriate. Consistent with the

requirement that Federal assistance be

supplemental, any Federal funds provided

under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance

or Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75

percent of the total eligible costs.

Further, you are authorized to make

changes to this declaration to the extent

allowable under the Stafford Act.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant

to the authority vested in the Director of

the Federal Emergency Management

Agency under Executive Order 12148, I

hereby appoint Justo Herna ́ndez of the

Federal Emergency Management Agency

to act as the Federal Coordinating

Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following

areas of the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico to have been affected adversely by

this declared major disaster:

Barranquitas, Bayamo ́n, Ciales, Corozal,

Jayuya, Juncos, Morovis, Naranjito, San

Lorenzo, and Utuado Municipalities for

Public Assistance.

All municipalities within the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are

eligible to apply for assistance under the

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used

for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537,

Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora

Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis

Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services

Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment

Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression

Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family

Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public

Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing

Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant

Program.)

Joe M. Allbaugh,

Director.

[FR Doc. 01–31021 Filed 12–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1396–DR]

Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 1 to

Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice

of a major disaster for the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA–

1396–DR), dated November 28, 2001,

and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 29, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Readiness, Response and

Recovery Directorate, Federal

Emergency Management Agency,

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705

or madge.dale@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given that the incident period for