18286 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Federal requirement HSWA or FR

reference Promulgation State authority

CHECKLIST 134 Correction of Beryllium Powder (PO15) Listing ..... 59 FR 31551 .... June 20, 1994 ........ N.C.G.S. 130A–294(c)(1)

N.C.G.S. 130A–294(c)(7)

N.C.G.S. 130A–294(c)(15)

N.C.G.S. 150B–21.6

15A NCAC 13A.0006(d)

15A NCAC 13A.0006(e)

15A NCAC 13A.0012(c)

C. Decision

I conclude that North Carolina’s

application for these program revisions

meets all of the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by RCRA.

Accordingly, North Carolina is granted

final authorization to operate its

hazardous waste program as revised.

North Carolina 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. North

Carolina also has primary enforcement

responsibilities, although EPA retains

the right to conduct inspections under

Section 3007 of RCRA and to take

enforcement actions under sections

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

North Carolina’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 North Carolina’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 4, 1996.

Phyllis P. Harris,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–10101 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 18287

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5458–9]

National Oil and Hazardous Sustances

Contingency Plan National Priorities

List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of deletion of Lee’s Lane

Superfund Site, Louisville, Kentucky

from the National Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) announces the

deletion of the Lees Lane Superfund

Site in Louisville, Kentucky, from the

National Priorities List (NPL), which is

Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300 of the

National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the

Commonwealth of Kentucky have

determined that all appropriate Fundfinanced responses under the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA), as amended, have been

implemented and that no further

cleanup is appropriate. Moreover, EPA

and the Commonwealth of Kentucky

determined that response actions

conducted at the site to date have been

protective of public health, welfare, and

the environment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liza

Montalvo, Remedial Project Manager,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, North Superfund Remedial

Branch, 345 Courtland Street NE.,

Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347–7791,

extension 2030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to

be deleted from the NPL is: Lees Lane

Landfill Superfund Site, Louisville,

Kentucky.

A Notice of Intent to Delete for this

site was published on May 16, 1988

(SW–FRL–3380–7). A Revised Notice of

Intent to Delete was published on

February 14, 1992 (FRL–4102–6). The

closing date for comments on the

Revised Notice of Intent to Delete was

March 16, 1992. EPA received two

comment letters, one from the Kentucky

Resources Council (KRC) and the other

from the Kentucky Natural Resources

and Environmental Protection Cabinet

(KNREPC). The KRC expressed its

opposition to the Site’s deletion stating

that the remedy was not fully protective

of the environment. EPA responded that

the selected remedy protected human

health and the environment by

mitigating human exposures to

contaminated Site media, and reducing

continued uncontrolled releases to the

environment. The KNREPC stated in its

letter that the drums of hazardous waste

which were discovered and removed

from the Site in March 1992 by KNREPC

were apparently left from the original

disposal activities but had not been

addressed by EPA’s response action.

EPA replied that such drums were likely

placed there in the months preceding

their discovery, and were not left on the

Site at the close of EPA’s response

actions, or during the conduct of O&M

activities. The KRC and the KNREPC

expressed in their respective letters that

the scope of waste disposal activities

were never fully characterized at the

Site. EPA responded that the estimated

volume of waste buried at the Site was

2,400,000 yd 3. EPA also explained the

basis for this estimate, and how the Site

was characterized. These comments and

EPA’s responses are documented in

more detail in the Responsiveness

Summary which is available through the

EPA Region 4 public docket located at

EPA’s Region 4 Office, 345 Courtland,

St, N.E., Atlanta, Ga., 30365.

EPA identifies sites that appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

it maintains the NPL as the 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 states that

Fund-financed actions may be taken at

sites deleted from the NPL. 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

waste, Hazardous substances,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: March 25, 1996.

Phyllis P. Harris,

Acting Regional Administrator, USEPA

Region 4.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended

as follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

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 Lees

Lane Landfill, Louisville, Kentucky.

[FR Doc. 96–10100 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. FEMA–7639]

List of Communities Eligible for the

Sale of Flood Insurance

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule identifies

communities participating in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP). These communities have

applied to the program and have agreed

to enact certain floodplain management

measures. The communities’

participation in the program authorizes

the sale of flood insurance to owners of

property located in the communities

listed.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The dates listed in the

third column of the table.

ADDRESSES: Flood insurance policies for

property located in the communities

listed can be obtained from any licensed

property insurance agent or broker

serving the eligible community, or from

the NFIP at: Post Office Box 6464,

Rockville, MD 20849, (800) 638–6620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. Shea, Jr., Division Director,

Program Implementation Division,

Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street SW.,

room 417, Washington, DC 20472, (202)

646–3619.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP

enables property owners to purchase

flood insurance which is generally not

otherwise available. In return,

communities agree to adopt and

administer local floodplain management

measures aimed at protecting lives and

new construction from future flooding.

Since the communities on the attached

list have recently entered the NFIP,

subsidized flood insurance is now

available for property in the community.

In addition, the Director of the

Federal Emergency Management Agency

has identified the special flood hazard

areas in some of these communities by

publishing a Flood Hazard Boundary

Map (FHBM) or Flood Insurance Rate

Map (FIRM). The date of the flood map,

if one has been published, is indicated