36792 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

inclusion in the official record that is

described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your

copies, identified by docket control

number OPP–30010006, to: Public

Information and Records Integrity

Branch, Information Resources and

Services Division (7502C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg.,

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person or by

courier, bring a copy to the location of

the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You

may also send an electronic copy of

your request via e-mail to: oppdocket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII

file format and avoid the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 file

format or ASCII file format. Do not

include any CBI in your electronic copy.

You may also submit an electronic copy

of your request at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a

Request for a Hearing?

A request for a hearing will be granted

if the Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following:

There is a genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established resolve

one or more of such issues in favor of

the requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issues(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

IV. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

This final rule extends a time limited

tolerance under FFDCA section 408.

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted these types of

actions from review under Executive

Order 12866, entitled Regulatory

Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993). This final rule does

not contain any information collections

subject to OMB approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any

enforceable duty or contain any

unfunded mandate as described under

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public

Law 104–4). Nor does it require any

prior consultation as specified by

Executive Order 13084, entitled

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR

27655, May 19, 1998); special

considerations as required by Executive

Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994); or require OMB review or any

Agency action under Executive Order

13045, entitled Protection of Children

from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,

1997). This action does not involve any

technical standards that would require

Agency consideration of voluntary

consensus standards pursuant to 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). Since

tolerances and exemptions that are

established on the basis of a FIFRA

section 18 petition under FFDCA

section 408, such as the tolerance in this

final rule, do not require the issuance of

a proposed rule, the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In

addition, the Agency has determined

that this action 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, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999). Executive Order 13132 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.’’ This final rule

directly regulates growers, food

processors, food handlers and food

retailers, not States. This action does not

alter the relationships or distribution of

power and responsibilities established

by Congress in the preemption

provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4).

V. 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. 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 this final

rule in the Federal Register. This final

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

5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 25, 2000

James Jones,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and

371.

§ 180.532 [Amended]

2. In § 180.532, in the table to

paragraph (b), the entry for strawberries

is amended by revising the date ‘‘5/31/

00’’ to read ‘‘5/31/01’’.

[FR Doc. 00–14774 Filed 6–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 258

[FRL–6710–3]

State of West Virginia: Final Program

Determination of Adequacy of State

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: This document approves the

portions of the West Virginia Municipal

Solid Waste Management Permit

Program which did not receive

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

approval in the Federal Register

document published on March 29, 2000

(65 FR 16523–16528). EPA published a

document in the Federal Register on

March 29, 2000 (65 FR 16523–16528),

giving final approval to the portions of

West Virginia’s Solid Waste

Management Rule which had been

tentatively approved in the March 8,

1996 document (61 FR 9451–9454). This

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 36793

action approves those portions of West

Virginia’s solid waste permit program

which were not previously approved by

EPA.

DATES: This final determination of

program adequacy for the State of West

Virginia shall become effective August

11, 2000 unless adverse comments are

received on or before July 12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the following address where the full

West Virginia application supporting

program adequacy is on file and may be

reviewed: EPA Region III, 1650 Arch

Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103–2029, or alternatively at West

Virginia Division of Environmental

Protection (WVDEP), 1356 Hansford

Street, Charleston, West Virginia 25301–

1401.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S.

EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103–

2029, Attn: Mr. Michael C. Giuranna,

mailcode 3WC21, telephone (215) 814–

3298. The contact for the State of West

Virginia Division of Environmental

Protection is Mr. Larry Atha, 1356

Hansford Street, Charleston, West

Virginia 25301–1401, telephone (304)

558–6350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated

revised criteria for Municipal Solid

Waste Landfills (MSWLFs) (40 CFR part

258). Section 4005(c)(1)(B) of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA), as amended by the

Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments, requires states to develop

permit or other similar programs that

incorporate the federal criteria under 40

CFR part 258. Section 4005(c)(1)(C) of

RCRA requires that EPA determine the

adequacy of state MSWLF permit

programs to ensure that facilities

comply with the revised federal criteria.

To fulfill this requirement, the Agency

promulgated the State Implementation

Rule (SIR) on October 23, 1998 (63 FR

57025) which provides procedures by

which EPA will approve or partially

approve state landfill permit programs.

EPA interprets the requirements for

states or tribes to develop ‘‘adequate’’

programs for permits, or other forms of

prior approval, as imposing several

minimum requirements. First, each state

must have enforceable standards for

new and existing MSWLFs that are

technically comparable to EPA’s revised

MSWLF criteria. Next, the state must

have the authority to issue a permit or

other notice of prior approval to all new

and existing MSWLFs in its jurisdiction.

The state also must provide for public

participation in permit issuance and

enforcement as required in section

7004(b) of RCRA. Finally, EPA believes

that the state must show that it has

sufficient compliance monitoring and

enforcement authorities to take specific

action against any owner or operator

who fails to comply with an approved

MSWLF program.

EPA Regions determine whether state

programs are ‘‘adequate’’ based on the

criteria outlined above.

B. State of West Virginia

In September 1998, West Virginia

submitted its revised Solid Waste

Management Rule (the Rule), which

incorporated all of the provisions of 40

CFR part 258. After a thorough review,

EPA determined that the Rule met the

requirements of 40 CFR part 258 and on

July 1, 1999, West Virginia submitted

the Rule with proper documentation as

required by the SIR to EPA and

requested approval under 40 CFR part

258. Upon review of this submittal, EPA

found that West Virginia is in

compliance with all provisions of the

SIR and that West Virginia has

demonstrated that the State’s MSWLF

permit program adequately meets the

location restrictions, operating criteria,

design criteria, groundwater monitoring

and corrective action requirements,

closure and post-closure care

requirements, and financial assurance

criteria in the revised federal criteria. In

addition, the State of West Virginia also

demonstrated that its MSWLF permit

program contains specific provisions for

public participation, compliance

monitoring, and enforcement.

EPA issued final partial approval for

all of subparts B, C and D and portions

of subparts A, E and F of 40 CFR part

258, in the Federal Register of March

29, 2000 (65 FR 16523–16528). These

portions of West Virginia’s Municipal

Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program

had received tentative approval in a

Federal Register document published

on March 8, 1996 (61 FR 9451–9454).

EPA is today publishing this document

approving the remaining elements of

West Virginia’s MSWLF permit program

that are analogous to the subpart G,

Financial Assurance Criteria, of 40 CFR

part 258 and the remaining portions of

subparts A, E and F listed below.

1. Subpart A—General— The

definitions listed in 40 CFR 258.2;

2. Subpart E—Groundwater

Monitoring and Corrective Action—The

requirements of 40 CFR 258.51,

Groundwater Monitoring Systems; 40

CFR 258.54, Detection Monitoring

Program; and 40 CFR 258.55,

Assessment Monitoring Program;

3. Subpart F—Closure and Post

Closure Care—The criteria in 40 CFR

258.60, Closure Criteria, pertaining to

the time allowed to apply the final

cover.

By approving these portions of the

West Virginia Municipal Solid Waste

Permit Program, EPA will be in effect

granting full program approval of West

Virginia’s MSWLF permit program.

Section 4005(a) of RCRA provides that

citizens may use the citizen suit

provisions of section 7002 of RCRA to

enforce the federal MSWLF criteria in

40 CFR part 258 independent of any

state enforcement program. As

explained in the preamble to the final

MSWLF criteria, EPA expects that any

owner or operator complying with

provisions of a state program approved

by EPA should be considered to be in

compliance with the federal criteria (see

56 FR 50978, 50995, October 9, 1991).

C. Decision

EPA concludes that West Virginia’s

application for a full program adequacy

determination meets all of the statutory

and regulatory requirements established

by RCRA. Accordingly, West Virginia is

granted approval of the provisions of its

municipal solid waste landfill permit

program noted above. This action will

take effect 60 days from the date of

publication, if no significant adverse

comments are received within 30 days.

EPA believes it has good cause under

section 553(d) of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), to put

this action into effect 60 days after

publication in the Federal Register. All

of the requirements and obligations in

the State’s program are already in effect

as a matter of State law. EPA is

approving the State regulations noted

above through this immediate final

action and is publishing this rule

without a prior proposal to approve the

changes because EPA believes it is not

controversial and expects no comments

that oppose this action. EPA is

providing an opportunity for public

comment now. In the proposed rules

section of today’s Federal Register EPA

is publishing a separate document that

proposes to approve the State changes.

If EPA receives comments which oppose

this approval or portion(s) thereof, that

document will serve as a proposal to

approve such changes. If EPA receives

comments that oppose this approval

decision or portion(s) thereof, we will

withdraw this approval, or those

portion(s) for which EPA received

comments opposing its decision, by

publishing a document in the Federal

Register. We will address all public

comments in a subsequent final action

based on the proposed rule.

36794 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The EPA’s action today does not

impose any new requirements that the

regulated community must begin to

comply with nor do these requirements

become enforceable by EPA as federal

law.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866—Regulatory Planning and

Review

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted today’s action from the

requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Compliance With Executive Order

12898—Environmental Justice

EPA is committed to addressing

environmental justice concerns and is

assuming a leadership role in

environmental justice initiatives to

enhance environmental quality for all

residents of the United States. The

Agency’s goals are to ensure that no

segment of the population, regardless of

race, color, national origin, or income

bears disproportionately high and

adverse human health and

environmental effects as a result of

EPA’s policies, programs, and activities,

and all people live in clean and

sustainable communities. EPA does not

believe that today’s action will have a

disproportionately high and adverse

environmental or economic impact on

any minority or low-income group, or

on any other type of affected

community.

Compliance With Executive Order

13045—Children’s Health Protection

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. This rule is

not subject to Executive Order 13045

because it is not an economically

significant rule as defined by Executive

Order 12866, and because it does not

involve decisions based on

environmental health or safety risks.

Compliance With Executive Order

13084—Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments

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. West Virginia is not

authorized to implement the MSWLF

permit program in Indian country.

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 approval 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 portions of West

Virginia’s MSWLF permit program that

the State has voluntarily chosen to

operate. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply.

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

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 approval 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 owners or

operators of municipal sold waste

landfills are already subject to the

regulatory requirements under the State

laws which EPA is now approving. This

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 36795

action merely approves for the purpose

of RCRA 4005(c) those existing State

requirements.

Compliance With the 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. EPA will submit a

report containing today’s document 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 today’s action in the

Federal Register. Today’s action is not

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by section 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

Compliance With the 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 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, 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 West Virginia 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 own or operate

municipal solid waste landfills, they are

already subject to the regulatory

requirements under the existing State

laws that are being approved by EPA,

and, thus, are not subject to any

additional significant or unique

requirements by virtue of this program

approval.

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.

Compliance With the 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

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.

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of section 2002, 4005 and 4010(c)

of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,

42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).

Dated:

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 00–14164 Filed 6–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 000119015–0015–01; I.D.

010500A]

RIN 0648–AM32

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Steller Sea Lion

Protection Measures for the Pollock

Fisheries Off Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Emergency interim rule;

extension of expiration date; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS extends the expiration

date of an emergency interim rule that

implemented reasonable and prudent

alternatives to avoid the likelihood that

the pollock fisheries off Alaska will

jeopardize the continued existence of

the western population of Steller sea

lions, or adversely modify their critical

habitat. The emergency interim rule that

is effective from January 20, 2000,

through July 19, 2000, is extended

through December 31, 2000. This

emergency action is necessary to

continue to implement reasonable and

prudent alternatives until permanent

rulemaking is implemented.

DATES: The expiration date of the

emergency interim rule published

January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3892), is

extended to December 31, 2000.

Comments must be received by July 12,

2000.