Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 18507

C. Decision

I conclude that Kentucky’s

application for these program revisions

meet all of the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by RCRA.

Accordingly, Kentucky is granted final

authorization to operate its hazardous

waste program as revised.

Kentucky now has responsibility for

permitting treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities within its borders and

carrying out other aspects of the RCRA

program, subject to the limitations of its

program revision application and

previously approved authorities.

Kentucky 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

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

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. When a written

statement is needed for an EPA rule,

section 205 of the UMRA generally

requires EPA to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives and adopt the least costly,

most cost-effective or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, giving them

meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising them

on compliance with the regulatory

requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. EPA

does not anticipate that the approval of

Kentucky’s hazardous waste program

referenced in today’s notice will result

in annual costs of $100 million or more.

EPA’s approval of state programs

generally has a deregulatory effect on

the private sector because once it is

determined that a state hazardous waste

program meets the requirements of

RCRA section 3006(b) and the

regulations promulgated thereunder at

40 CFR Part 271, owners and operators

of hazardous waste treatment, storage,

or disposal facilities (TSDFs) may take

advantage of the flexibility that an

approved state may exercise. Such

flexibility will reduce, not increase

compliance costs for the private sector.

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

EPA has determined that this rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments. The Agency

recognizes that small governments may

own and/or operate TSDFs that will

become subject to the requirements of

an approved state hazardous waste

program. However, such small

governments which own and/or operate

TSDFs are already subject to the

requirements in 40 CFR Parts 264, 265,

and 270. Once EPA authorizes a state to

administer its own hazardous waste

program and any revisions to that

program, these same small governments

will be able to own and operate their

TSDFs with increased levels of

flexibility provided under the approved

state program.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 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 effectively suspends the

applicability of certain Federal

regulations in favor of Kentucky’s

program, thereby eliminating

duplicative requirements for handlers of

hazardous waste in the State. It does not

impose any new burdens on small

entities. This rule, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous materials transportation,

Hazardous waste, Indian lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control,

Water supply.

Authority: This notice 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: April 9, 1996.

Phyllis P. Harris,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–10107 Filed 4–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5460–1]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Contingency Plan;

National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Deletion of the

Kummer Sanitary Landfill Superfund

Site from the National Priorities List

(NPL).

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of

the Kummer Sanitary Landfill site in

Minnesota from the National Priorities

List (NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of

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. This action is

being taken by EPA and the State of

Minnesota, because it has been

determined that Responsible Parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required. Moreover,

EPA and the State of Minnesota have

determined that remedial actions

conducted at the site to date remain

protective of public health, welfare, and

the environment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 26, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Roundtree at (312) 353–3236 (SR–

6J), Remedial Project Manager or Gladys

Beard at (312) 886–7253, Associate

Remedial Project Manager, Superfund
18508 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Division, U.S. EPA—Region V, 77 West

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.

Information on the site is available at

the local information repository located

at: The Bemidji Public Library, 602

Beltrami Ave., Bemidji, MN 56601.

Requests for comprehensive copies of

documents should be directed formally

to the Regional Docket Office. The

contact for the Regional Docket Office is

Jan Pfundheller (H–7J), U.S. EPA,

Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

IL 60604, (312) 353–5821.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to

be deleted from the NPL is: Kummer

Sanitary Landfill Site located in

Beltrami County, Minnesota. A Notice

of Intent to Delete for this site was

published March 1, 1996 (61 FR 8012).

The closing date for comments on the

Notice of Intent to Delete was March 30,

1996. EPA received no comments and

therefore no Responsiveness Summary

was prepared.

The EPA identifies sites which appear

to present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

it maintains the NPL as the list of those

sites. Sites on the NPL may be the

subject of Hazardous Substance

Response Trust Fund (Fund-) financed

remedial actions. Any site deleted from

the NPL remains eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions in the

unlikely event that conditions at the site

warrant such action. Section

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that

Fund-financed actions may be taken at

sites deleted from the NPL in the

unlikely event that conditions at the site

warrant such action. 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, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous Waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

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); E.O.

12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp.;

p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987

Comp.; p. 193. 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657;

Appendix B—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300

is amended by removing the Site

‘‘Kummer Sanitary Landfill Site,

Bemidji County, Minnesota’’.

Dated: April 10, 1996.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region V.

[FR Doc. 96–10089 Filed 4–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 15 and 76

[ET Docket No. 93–7; FCC 96–129]

Implementation of Section 17 of the

Cable Television Consumer Protection

and Competition Act of 1992; and

Compatibility Between Cable Systems

and Consumer Electronics Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions

for reconsideration.

SUMMARY: The Commission has revised

and clarified certain aspects of its

regulations for assuring compatibility

between consumer electronics

equipment and cable systems. In

particular, the Commission has clarified

the requirement for cable operators to

offer subscribers set-top devices with

multiple tuners; eliminated the

prohibition on changing the infrared

codes used with remote controls;

clarified its policy with regard to the

Decoder Interface connector standard;

and, refined the ‘‘cable ready’’ TV

receiver standards. These revisions and

clarifications will further the

Commission’s goals of promoting greater

compatibility between cable systems

and consumer electronics equipment.

This action is in response to ten

Petitions for Reconsideration of the First

Report and Order in this proceeding.

EFFECTIVE DATES: May 28, 1996. The

incorporation by reference of a

publication listed in the regulations was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of May 16, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Stillwell (202–418–2470) or Robert

Bromery (301–418–2475), Office of

Engineering and Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s

Memorandum, Opinion and Order in ET

Docket No. 93–7, FCC 96–129, adopted

March 22, 1996 and released April 10,

1996. The full text of this decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Dockets Branch (Room 230), 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision also may

be purchased from the Commission’s

duplicating contractor, International

Transcriptions Service, 2100 M Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20036, (202)

857–3800.

Summary of the Memorandum Opinion

and Order

1. In the First Report and Order in this

proceeding, 59 FR 25339, May 16, 1994,

the Commission adopted regulations to

ensure compatibility between cable

systems and consumer electronics

equipment, i.e., TV receivers,

videocassette recorders (VCRs) and

similar devices. These regulations were

adopted in response to Section 17 of the

Cable Consumer Protection and

Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable

Act), Pub. L. No. 102–385, 106 Stat.

1460, (1992), § 17. The major

compatibility problems addressed in the

compatibility rules include the

capabilities to record sequential

programs on different channels; to

record one program while watching

another; to use advanced television

picture generation and display features

such as ‘‘Picture-in-Picture’’; and to use

remote controls. The new rules include

requirements for cable operators to take

a number of actions that will improve

compatibility between existing cable

system and consumer TV equipment.

The compatibility rules also include

requirements and standards for both

cable operators and consumer

equipment operators that are intended

to achieve more effective compatibility

through new cable and consumer

equipment.

2. Petitions for Reconsideration of the

First Report and Order were filed by ten

parties: ANTEC Corporation,

Cablevision Systems Corporation, Cable

Telecommunications Association, the

Consumer Electronics Group of the

Electronics Industries Association,

General Instrument Corporation, the

National Cable Television Association,

Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., TeleCable

Corporation, Time Warner

Entertainment Company, L.P., and

Zenith Electronics Corporation. These

parties requested revisions and

clarifications with regard to a number of

specific provisions of the rules adopted

in the First Report and Order.

3. In response to the Petitions for

Reconsideration, the Commission’s

Memorandum, Opinion and Order sets

forth a number of decisions pertaining

to the cable-consumer electronics

equipment compatibility rules. In

particular, this decision:

—Clarifies that cable operators who use

scrambling are required to offer

subscribers supplemental equipment