Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 733

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 4, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.120 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(67)(i)(D) and

(c)(94)(i)(D) to read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(67) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) Rules 312 and 314, adopted on

July 13, 1998.

* * * * *

(94) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) Rule 316, adopted on April 21,

1999.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–117 Filed 1–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6925–1]

Indiana: Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is granting Indiana

final authorization of revisions to their

hazardous waste program under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). The Agency published a

proposed rule on July 26, 2000 at 65 FR

45955 and provided for public

comment. The public comment period

ended on August 25, 2000. We received

one comment, addressed below. No

further opportunity for comment will be

provided. EPA has determined that

Indiana’s revisions satisfy all the

requirements needed to qualify for final

authorization, and is authorizing the

State’s changes through this final action.

DATES: This final authorization will

become effective on January 4, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You can view and copy

Indiana’s application from 9 am to 4 pm

at the following addresses: Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management, 100 North Senate,

Indianapolis, Indiana, (mailing address

P.O. Box 6015, Indianapolis, Indiana

46206) contact Lynn West (317) 232–

3593, and EPA Region 5, contact Gary

Westefer at the following address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

Westefer, Indiana Regulatory Specialist,

U.S. EPA Region 5, DM–7J, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 886–7450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

26, 2000, U.S. EPA published an

immediate final rule granting Indiana

authorization for changes to its Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act

program, listed in section E of that

notice, which was subject to public

comment. Subsequently we received

one adverse comment, and therefore

published a withdrawal of the

immediate final rule on October 23,

2000. After reviewing the adverse

comment, we hereby determine that

Indiana’s hazardous waste program

revisions satisfy all of the requirements

necessary to qualify for final

authorization.

A. Why Are Revisions to State

Programs Necessary?

States which have received final

authorization from EPA under RCRA

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must

maintain a hazardous waste program

that is equivalent to, consistent with,

and no less stringent than the Federal

program. As the Federal program

changes, States must change their

programs and ask EPA to authorize the

changes. Changes to State programs may

be necessary when Federal or State

statutory or regulatory authority is

modified or when certain other changes

occur. Most commonly, States must

change their programs because of

changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. What Decisions Have We Made in

This Rule?

We conclude that Indiana’s

application to revise its authorized

program meets all of the statutory and

regulatory requirements established by

RCRA. Therefore, we grant Indiana

Final authorization to operate its

hazardous waste program with the

changes described in the authorization

application. Indiana has responsibility

for permitting Treatment, Storage, and

Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its

borders and for carrying out the aspects

of the RCRA program described in its

revised program application, subject to

the limitations of the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

(HSWA). New federal requirements and

prohibitions imposed by Federal

regulations that EPA promulgates under

the authority of HSWA take effect in

authorized States before EPA authorizes

the State for these requirements. Thus,

EPA will implement those requirements

and prohibitions in Indiana, including

issuing permits, until EPA authorizes

the State for these requirements and

prohibitions.

C. What Is the Effect of Today’s

Authorization Decision?

The effect of this decision is that a

facility in Indiana subject to RCRA will

now have to comply with the authorized

State requirements instead of the

equivalent federal requirements. Indiana

has enforcement responsibilities under

its state hazardous waste program for

violations of such program, but EPA

retains its authority under RCRA

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,

which include, among others, authority

to:

• Conduct inspections, and require

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;

• Enforce RCRA requirements and

suspend or revoke permits;

• Take enforcement actions regardless

of whether the State has taken its own

actions.

This action does not impose

additional requirements on the

regulated community because the

regulations EPA is authorizing by

today’s action are already effective, and

are not changed by today’s action.

D. Proposed Rule

On July 26, 2000 (65 FR 45955) EPA

published a proposed rule. In that rule

we proposed granting authorization of

changes to Indiana’s hazardous waste

program and opened our decision to

public comment. The Agency received

one comment that stated that granting

additional regulatory powers to the

State of Indiana could not be supported.

The comment criticized Indiana’s

handling of Clean Water Act and Clean

Air Act matters, however. It did not cite

any specific RCRA issues, or establish a

basis for withholding authorization of a

RCRA revision. U.S. EPA annually

reviews the RCRA program at which

734 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

time it may convey any deficiencies to

the State agency and make suggestions

for improvement. U.S. EPA found

Indiana’s RCRA program to be

satisfactory.

E. What Has Indiana Previously Been

Authorized For?

Indiana initially received Final

authorization on January 31, 1986,

effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3955)

to implement the RCRA hazardous

waste management program. We granted

authorization for changes to their

program on October 31, 1986, effective

December 31, 1986 (51 FR 39752);

January 5, 1988, effective January 19,

1988 (53 FR 128); July 13, 1989,

effective September 11, 1989 (54 FR

29557); July 23, 1991, effective

September 23, 1991 (56 FR 33717); July

24, 1991, effective September 23, 1991

(56 FR 33866); July 29, 1991, effective

September 27, 1991 (56 FR 35831); July

30, 1991, effective September 30, 1991

(56 FR 36010); August 20, 1996,

effective October 21, 1996 (61 FR

43018); and September 1, 1999, effective

November 30, 1999 (64 FR 47692).

F. What Changes Are We Authorizing

With Today’s Action?

On February 24, 2000, Indiana

submitted a final complete program

revision application, seeking

authorization of their changes in

accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We

now make a final decision, that

Indiana’s hazardous waste program

revision satisfies all of the requirements

necessary to qualify for final

authorization. Therefore, we grant

Indiana final authorization for the

following program changes:

Description of Federal requirement Federal Register date and page

(and/or RCRA statutory authority) Analogous State authority

Sharing of Information with the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry Checklist SI.

November 8, 1984, SWDA 3019(b) IC 5–14–3; Effective April 15, 1987.

HSWA Codification Rule; Delisting Checklist 17B as

amended Checklist 17B.1.

July 15, 1985, 50 FR 28702; June

27, 1989, 54 FR 27114.

329 IAC 3.1–5–3; Effective April 18, 1998.

Hazardous Waste Management Systems; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Recycled

Used Oil Management Standards Checklist 112.

September 10, 1992, 57 FR 41566 329 IAC 3.1–4–1; 3.1–4–1(b); 3.1–6–1; 3.1–6–2(4);

3.1–11–1; 13–1–1; 13–1–2; 13–2; 13–3–1; 13–

3–2; 13–3–3; 13–4–1; 13–4–2; 13–4–3; 13–4–4;

13–4–5; 13–5–1; 13–5–2; 13–5–3; 13–6–1; 13–

6–2; 13–6–3; 13–6–4; 13–6–5; 13–6–6; 13–6–7;

13–6–8; 13–7–1; 13–7–2; 13–7–3; 13–7–4; 13–

7–5; 13–7–6; 13–7–7; 13–7–8; 13–7–9; 13–7–

10; 13–8–1; 13–8–2; 13–8–3; 13–8–4; 13–8–5;

13–8–6; 13–8–7; 13–8–8; 13–9–1; 13–9–2; 13–

9–3; 13–9–4; 13–9–5; 13–9–6; 13–10–1; 13–10–

2; 13–10–3; Effective March 5, 1997.

Recycled Used Oil Management Standards; Technical Amendments and Corrections I Checklist

122 as amended checklist 122.1.

May 3, 1993, 58 FR 26420; June

17, 1993, 58 FR 33341.

329 IAC 3.1–6–1; 3.1–9–1; 3.1–9–2(1), (2); 3.1–

10–1; 3.1–10–2(1), (2), (3), (4); 13–1–1; 13–1–2;

13–2; 13–3–1; 13–3–2; 13–3–3; 13–4–2; 13–4–

3; 13–4–4; 13–6–1; 13–6–3; 13–6–4; 13–6–6;

13–7–2; 13–7–3; 13–7–5; 13–8–1; 13–8–3; 13–

8–5; 13–9–1; 13–9–3; 13–9–4; Effective March

5, 1997.

Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Recycled Used Oil Management Standards (Technical Amendments and Corrections II) Checklist

130.

March 4, 1994, 59 FR 10550 ........... 329 IAC 13–1–1; 13–1–2; 13–2; 13–3–1; 13–4–1;

13–6–2; 13–6–5; 13–6–7; 13–7–4; 13–8–4; Effective March 5, 1997.

RCRA Expanded Public Participation Checklist 148 December 11, 1995, 60 FR 63417 .. 329 IAC 3.1–13–1; 3.1–13–2(8), (9); 3.1–13–18;

3.1–13–19; 3.1–13–20; Effective February 8,

1997.

Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III—

Decharacterized Wastewaters, Carbamate

Wastes, and Spent Potliners; Final Rule Checklist

151 as amended.

April 8, 1996, 61 FR 15566 .............. 329 IAC 3.1–12–1; 3.1–12–2 (1 through 9) Effective February 8, 1997.

Checklist 151.1 as amended ..................................... April 8, 1996, 61 FR 15660 .............. Effective February 8, 1997.

Checklist 151.2 as amended ..................................... April 30, 1996, 61 FR 19117 ............ Effective April 18, 1998.

Checklist 151.3 as amended ..................................... June 28, 1996, 61 FR 33680 ........... Effective November 30, 1997.

Checklist 151.4 as amended ..................................... July 10, 1996, 61 FR 36419 ............. Effective November 30, 1997.

Checklist 151.5 as amended ..................................... August 26, 1996, 61 FR 43924 ........ Effective April 18, 1998.

Checklist 151.6 .......................................................... February 19, 1997, 62 FR 7502 ....... Effective April 18, 1998.

Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

Facilities and Hazardous Waste Generators; Organic Air Emissions Standards for Tanks, Surface

Impoundments, and Containers; Final Rule

Checklist 154 as amended.

November 25, 1996, 61 FR 59931 .. 329 IAC 3.1–1–7; 3.1–6–1; 3.1–6–2(4); 3.1–7–1;

3.1–9–1; 3.1–10–1; 3.1–10–2 (1 through 4); 3.1–

13–1; 3.1–13–2(8), (9); Effective April 18, 1998.

Checklist 154.1 as amended ..................................... December 6, 1994, 59 FR 62896.

Checklist 154.2 as amended ..................................... May 19, 1995, 60 FR 26828.

Checklist 154.3 .......................................................... September 29, 1995, 60 FR 50426.

Checklist 154.4 .......................................................... November 13, 1995, 60 FR 56952.

Checklist 154.5 .......................................................... February 9, 1996, 61 FR 4903.

Checklist 154.6 .......................................................... June 5, 1996; 61 FR 28508.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 735

Description of Federal requirement Federal Register date and page

(and/or RCRA statutory authority) Analogous State authority

Military Munitions Rule: Hazardous Waste Identification and Management; Explosives Emergencies;

Manifest Exemption for Transportation of Hazardous Waste on Rights-of-Ways on Contiguous

Properties Checklist 156.

February 12, 1997, 62 FR 6622 ....... 329 IAC 3.1–4–1; 3.1–4–1(b); 3.1–6–1; 3.1–6–2(1),

(2); 3.1–7–7; 3.1–7–2(1); 3.1–7–3; 3.1–8–1; 3.1–

8–2(1); 3.1–9–1; 3.1–9–2(1), (2); 3.1–10–1; 3.1–

10–2(1), (2), (3), (4); 3.1–11–1; 3.1–13–1; 3.1–

13–2(1), (2), (3), (4); 3.1–13–3 through 3.1–13–

17; Effective April 18, 1998.

Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV: Treatment

Standards for Wood Preserving Wastes, Paperwork Reduction and Streamlining, Exemptions

from RCRA for Certain Processed Materials; and

Miscellaneous Hazardous Waste Provisions

Checklist 157.

May 12, 1997, 62 FR 25998 ............ 329 IAC 3.1–6–1; 3.1–6–2(1), (2), (13), (14); 3.1–

12–1; 3.1–12–2 (1 through 5), (8), (10); Effective

April 18, 1998.

G. Where Are the Revised State Rules

Different From the Federal Rules?

There are no State requirements in

this program revision considered to be

either more stringent or broader in

scope than the Federal requirements.

H. Who Handles Permits After the

Authorization Takes Effect?

Indiana will issue permits for all the

provisions for which it is authorized

and will administer the permits it

issues. EPA will continue to administer

any RCRA hazardous waste permits or

portions of permits which we issued

prior to the effective date of this

authorization until they expire or are

terminated. We will not issue any more

new permits or new portions of permits

for the provisions listed in the Table

above after the effective date of this

authorization. EPA will continue to

implement and issue permits for HSWA

requirements for which Indiana is not

yet authorized.

I. What Is Codification and Is EPA

Codifying Indiana’s Hazardous Waste

Program as Authorized in This Rule?

Codification is the process of placing

the State’s statutes and regulations that

comprise the State’s authorized

hazardous waste program into the Code

of Federal Regulations. We do this by

referencing the authorized State rules in

40 CFR part 272. The authorized

Indiana RCRA program was

incorporated by reference into 40 CFR

part 272 on August 23, 1989, effective

October 23, 1989 (54 FR 34988).

We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR

part 272, subpart P for this authorization

of Indiana’s program changes until a

later date.

J. Regulatory Analysis and Notices

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. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective 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, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that section 202

and 205 requirements do not apply to

today’s action because this rule does not

contain a Federal mandate that may

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 Indiana 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.

Further, as it applies to the State, this

action does not impose a Federal

intergovernmental mandate because

UMRA does not include duties arising

from participation in a voluntary federal

program.

The requirements of section 203 of

UMRA also do not apply to today’s

action because this rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Although small

governments may be hazardous waste

generators, transporters, or own and/or

operate TSDFs, they are already subject

to the regulatory requirements under the

existing State laws that 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 (RFA), as Amended by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

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

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s action on small entities, small

entity is defined as: (1) A small business

as specified in the Small Business

Administration regulations; (2) a small

governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

736 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of this authorization on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

This action does not impose any new

requirements on small entities because

small entities that are hazardous waste

generators, transporters, or that own

and/or operate TSDFs are already

subject to the regulatory requirements

under the State laws which EPA is now

authorizing. This action merely

authorizes for the purpose of RCRA

section 3006 those existing State

requirements.

Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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. The 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

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).

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Compliance With Executive Order

13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This authorization does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

a substantial direct effect on 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, because this

rule affects only one State. This action

simply approves Indiana’s proposal to

be authorized for updated requirements

of the hazardous waste program that the

State has voluntarily chosen to operate.

Further, as a result of this action, newly

authorized provisions of the State’s

program now apply in Indiana in lieu of

the equivalent Federal program

provisions implemented by EPA under

HSWA. Affected parties are subject only

to those authorized State program

provisions, as opposed to being subject

to both Federal and State regulatory

requirements. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply.

Compliance With Executive Order

13045

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks,’’ applies to any

rule that: (1) The Office of Management

and Budget determines is ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045

as applying only to those regulatory

actions that are based on health or safety

risks, such that the analysis required

under section 5–501 of the Order has

the potential to influence the regulation.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045, because it authorizes a

State program.

Compliance With Executive Order

13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies

with consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13084 because it does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Indiana is not authorized

to implement the RCRA hazardous

waste program in Indian country. This

action has no effect on the hazardous

waste program that EPA implements in

the Indian country within the State.

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.

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

104–113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 737

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

This action does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste

transportation, Indian lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: This action 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: December 14, 2000.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–35 Filed 1–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 91–137, RM–7494, FCC 00–

409]

FM Broadcasting Services; Saltville,

VA and Jefferson, NC.

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In MM Docket No. 91–137,

the Commission denied an application

for review filed by Smith

Communications, licensee of Station

WZJS(FM), Channel 264A, Banner Elk,

North Carolina, of the Memorandum

Opinion and Order, 61 FR 20,490,

published May 7, 1996. The

Commission denied review because it

found no reason to depart from staff’s

reasoning set forth in the Memorandum

Opinion and Order. It found that the

staff had fully considered and rejected

each of Smith’s contentions that

irregular terrain would prevent full

signal coverage by the proposed

upgraded Jefferson, North Carolina

station. Additionally, since the release

of the Memorandum Opinion and

Order, a construction permit had been

granted for an actual transmitter site at

a location different from the theoretical

one used previously. The Commission

reexamined the expanded coverage area

from that site and found the coverage to

be adequate and of similar size to that

predicted using the theoretical site.

With this action, the proceeding is

terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.

Bertron Withers, Jr., Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Memorandum Opinion

and Order, MM Docket 91–137, adopted

November 17, 2000, and released

November 28, 2000. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the Commission’s

Reference Information Center (room

CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554. The complete

text of this decision may be also

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–127 Filed 1–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018–AH64

Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of

Tungsten-Nickel-Iron Shot as Nontoxic

for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) to

approve shot formulated of 50%

tungsten, 35% nickel, and 15% iron as

nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and

coots. We assessed possible effects of

the tungsten-nickel-iron (TNI) shot, and

we believe that it is not a significant

threat to wildlife or their habitats and

that further testing of the shot is not

necessary. In addition, approval of TNI

shot may induce more waterfowl

hunters to switch away from illegal use

of lead shot, reducing lead risks to

species and habitats.

DATES: This rule takes effect on January

4, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the

Environmental Assessment are available

from the Chief of the Division of

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax

Drive, Room 634, Arlington, Virginia

22203–1610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon

Andrew, Chief, or Dr. George T. Allen,

Division of Migratory Bird Management,

703–358–1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act)

(16 U.S.C. 703–712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a–

j) implements migratory bird treaties

between the United States and Great

Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as

amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as

amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as

amended), and Russia (then the Soviet

Union, 1978). These treaties protect

certain migratory birds from take, except

as permitted under the Act. The Act

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior

to regulate take of migratory birds in the

United States. Under this authority, the

Fish and Wildlife Service controls the

hunting of migratory game birds through

regulations in 50 CFR part 20.

Since the mid-1970s, we have sought

to identify shot that does not pose a

significant toxicity hazard to migratory

birds or other wildlife. Compliance with

the use of nontoxic shot has increased

over the last few years (Anderson et al.

2000). We believe that it will continue

to increase with the approval and

availability of other nontoxic shot types.

Currently, steel, bismuth-tin, tungsteniron, tungsten-polymer, and tungstenmatrix shot are permanently approved

as nontoxic. We have approved tin shot

for the 2000–2001 hunting season (65

FR 76886). The purpose of this rule is

to approve the use of TNI shot in the

tested formulation (50% tungsten, 35%

nickel, and 15% iron by weight) for

waterfowl and coot hunting. On October

30, 2000 (65 FR 64650) we proposed to

amend 50 CFR 20.21 (j), to include TNI

shot on the list of approved nontoxic

shot types.

On April 9, 1999 (64 FR 17308), we

announced receipt of an application

from Standard Resources Corporation

(Standard) of Cherry Hill, New Jersey for

nontoxic approval of HEVI-METAL shot

in the 50% tungsten, 35% nickel, 15%

iron formulation. The density of the

shot in that formulation is 11.0 grams/

cm3. The manufacturer believes that the

shot does not need a coating because it

is sufficiently noncorrosive under

neutral pH. It is not chemically or

physically altered by firing from a

shotgun.