24272 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

legal standard for affected conduct, as

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

EPA has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. This rule does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

VI. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. Section 808 allows

the issuing agency to make a rule

effective sooner than otherwise

provided by the CRA if the agency

makes a good cause finding that notice

and public procedure is impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to public

interest. This determination must be

supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C.

808(2). As stated previously, EPA has

made such a good cause finding,

including the reasons therefor, and

established an effective date of May 14,

2001, for this rule. EPA will submit 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 United

States prior to the publication of the

rule in the Federal Register. This action

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

VII. Immediate Effective Date

As noted earlier, EPA is making this

rule effective immediately. This rule

adopts amendments which are purely

technical, in that they implement the

Court’s mandate. Comment on such

changes is unnecessary within the

meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). For the

same reason, there is good cause to

make the rule effective immediately

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 63

Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 270

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous materials transportation,

Hazardous waste, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: May 8, 2001.

Christine Todd Whitman,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSIONS

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for Part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart EEE—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

From Hazardous Waste Combustors

2. Section 63.1206 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(1), removing

paragraph (a)(2), and redesignating

paragraph (a)(3) as (a)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 63.1206 When and how must sources

comply with the standards and operating

requirements?

(a) * * * (1) Compliance date for

existing sources. You must comply with

the standards of this subpart no later

than September 30, 2002 unless the

Administrator grants you an extension

of time under § 63.6(i) or § 63.1213.

* * * * *

§ 63.1209 [Amended]

3. Section 63.1209 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraphs

(m)(1)(ii) and (iii).

§ 63.1210 [Amended]

4. Section 63.1210 is amended as

follows:

a. In the table to paragraph (a)(1) by

removing the entry ‘‘63.1210(b) and (c)’’;

and

b. By removing paragraph (b) and (c)

and redesignating paragraph (d) as (b).

§ 63.1211 [Amended]

5. Section 63.1211 is amended by

removing paragraph (b) and

redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e),

as (b) through (d) respectively.

§ 63.1212 [Removed and Reserved]

6. Section 63.1212 is removed and

reserved.

PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED

PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE

HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT

PROGRAM

7. The authority citation for part 270

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924,

6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974.

8. Section 270.42 is amended by

revising paragraph (j)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 270.42 Permit modifications at the

request of the permittee.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(1) Facility owners or operators must

have complied with the Notification of

Intent to Comply (NIC) requirements of

40 CFR 63.1210 that was in effect prior

to May 14, 2001, (See 40 CFR Part 63

Revised as of July 1, 2000) in order to

request a permit modification under this

section.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–12043 Filed 5–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL–6950–2]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or Agency) today is

granting a petition submitted by Tyco

Printed Circuit Group, Melbourne

Division, Melbourne, Florida, (Tyco),

formerly Advanced Quick Circuits, L.P.,

to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) a certain

hazardous waste from the list of

hazardous wastes under RCRA

regulation. Tyco generates the

petitioned waste by treating liquid

waste from Tyco’s printed circuit board

manufacturing processes. The waste so

generated is a wastewater treatment

sludge that meets the definition of F006.

Based on careful analyses of the wastespecific information provided by the

petitioner, the Agency has concluded

that Tyco’s petitioned waste will not

adversely affect human health and the

environment. This action responds to

Tyco’s petition to delist this waste on a

‘‘generator-specific’’ basis from the

hazardous waste lists, and to public

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 24273

1This manual may be down-loaded from Region

6’s Web Site at the following URL address: http:/

/www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-o/

dlistpdf.htm

comments on the proposed rule. In

response to comments received on the

proposed rule, the delisting levels in

this final rule are based, in part, on the

EPACML model, rather than the generic

levels for high temperature metal

recovery residues. In accordance with

the conditions specified in this final

rule, the petitioned waste is excluded

from the requirements of hazardous

waste regulations under Subtitle C of

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

May 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory

docket for this final rule is located at the

EPA Library, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, and

is available for viewing from 9 a.m. to

4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays.

The reference number for this docket

is R4–99–01-TycoF. The public may

copy material from any regulatory

docket at no cost for the first 100 pages,

and at a cost of $0.15 per page for

additional copies. For copying at the

Florida Department of Environmental

protection, please see below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general and technical information

concerning this final rule, please contact

Judy Sophianopoulos, RCRA

Enforcement and Compliance Branch,

(Mail Code 4WD–RCRA), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,

Georgia 30303, (404) 562–8604, or call,

toll free, (800) 241–1754, and leave a

message, with your name and phone

number, for Ms. Sophianopoulos to

return your call. Questions may also be

e-mailed to Ms. Sophianopoulos at

sophianopoulos.judy@epa.gov. You may

also contact Janine Kraemer, Central

District Office, Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP), 3319

Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232, Orlando,

Florida 32803–3767. If you wish to copy

documents at FDEP, please contact Ms.

Kraemer for copying procedures and

costs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

contents of today’s preamble are listed

in the following outline:

I. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition?

B. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA

the Authority to Delist Wastes?

C. What is the History of this Rulemaking?

II. Summary of Delisting Petition Submitted

by Tyco Printed Circuit Group,

Melbourne Division, Melbourne, FL

Circuits, LP (Tyco), Melbourne, Florida

A. What Waste Did Tyco Petition EPA to

Delist?

B. What Information Did Tyco Submit to

Support This Petition?

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Final Rule

A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and

Why?

B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?

C. When Is the Delisting Effective?

D. How Does This Action Affect the States?

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Comments on the

Proposed Rule?

B. Comments and Responses From EPA

V. Regulatory Impact

VI. Congressional Review Act

VII. Executive Order 12875

I. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition?

A delisting petition is a request made

by a hazardous waste generator to

exclude one or more of his/her wastes

from the lists of RCRA-regulated

hazardous wastes in §§ 261.31, 261.32,

and 261.33 of Title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (40 CFR 261.31,

261.32, and 261.33). The regulatory

requirements for a delisting petition are

in 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. EPA,

Region 6 has prepared a guidance

manual, Region 6 Guidance Manual for

the Petitioner 1, which is recommended

by EPA Headquarters in Washington,

D.C. and all EPA Regions.

B. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA

the Authority To Delist Wastes?

On January 16, 1981, as part of its

final and interim final regulations

implementing section 3001 of RCRA,

EPA published an amended list of

hazardous wastes from non-specific and

specific sources. This list has been

amended several times, and is

published in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.

These wastes are listed as hazardous

because they exhibit one or more of the

characteristics of hazardous wastes

identified in subpart C of part 261 (i.e.,

ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and

toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing

contained in § 261.11 (a)(2) or (a)(3).

Discarded commercial chemical product

wastes which meet the listing criteria

are listed in § 261.33(e) and (f).

Individual waste streams may vary,

however, depending on raw materials,

industrial processes, and other factors.

Thus, while a waste that is described in

these regulations generally is hazardous,

a specific waste from an individual

facility meeting the listing description

may not be. For this reason, §§ 260.20

and 260.22 provide an exclusion

procedure, allowing persons to

demonstrate that a specific waste from

a particular generating facility should

not be regulated as a hazardous waste.

To have their wastes excluded,

petitioners must show, first, that wastes

generated at their facilities do not meet

any of the criteria for which the wastes

were listed. See § 260.22(a) and the

background documents for the listed

wastes. Second, the Administrator must

determine, where he/she has a

reasonable basis to believe that factors

(including additional constituents) other

than those for which the waste was

listed could cause the waste to be a

hazardous waste, that such factors do

not warrant retaining the waste as a

hazardous waste. Accordingly, a

petitioner also must demonstrate that

the waste does not exhibit any of the

hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.,

ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and

toxicity), and must present sufficient

information for the EPA to determine

whether the waste contains any other

toxicants at hazardous levels. See

§ 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the

background documents for the listed

wastes. Although wastes which are

‘‘delisted’’ (i.e., excluded) have been

evaluated to determine whether or not

they exhibit any of the characteristics of

hazardous waste, generators remain

obligated under RCRA to determine

whether or not their wastes continue to

be nonhazardous based on the

hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.,

characteristics which may be

promulgated subsequent to a delisting

decision.)

In addition, residues from the

treatment, storage, or disposal of listed

hazardous wastes and mixtures

containing listed hazardous wastes are

also considered hazardous wastes. See

40 CFR 261.3 (a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i),

referred to as the ‘‘mixture’’ and

‘‘derived-from’’ rules, respectively. Such

wastes are also eligible for exclusion

and remain hazardous wastes until

excluded. On December 6, 1991, the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia vacated the ‘‘mixture/derivedfrom’’ rules and remanded them to the

EPA on procedural grounds. Shell Oil

Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir.

1991). On March 3, 1992, EPA

reinstated the mixture and derived-from

rules, and solicited comments on other

ways to regulate waste mixtures and

residues (57 FR 7628). These rules

became final on October 30, 1992, 57 FR

49278), and should be consulted for

more information regarding waste

mixtures and solid wastes derived from

treatment, storage, or disposal of a

hazardous waste. The mixture and

24274 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

2 ‘‘Wastewater sludges from electroplating

operations except from the following processes: (1)

Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating

on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis)

on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum

plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching

and milling of aluminum.’’

3 ‘‘SW–846’’ means EPA Publication SW–846,

‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,

Physical/Chemical Methods.’’ Methods in this

publication are referred to in today’s final rule as

‘‘SW–846,’’ followed by the appropriate method

number.

derived-from rules are codified in 40

CFR 261.3 (b)(2) and (c)(2)(i). EPA plans

to address waste mixtures and residues

when the final portion of the Hazardous

Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) is

promulgated.

On October 10, 1995, the

Administrator delegated to the Regional

Administrators the authority to evaluate

and approve or deny petitions

submitted in accordance with §§ 260.20

and 260.22, by generators within their

Regions (National Delegation of

Authority 8–19), in States not yet

authorized to administer a delisting

program in lieu of the Federal program.

On March 11, 1996, the Regional

Administrator of EPA, Region 4,

redelegated delisting authority to the

Director of the Waste Management

Division (Regional Delegation of

Authority 8–19).

C. What Is the History of This

Rulemaking?

Tyco manufactures printed circuit

boards, and is seeking a delisting for the

sludge generated by treating liquid

wastes from its electroplating

operations. This waste meets the listing

definition of F006 in 40 CFR Section

261.312

Tyco petitioned the Administrator, on

August 26, 1998, to exclude this F006

waste, on a generator-specific basis,

from the lists of hazardous wastes in 40

CFR part 261, subpart D. In accordance

with the delegation of delisting

authority, the Administrator transmitted

the petition to EPA, Region 4, and on

September 11, 1998, Tyco submitted the

petition to EPA, Region 4.

The hazardous constituents of

concern for which F006 was listed are

cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel,

and cyanide (complexed). Tyco

petitioned the EPA to exclude its F006

waste because Tyco does not believe

that the waste meets the criteria of the

listing.

Tyco claims that its F006 waste is not

hazardous because the constituents of

concern are either present at low

concentrations, or do not leach out of

the waste at significant concentrations.

Tyco also believes that this waste is not

hazardous for any other reason (i.e.,

there are no additional constituents or

factors that could cause the waste to be

hazardous). Review of this petition

included consideration of the original

listing criteria, as well as the additional

factors required by the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of

1984. See section 222 of HSWA, 42

U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–

(4). As a result of the EPA’s evaluation

of Tyco’s petition, the Agency proposed

to grant a delisting to Tyco, on August

8, 2000. See 65 FR 48434–48444, August

8, 2000 for details. Today’s rulemaking

addresses public comments received on

the proposed rule and finalizes the

proposed decision to grant Tyco’s

petition for delisting.

II. Summary of Delisting Petition

Submitted by Tyco Printed Circuit

Group, Melbourne Division, Melbourne,

FL (Tyco), Melbourne, Florida

A. What Waste Did Tyco Petition EPA

To Delist?

Tyco petitioned EPA, Region 4, on

September 11, 1998, to exclude a

maximum annual weight of 300 tons of

its F006 waste, on a generator-specific

basis, from the lists of hazardous wastes

in subpart D of 40 CFR part 261. Tyco

operates two electroplating operations

on John Rodes Boulevard in Melbourne,

Florida, that electroplate copper, tin/

lead, nickel, and gold in the process of

manufacturing printed circuit boards.

The sludge generated by treatment of

the wastewater from these operations

meets the listing definition of F006 in

§ 261.31.

B. What Information Did Tyco Submit

To Support This Petition?

In support of its petition, Tyco

submitted: (1) Descriptions of its

manufacturing and wastewater

treatment processes, the generation

point of the petitioned waste and the

manufacturing steps that contribute to

its generation; (2) Material Safety Data

Sheets (MSDSs) for process materials;

(3) quantities of petitioned waste

generated each year from 1983 through

1997; (4) results of analysis for water,

metals, cyanide, sulfide, and oil and

grease in the waste; (5) results of the

analysis of waste leachate obtained by

means of the Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure ((TCLP), SW–846

Method 13113) for metals; (6) results of

the determinations for the hazardous

characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, and reactivity; (7) results for

total analysis of metals; and (8) results

of the Multiple Extraction Procedure

(MEP), SW–846 Method 1320, analysis

of the waste to determine long-term

resistance to leaching.

The hazardous constituents of

concern for which F006 was listed are

cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel,

and cyanide (complexed). Tyco

petitioned the EPA to exclude its F006

waste because Tyco does not believe

that the waste meets the criteria of the

listing.

Tyco submitted to the EPA analytical

data on nine samples of its F006 waste

collected during a six-month period.

Based on this information, EPA

identified the following constituents of

concern: barium, cadmium, chromium,

cyanide, lead, and nickel. The

maximum reported concentrations of

the toxicity characteristic (TC) metals,

barium, cadmium, chromium, and lead

in the TCLP extracts of the samples

were below the TC regulatory levels.

The maximum reported concentration of

cyanide was below the generic

exclusion level for high temperature

metal recovery (HTMR) residues in 40

CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1). Nickel was

undetected in the TCLP extract at a

detection level of 0.50 milligrams per

liter, and the maximum reported

concentration of nickel in unextracted

samples was 2,100 milligrams per

kilogram. See the proposed rule, 65 FR

48434–48444, August 8, 2000, for a

detailed discussion of the information

submitted by Tyco. EPA does not

generally verify submitted test data

before proposing delisting decisions.

The sworn affidavit submitted with this

petition binds the petitioner to present

truthful and accurate results. The

Agency, however, has maintained a

spot-check sampling and analysis

program to verify the representative

nature of data for some percentage of the

submitted petitions. A spot-check visit

to a selected facility may be initiated

before or after granting a delisting.

Section 3007 of RCRA gives EPA the

authority to conduct inspections to

determine if a delisted waste is meeting

the delisting conditions.

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Final Rule

A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and

Why?

For reasons stated in both the

proposal and this final rule, EPA

believes that Tyco’s petitioned waste

should be excluded from hazardous

waste control. EPA, therefore, is

granting a final generator-specific

exclusion to Tyco, of Melbourne,

Florida, for a maximum annual

generation rate of 590 cubic yards of the

waste described in its petition as EPA

Hazardous Waste Number F006. This

waste is required to undergo verification

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 24275

testing before being considered as

excluded from Subtitle C regulation.

Requirements for waste to be land

disposed or smelted have been included

in this exclusion. The exclusion applies

only to the waste as described in Tyco’s

petition, dated August 1998.

Although management of the waste

covered by this petition is relieved from

Subtitle C jurisdiction, the generator of

the delisted waste must either treat,

store, or dispose of the waste in an onsite facility, or ensure that the waste is

delivered to an off-site storage,

treatment, or disposal facility, either of

which is permitted, licensed or

registered by a State to manage

municipal or industrial solid waste.

Alternatively, the delisted waste may be

delivered to a facility that beneficially

uses or reuses, or legitimately recycles

or reclaims the waste, or treats the waste

prior to such beneficial use, reuse,

recycling, or reclamation. See 40 CFR

part 260, appendix I. Tyco’s preferred

method of waste management is to send

its excluded waste to a smelter for metal

recovery.

B. What Are the Terms of This

Exclusion?

In the rule proposed on August 8,

2000, EPA requested public comment

on which of the following possible

methods should be used to set delisting

levels for the petitioned waste (see 65

FR 48436, August 8, 2000):

(1) Delisting levels based on the

EPACML model;

(2) Delisting levels equal to either the

Universal Treatment Standards (UTS)

levels of the Land Disposal Restrictions

(LDR) regulations in 40 CFR part 268 or

the generic exclusion levels for residues

from treatment of F006 by High

Temperature Metal Recovery (HTMR),

in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1),

whichever yields the lower value;

(3) Setting limits on total

concentrations of constituents in the

waste of 20,000 milligrams per kilogram

(mg/kg) for nickel, and 500 mg/kg of

each of the metals, barium, cadmium,

chromium, and lead;

(4) Use of the MEP to evaluate the

long-term resistance of the waste to

leaching in a landfill; and

(5) Delisting levels for waste that will

be sent to a smelter for metal recovery,

calculated in accordance with EPA’s

Human Health Risk Assessment

Protocol (HHRAP) for combustion risk

assessment or set equal to the same

delisting levels as for land disposal,

with the additional requirement that the

smelting facility be in compliance with

a permit issued under the authority of

the Clean Air Act.

After considering all public comments

on the proposed rule, EPA is granting

Tyco, in today’s final rule, an exclusion

from the lists of hazardous wastes in

subpart D of 40 CFR part 261, for its

petitioned waste, whether disposed in a

Subtitle D landfill or smelted for metal

recovery. Tyco must meet all of the

following delisting conditions in order

for this exclusion to be valid:

(1) Delisting levels, in mg/l in the

TCLP extract of the waste, based on the

EPACML model, of 100 for Barium; 0.5

for Cadmium; 5.0 for Chromium; 20 for

Cyanide; 1.5 for Lead; and 73 for Nickel;

(2) Delisting levels based on total

concentrations, in milligrams of

constituent per kilogram of unextracted

waste, of 2,000 for Barium; 500 for

Cadmium; 1,000 for Chromium; 200 for

Cyanide (Total, not Amenable); 2,000

for Lead; and 20,000 for Nickel; and

(3) Recordkeeping and certification

requirements for waste to be smelted for

metal recovery, which include records

in the facility files, available for

inspection by EPA or the State of

Florida, that contain names, addresses,

telephone numbers, and contact persons

for smelters; amounts of waste smelted;

certification that smelters are subject to

regulatory controls on discharges to air,

water, and land; and analytical data on

smelted wastes to demonstrate

compliance with conditions (1) and (2).

EPA believes that the limits on total

concentrations in condition (2) above

are protective of human health and the

environment. In response to public

comment, EPA set higher limits on total

concentrations in today’s final rule than

in the proposed rule, because EPA

agrees with the commenter that MEP

analysis of the petitioned waste

indicated long-term resistance to

leaching (see 65 FR 48439, August 8,

2000). EPA also believes that these

limits are realistic, attainable values for

wastewater treatment sludges that

contain metals and cyanide. The limit

for cyanide was chosen so that the waste

could not exhibit the reactivity

characteristic for cyanide by exceeding

the interim guidance for reactive

cyanide of 250 mg/kg of releasable

hydrogen cyanide (SW–846, Chapter

Seven, Section 7.3.3.)

In response to public comments, EPA

is promulgating the recordkeeping and

certification requirements for waste to

be smelted, in today’s final rule, instead

of the proposed risk assessment in

accordance with HHRAP or the

proposed requirement for a permit

under the Clean Air Act. EPA is

retaining the proposed requirement that

waste to be smelted meet the same

delisting levels as waste to be landfilled.

Table 1, Appendix IX of part 261 has

been amended to add the three delisting

conditions described above, to retain the

verification and data submission

requirements of the proposed rule (see

65 FR 48442–48443, August 8, 2000), to

delete delisting levels based on the

generic exclusion levels for metal

recovery in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1),

and to delete the requirement for a risk

assessment based on EPA’s Human

Health Risk Assessment Protocol for

combustion facilities. Thus, EPA is

retaining in today’s final rule to exclude

Tyco’s petitioned waste Conditions (2),

(4), (5), (6), and (7) in Table 1, Appendix

IX of part 261 of the proposed rule, and

is changing proposed Conditions (1), (3)

and (8), in response to public

comments, as described in the three

preceding paragraphs.

C. When Is the Delisting Effective?

This rule is effective on May 14, 2001.

The Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984 amended Section

3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become

effective in less than six months when

the regulated community does not need

the six-month period to come into

compliance. That is the case here,

because this rule reduces the existing

requirements for persons generating

hazardous wastes. In light of the

unnecessary hardship and expense that

would be imposed on this petitioner by

an effective date six months after

publication and the fact that a sixmonth deadline is not necessary to

achieve the purpose of section 3010,

EPA believes that this exclusion should

be effective immediately upon final

publication.

These reasons also provide a basis for

making this rule effective immediately,

upon final publication, under the

Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

D. How Does This Action Affect the

States?

The final exclusion being granted

today is issued under the Federal

(RCRA) delisting program. States,

however, are allowed to impose their

own, non-RCRA regulatory

requirements that are more stringent

than EPA’s, pursuant to section 3009 of

RCRA. These more stringent

requirements may include a provision

which prohibits a Federally-issued

exclusion from taking effect in the

States. Because a petitioner’s waste may

be regulated under a dual system (i.e.,

both Federal (RCRA) and State (nonRCRA) programs), petitioners are urged

to contact State regulatory authorities to

determine the current status of their

wastes under the State laws.

24276 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Furthermore, some States are

authorized to administer a delisting

program in lieu of the Federal program,

i.e., to make their own delisting

decisions. Therefore, this exclusion

does not apply in those authorized

States. If the petitioned waste will be

transported to and managed in any State

with delisting authorization, Tyco must

obtain delisting authorization from that

State before the waste may be managed

as nonhazardous in that State.

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Comments on the

Proposed Rule?

EPA received public comments on the

proposed rule published in 65 FR

48434–48444, August 8, 2000, from (1)

the International Precious Metals

Institute (IPMI) and (2) Delphi

Automotive Systems (DAS). EPA

commends and appreciates the

thoughtful comments submitted by IPMI

and DAS.

B. Comments and Responses From EPA

Comment: IPMI stated that Tyco’s

sludge is a feedstock for copper and

precious metal reclamation, rather than

a material that is disposed of, and that

EPA’s proposal to delist the sludge is

appropriate, because ‘‘it facilitates the

efficient and environmentally sound

recovery of precious metals.’’ However,

EPA’s proposal to use Universal

Treatment Standards or generic

exclusion limits for high temperature

metal recovery (HTMR) residues as

delisting levels is inappropriate.

Delisting levels calculated on the basis

of the EPACML model are very

conservative and protective, particularly

since they have been validated with the

Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP).

HTMR levels are unnecessarily

stringent, because the petitioned sludge

‘‘has not, at the point of generation,

been subjected to any HTMR

processes.’’

Response: EPA believes that IPMI’s

point is well taken, and the final

delisting levels in Appendix IX of part

261 are based, in part, on the EPACML

model. See section III.A. and B. of

today’s preamble. EPA also agrees with

the commenter that the MEP evaluation

of Tyco’s sludge supports the delisting

decision and that Tyco’s preferred

method of waste management for the

petitioned sludge is metal recovery

rather than land disposal.

Comment: IPMI disagrees with both of

EPA’s proposed methods of setting

delisting levels for petitioned waste that

will be sent to a smelter for metal

recovery. Regarding proposed Method I,

IPMI sees no reason why sludge to be

smelted should have to meet the same

delisting levels as landfilled sludge and

disagrees with the Method I requirement

that the smelter be permitted under the

Clean Air Act. IPMI stated that precious

metal recovery from secondary materials

‘‘has been carried on for millennia,’’ and

the majority of sludges generated in the

United States are smelted in other

countries. IPMI believes that smelters

should be and are well regulated in

developed countries, and that the

requirement for a Clean Air Act Permit

would prohibit unduly the participation

of foreign countries in the smelting

business.

Response: EPA appreciates IPMI’s

concerns regarding requirements for

waste to be smelted. However, EPA

believes that it is reasonable and that

the Agency has an obligation to set

conditions a waste must meet in order

to be excluded from regulation as a

listed hazardous waste under RCRA.

EPA believes that the conditions

described in Section III.A. and B. of

today’s preamble will be protective of

human health and the environment,

whether the waste is smelted for metal

recovery or disposed in a Subtitle D

landfill, and will not be unduly

burdensome to Tyco. The requirement

in proposed Method I for a Clean Air

Act permit in addition to the same

delisting levels as waste to be landfilled

has been amended, in response to this

commenter, with the recordkeeping and

certification requirements described in

today’s preamble Section III.A. and B.

Comment: IPMI agrees that analysis of

feedstocks, exposure, and risk are

applicable criteria for granting an air

permit to a smelter. However, IPMI

believes that the requirement for a risk

assessment of smelting Tyco’s sludge in

accordance with EPA’s HHRAP is

inappropriate and unnecessary. The

commenter asserts that Tyco’s sludge

has only one of the seven categories of

compounds of potential concern in the

HHRAP, in that it contains toxic metals.

IPMI points out that these

concentrations are quite small, and that

the toxic metals in Tyco’s sludge are

common constituents of copper ore.

IPMI also notes that Tyco’s sludge could

meet the requirements for a variance

from being a solid waste, pursuant to 40

CFR 260.30, when it is to be smelted for

metal recovery, and that there are no

risk assessment requirements for

smelters of such materials.

Regarding chromium, IPMI states that

the HHRAP is concerned with

hexavalent, rather than trivalent,

chromium, which Tyco does not use in

its production processes. IPMI notes

that Tyco’s analytical data indicate very

low concentrations of total chromium.

Response: EPA agrees that human

health and the environment can be

protected, in this case, without

requiring a risk assessment in

accordance with the HHRAP. EPA

believes that the delisting conditions of

today’s final rule are protective of

human health and the environment. As

discussed in today’s preamble Section

III.A. and B., Tyco’s sludge, whether

smelted or landfilled, must meet limits

on concentrations of toxic constituents

both in the TCLP extract of the waste

and in the unextracted waste. In

addition, Tyco must meet verification,

recordkeeping, and certification

requirements.

With respect to chromium, EPA takes

the conservative position that any

chromium present is hexavalent, and

calculates delisting levels accordingly.

Comment: Delphi Automotive

Systems (DAS) recommends using the

EPACML model for delisting levels,

instead of either the Universal

Treatment Standards (UTS) of the Land

Disposal Restrictions (LDR) regulations

or generic exclusion levels for high

temperature metal recovery (HTMR)

residues. DAS believes that the

EPACML model is appropriately

conservative and is risk-based, rather

than technology-based as the UTS and

HTMR values are.

Response: After consideration of

DAS’s comment and discussion, Tyco’s

analytical profile for the petitioned

sludge, and the Multiple Extraction

Procedure (MEP) data indicating longterm resistance to leaching, EPA agrees

with the commenter that the appropriate

method of calculating delisting levels in

the waste leachate is the EPACML

model. (See today’s preamble Section

III.A and B.)

Comment: DAS believes that it would

be burdensome to require the MEP for

all delisting petitions, due mainly to the

cost of this analytical method. DAS

believes that EPA should address any

concerns that the MEP addresses by

requiring disposal in a landfill that is in

compliance with EPA Criteria for

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.

Response: Each delisting petition is

evaluated individually, and requiring

the MEP for one petition does not mean

that it will automatically be required for

all. However, the MEP is useful as a

measure of long-term resistance to

leaching from a landfill, which is

usually a concern of the general public.

EPA agrees that it can require that

delisted waste be disposed in a Subtitle

D landfill, but believes that it is more

protective of human health and the

environment to calculate delisting levels

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 24277

based on a distribution of landfill

properties, rather than on one specific

landfill. The MEP is useful, in that it

simulates what would happen even if

all a landfill’s controls failed.

Comment: DAS does not agree with

EPA’s proposal to set limits on total

concentrations of constituents of

concern in Tyco’s unextracted waste.

DAS states that the delisting levels in

the TCLP extract, based on the EPACML

model, are conservative and adequate,

particularly since Tyco’s constituents of

concern are all non-volatile metals.

Response: EPA agrees that the

commenter’s point is well taken.

However, EPA is setting limits on total

concentrations of constituents of

concern in today’s final rule, which EPA

believes are protective of human health

and the environment and which address

concerns of the general public about

delisted waste. After considering

comments from DAS and IPMI, EPA has

raised the proposed limits on total

concentrations, as shown in today’s

preamble Section III.B, to values EPA

believes are realistic and attainable for

wastewater treatment sludges that

contain metals and cyanide. The limit

for cyanide was chosen so that the waste

could not exhibit the reactivity

characteristic for cyanide by exceeding

the interim guidance for reactive

cyanide of 250 mg/kg of releasable

hydrogen cyanide (SW–846, Chapter

Seven, Section 7.3.3.)

Comment: DAS ‘‘welcomes the

Agency’s consideration for establishing

site specific limits for a smelter,’’ but

does not agree with the proposal to do

a risk assessment for all constituents in

accordance with the HHRAP. DAS states

that Clean Air Act requirements for

smelters should be adequate to address

risk from most waste constituents, but

also states that the HHRAP might be

appropriate for constituents that are not

usually present in raw materials for

smelters. DAS believes the Agency

should use specific language in the

delisting final rule ‘‘to direct how a

delisted waste should be managed,

specifically smelter, in this instance.’’

Response: EPA has taken into account

DAS’s comments about delisting levels

for waste sent to a smelter, and is

finalizing recordkeeping and

certification requirements as a delisting

condition to be met, in addition to

limits on constituent concentrations in

the TCLP extract of the petitioned waste

and on total constituent concentrations

in the unextracted waste. See today’s

preamble Section III.B. and Waste

Description and Conditions (1), (3), and

(8) of Table 1, Appendix IX, part 261.

V. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a rule of general applicability and

therefore is not a ‘‘regulatory action’’

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget. Because this

action is a rule of particular

applicability relating to a facility, it is

not subject to the regulatory flexibility

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections

202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

(Pub. L. 104–4). Because the rule will

affect only one facility, it will not

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as specified in section 203

of UMRA, or communities of tribal

governments, as specified in Executive

Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10,

1998). For the same reason, this rule

will not have substantial direct effects

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, as

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule

also is not subject to Executive Order

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it is not economically

significant.

This rule does not involve technical

standards; thus, the requirements of

section 12(c) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),

in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order.

This rule does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

VI. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act (5

U.S.C. 801 et seq.) as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, the

Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the final

rule in the Federal Register. This rule

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will become

effective on the date of publication in

the Federal Register.

VII. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a state, local, or tribal

government, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments. If

the mandate is unfunded, EPA must

provide to the Office of Management

and Budget a description of the extent

of EPA’s prior consultation with

representatives of affected state, local,

and tribal governments, the nature of

their concerns, copies of written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of state, local, and tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.’’

Today’s rule does not create a

mandate on state, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose

any enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do

not apply to this rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Recycling, Reporting and

Recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 26, 2001.

Richard D. Green,

Director, Waste Management Division.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended

as follows:

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. The authority citation for part 261

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,

6922, and 6938.

24278 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

2. In Table 1 of appendix IX to part

261 add the following wastestream in

alphabetical order by facility to read as

follows:

Appendix IX—Wastes Excluded Under

§§ 260.20 and 260.22

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

*******

Tyco Printed Circuit

Group, Melbourne

Division.

Melbourne, Florida ...... Wastewater treatment sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) that Tyco Printed Circuit

Group, Melbourne Division (Tyco) generates by treating wastewater from its circuit board

manufacturing plant located on John Rodes Blvd. in Melbourne, Florida. This is a conditional exclusion for up to 590 cubic yards of waste (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘Tyco

Sludge’’) that will be generated each year and disposed in a Subtitle D landfill or shipped

to a smelter for metal recovery after May 14, 2001. Tyco must demonstrate that the following conditions are met for the exclusion to be valid. (Please see Condition (8) for certification and recordkeeping requirements that must be met in order for the exclusion to be

valid for waste that is sent to a smelter for metal recovery.)

(1) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures must be performed according to SW–846 methodologies, where specified

by regulations in 40 CFR Parts 260–270. Otherwise, methods must meet Performance

Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that representative samples of the Tyco Sludge meet the delisting levels in Condition (3).

(A) Initial Verification Testing: Tyco must collect and analyze a representative sample of

every batch, for eight sequential batches of Tyco sludge generated in its wastewater treatment system after May 14, 2001. A batch is the Tyco Sludge generated during one day of

wastewater treatment. Tyco must analyze for the constituents listed in Condition (3). A minimum of four composite samples must be collected as representative of each batch. Tyco

must report analytical test data, including quality control information, no later than 60 days

after generating the first batch of Tyco Sludge to be disposed in accordance with the

delisting Conditions (1) through (7).

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: If the initial verification testing in Condition (1)(A) is successful, i.e., delisting levels of condition (3) are met for all of the eight initial batches, Tyco

must test a minimum of 5% of the Tyco Sludge generated each year. Tyco must collect

and analyze at least one composite sample representative of that 5%. The composite must

be made up of representative samples collected from each batch included in the 5%. Tyco

may, at its discretion, analyze composite samples gathered more frequently to demonstrate

that smaller batches of waste are non-hazardous.

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: Tyco must store as hazardous all Tyco Sludge generated

until verification testing as specified in Condition (1)(A) or (1)(B), as appropriate, is completed and valid analyses demonstrate that Condition (3) is satisfied. If the levels of constituents measured in the samples of Tyco Sludge do not exceed the levels set forth in

Condition (3), then the Tyco Sludge is non-hazardous and must be managed in accordance with all applicable solid waste regulations. If constituent levels in a sample exceed

any of the delisting levels set forth in Condition (3), the batch of Tyco Sludge generated

during the time period corresponding to this sample must be retreated until it meets the

delisting levels set forth in Condition (3), or managed and disposed of in accordance with

Subtitle C of RCRA.

(3) Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for these metals and cyanide must not exceed the following levels (ppm): Barium—100; Cadmium—0.5; Chromium—5.0; Cyanide—

20, Lead—1.5; and Nickel—73. These metal and cyanide concentrations must be measured in the waste leachate obtained by the method specified in 40 CFR 261.24, except that

for cyanide, deionized water must be the leaching medium. The total concentration of cyanide (total, not amenable) in the waste, not the waste leachate, must not exceed 200 mg/

kg. Cyanide concentrations in waste or leachate must be measured by the method specified in 40 CFR 268.40, Note 7. The total concentrations of metals in the waste, not the

waste leachate, must not exceed the following levels (ppm): Barium—2,000; Cadmium—

500; Chromium—1,000; Lead—2,000; and Nickel—20,000.

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: Tyco must notify EPA in writing when significant

changes in the manufacturing or wastewater treatment processes are necessary (e.g., use

of new chemicals not specified in the petition). EPA will determine whether these changes

will result in additional constituents of concern. If so, EPA will notify Tyco in writing that the

Tyco sludge must be managed as hazardous waste F006, pending receipt and evaluation

of a new delisting petition. If EPA determines that the changes do not result in additional

constituents of concern, EPA will notify Tyco, in writing, that Tyco must repeat Condition

(1)(A) to verify that the Tyco Sludge continues to meet Condition (3) delisting levels.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 24279

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued

Facility Address Waste description

(5) Data Submittals: Data obtained in accordance with Condition (1)(A) must be submitted to

Jewell Grubbs, Chief, RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, Mail Code: 4WD–

RCRA, U.S. EPA, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta,

Georgia 30303. This notification is due no later than 60 days after generating the first

batch of Tyco Sludge to be disposed in accordance with delisting Conditions (1) through

(7). Records of analytical data from Condition (1) must be compiled, summarized, and

maintained by Tyco for a minimum of three years, and must be furnished upon request by

EPA or the State of Florida, and made available for inspection. Failure to submit the required data within the specified time period or maintain the required records for the specified time will be considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the exclusion to the extent directed by EPA. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the

following certification statement to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data submitted:

Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent

statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code,

which include, but may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that

the information contained or accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete.

As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally verify its

(their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility

for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification that this information is true, accurate and complete.

In the event that any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be

false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it never had effect or to the

extent directed by EPA and that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s

void exclusion.

(6) Reopener Language: (A) If, anytime after disposal or shipment to a smelter of the delisted

waste, Tyco possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including

but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) or any other data relevant

to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified in the delisting verification

testing is at a level higher than the delisting level allowed by EPA in granting the petition,

Tyco must report the data, in writing, to EPA within 10 days of first possessing or being

made aware of that data. (B) If the testing of the waste, as required by Condition (1)(B),

does not meet the delisting requirements of Condition (3), Tyco must report the data, in

writing, to EPA within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. (C)

Based on the information described in paragraphs (6)(A) or (6)(B) and any other information received from any source, EPA will make a preliminary determination as to whether

the reported information requires that EPA take action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment. (D) If EPA determines that the reported information does require Agency action, EPA will notify the facility

in writing of the action believed necessary to protect human health and the environment.

The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing

Tyco with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed action is not necessary. Tyco shall have 10 days from the date of EPA’s notice to present such information.

(E) Following the receipt of information from Tyco, as described in paragraph (6)(D) or if no

such information is received within 10 days, EPA will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment, given the information received in accordance with paragraphs (6)(A) or (6)(B). Any

required action described in EPA’s determination shall become effective immediately.

(7) Notification Requirements: Tyco must provide a one-time written notification to any State

Regulatory Agency in a State to which or through which the delisted waste described

above will be transported, at least 60 days prior to the commencement of such activities.

Failure to provide such a notification will result in a violation of the delisting conditions and

a possible revocation of the decision to delist.

24280 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued

Facility Address Waste description

(8) Recordkeeping and Certification Requirements for Waste to be Smelted for Metal Recovery: Tyco must maintain in its facility files, and make available for inspection by EPA and

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), records that include the name,

address, telephone number, and contact person of each smelting facility used by Tyco for

its delisted waste, quantities of waste shipped, analytical data for demonstrating that the

delisting levels of Condition (3) are met, and a certification that the smelter(s) is(are) subject to regulatory controls on discharges to air, water, and land. The certification statement

must be signed by a responsible official and contain the following language: Under civil

and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements

or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the

smelter(s) used for Tyco’s delisted waste is(are) subject to regulatory controls on discharges to air, water, and land. As the company official having supervisory responsibility

for plant operations, I certify that to the best of my knowledge this information is true, accurate and complete. In the event that any of this information is determined by EPA in its

sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to

the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it never

had effect or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised

upon the company’s void exclusion.

[FR Doc. 01–12042 Filed 5–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 65

Changes in Flood Elevation

Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency, FEMA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Modified base (1% annual

chance) flood elevations are finalized

for the communities listed below. These

modified elevations will be used to

calculate flood insurance premium rates

for new buildings and their contents.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective dates for

these modified base flood elevations are

indicated on the following table and

revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map(s)

(FIRMs) in effect for each listed

community prior to this date.

ADDRESSES: The modified base flood

elevations for each community are

available for inspection at the office of

the Chief Executive Officer of each

community. The respective addresses

are listed in the following table.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards

Study Branch, Mitigation Directorate,

Federal Emergency Management

Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington,

DC 20472, (202) 646–3461, or (email)

matt.miller@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Emergency Management Agency

makes the final determinations listed

below of modified base flood elevations

for each community listed. These

modified elevations have been

published in newspapers of local

circulation and ninety (90) days have

elapsed since that publication. The

Acting Executive Associate Director has

resolved any appeals resulting from this

notification.

The modified base flood elevations

are not listed for each community in

this notice. However, this rule includes

the address of the Chief Executive

Officer of the community where the

modified base flood elevation

determinations are available for

inspection.

The modifications are made pursuant

to Section 206 of the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105,

and are in accordance with the National

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently

effective community number is shown

and must be used for all new policies

and renewals.

The modified base flood elevations

are the basis for the floodplain

management measures that the

community is required to either adopt

or to show evidence of being already in

effect in order to qualify or to remain

qualified for participation in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP).

These modified elevations, together

with the floodplain management criteria

required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the

minimum that are required. They

should not be construed to mean that

the community must change any

existing ordinances that are more

stringent in their floodplain

management requirements. The

community may at any time enact

stricter requirements of its own, or

pursuant to policies established by other

Federal, state or regional entities.

These modified elevations are used to

meet the floodplain management

requirements of the NFIP and are also

used to calculate the appropriate flood

insurance premium rates for new

buildings built after these elevations are

made final, and for the contents in these

buildings.

The changes in base flood elevations

are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule is categorically excluded

from the requirements of 44 CFR part

10, Environmental Consideration. No

environmental impact assessment has

been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Acting Executive Associate

Director, Mitigation Directorate, certifies

that this rule is exempt from the

requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act because modified base

flood elevations are required by the

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,

42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to

maintain community eligibility in the

NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis

has been prepared.

Regulatory Classification

This final rule is not a significant

regulatory action under the criteria of

Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of

September 30, 1993, Regulatory

Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.