Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 15411

Florida is not authorized to operate

the Federal program on Indian lands.

This authority remains with EPA.

C. Decision

I conclude that Florida’s program

revisions meet the statutory and

regulatory requirements established by

RCRA. Accordingly, Florida is granted

final authorization to operate its

hazardous waste program as revised.

Florida now has responsibility for

permitting treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities within its borders and

carrying out the aspects of the RCRA

program described in its revised

program application, subject to the

limitations of the HSWA. Florida also

has primary enforcement

responsibilities, although EPA retains

the right to conduct inspections under

Section 3007 of RCRA and to take

enforcement actions under Section

3008, 3013 and 7003 of RCRA.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104.4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

certain regulatory actions on State, local

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare

a written statement of economic and

regulatory alternatives analyses for

proposed and final rules with Federal

mandates, as defined by the UMRA, 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

period. The section 202 and 205

requirements do not apply to today’s

action because it is not a ‘‘Federal

mandate’’ and because it does not

impose annual costs of $100 million or

more.

Today’s rule contains no Federal

mandates for State, local or tribal

governments or the private sector for

two reasons. First, today’s action does

not impose new or additional

enforceable duties on any Sate, local or

tribal governments or the private sector

because the requirements of the Florida

program are already imposed by the

State and subject to State law. Second,

the Act also generally excludes from the

definition of a ‘‘Federal mandate’’ duties

that arise from participation in a

voluntary Federal program. Florida’s

participation in an authorized

hazardous waste program is voluntary.

Even if today’s rule did contain a

Federal mandate, this rule will not

result in annual expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and/or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

the private sector. Costs to State, local

and/or tribal governments already exist

under the Florida program, and today’s

action does not impose any additional

obligations on regulated entities. In fact,

EPA’s approval of state programs

generally may reduce, not increase,

compliance costs for the private sector.

The requirements of section 203 of

UMRA also do not apply to today’s

action. Before EPA establishes any

regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, section 203 of the UMRA

requires EPA to develop a small

government agency plan. This rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments. The Agency

recognizes that although small

governments may be hazardous waste

generators, transporters, or own and/or

operate TSDFs, they are already subject

to the regulatory requirements under

existing state law which are being

authorized by EPA, and, thus, are not

subject to any additional significant or

unique requirements by virtue of this

program approval.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

EPA has determined that this

authorization will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Such small

entities which are hazardous waste

generators, transporters, or which own

and/or operate TSDFs are already

subject to the regulatory requirements

under existing State law which are

being authorized by EPA. EPA’s

authorization does not impose any

additional burdens on these small

entities. This is because EPA’s

authorization would simply result in an

administrative change, rather than a

change in the substantive requirements

imposed on these small entities.

Therefore, EPA provides the following

certification under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, as amended by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act. Pursuant to the provision

at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that

this authorization will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This authorization approves regulatory

requirements under existing State law to

which small entities are already subject.

It does not impose any new burdens on

small entities. 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, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies

must consider the paperwork burden

imposed by any information request

contained in a proposed rule or a final

rule. This rule will not impose any

information requirements upon the

regulated community.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous waste transportation,

Hazardous waste, Indian lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control,

Water supply.

Authority: This document is issued under

the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as

amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

Dated: March 17, 1997.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8088 Filed 3–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6565–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5804–9]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of deletion of the Minot

Landfill Site from the National Priorities

List (NPL).

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of

the Minot Landfill Superfund Site (Site)

located in Ward County, North Dakota,

from the National Priorities List (NPL).
15412 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

The NPL is Appendix B of 40 CFR Part

300 which is the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.

EPA and the State of North Dakota have

determined that the Site, as remediated,

poses no significant threat to public

health or the environment and,

therefore, no further remedial measures

pursuant to CERCLA are appropriate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erna

Acheson Waterman, Site Manager, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,

Mail Stop 8EPR–SR, Denver, Colorado

80202–2466, (303) 312–6762.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Site

to be deleted from the NPL is: Minot

Landfill Superfund Site, Ward County,

North Dakota.

A Notice of Intent to Delete for this

Site was published December 26, 1996

(61 FR 67975). The closing date for

comments on the Notice of Intent to

Delete was January 27, 1997. No

comments have been received.

EPA identifies sites that appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

it maintains the NPL as a list of those

sites. Any site deleted from the NPL

remains eligible for Fund-financed

remedial actions in the unlikely event

that conditions at the site warrant such

action in the future. Section 300.425

(e)(3) of the NCP. Deletion of a site from

the NPL does not affect responsible

party liability or impede agency efforts

to recover costs associated with

response efforts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental Protection, Superfund,

Hazardous waste.

Dated: March 5, 1997.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region

VIII.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended

as follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300

is amended by removing the Site,

‘‘Minot Landfill’’, Minot County, North

Dakota.

[FR Doc. 97–8086 Filed 3–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 36

[CC Docket No. 80–286; FCC 97–30]

Establishment of a Joint Board

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On February 3, 1997, the

Commission adopted a Report and

Order (‘‘Order’’) adopting a

recommended decision by the FederalState Joint Board regarding permanent

rules to govern the procedures that

incumbent local exchange carriers

(ILECs) use for allocating Other Billing

and Collecting (OB&C) expenses

between the intrastate and interstate

jurisdictions. Specifically, the Joint

Board recommended that OB&C

expenses be divided equally among

three services: Interstate toll; intrastate

toll; and local exchange, with two thirds

of the OB&C expenses thus allocated to

the state jurisdiction, and one third

allocated to the interstate jurisdiction.

In cases in which an ILEC provides no

interstate billing and collecting for an

interexchange carrier (IXC), the Joint

Board recommended an automatic

reduction of the interstate assignment to

five percent to cover the cost of billing

the federal Subscriber Line Charge

(SLC). The intended effect is to adopt

the Joint Board’s recommendations and

implement new rules regarding the

separations procedures applicable to

OB&C expenses.

DATES: May 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lynn Vermillera, Attorney/Advisor,

Accounting and Audits Division,

Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–

0852.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this

proceeding, we establish permanent

rules that satisfy our stated goals that

the permanent rules (1) reflect

principles of cost causation, (2) not be

unnecessarily burdensome to

implement and administer, (3) be

simple to audit, and (4) be certain and

predictable in their effect.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

In the NPRM (60 FR 30059, June 7,

1995) Amendment of Part 36 of the

Commission’s Rules and Establishment

of a Joint Board, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 7013 (1995)),

the Commission certified that the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980

did not apply to this rulemaking

because the rules it proposed to adopt

in this proceeding would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small businesses. The

Commission’s RFA in this Report and

Order (Amendment of Part 36 of the

Commission’s Rules and Establishment

of a Joint Board, Report and Order, CC

Docket No. 80–286, FCC 97–30 (1997))

conforms to the RFA, as amended by the

Contract With America Advancement

Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Public Law 104–

121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).

Need for and Objectives of the Proposed

Rules

To reflect the fact that their facilities

are used for both intrastate and

interstate communication, ILECs must

allocate their costs and expenses

between the state and interstate

jurisdictions. Prior to 1987, the rules for

jurisdictional separation of OB&C

expenses required ILECs to determine

the amount of time spent billing for

interstate services and for intrastate

services. In 1987, the Commission

adopted, at the recommendation of the

Federal-State Joint Board, a new

apportionment formula based on the

number of users billed by each ILEC for

specific interstate and intrastate

services. Because the new system led to

unpredictable results, and because

carriers had difficulty administering the

new formula (as evidenced by waiver

requests), in 1988 the Commission

reinstated, on an interim basis, a portion

of the allocation rules that were in effect

prior to 1987. In this proceeding, we are

establishing permanent rules that satisfy

our stated goals that the permanent

rules (1) reflect principles of cost

causation, (2) not be unnecessarily

burdensome to implement and

administer, (3) be simple to audit, and

(4) be certain and predictable in their

effect.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by

the Public Regarding Regulatory

Flexibility

There is some concern over what

might be perceived by some as a likely

shift of OB&C expenses to the interstate

jurisdiction, with the possible result

that ILECs could either lose money on

billing and collection, or lose their IXC

billing and collecting contracts