8384 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Notices

Dated: February 7, 1995.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 95–3608 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5154–8]

Common Sense Initiative Council,

Electronics Sector Subcommittee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Common Sense Initiative

Council, Electronics Sector

Subcommittee, Notice of Meeting.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency established the Common Sense

Initiative Council (CSIC)—Electronics

Sector (CSI–ES) Subcommittee on

October 17, 1994, to provide

independent advice and counsel to EPA

on policy issues associated with the

electronics and computer industry. The

charter was authorized through October

17, 1996, under regulations established

by the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA).

OPEN MEETING NOTICE: Notice is hereby

given that the CSI–ES Subcommittee

will hold an open meeting on

Wednesday, March 8, from 8:30 a.m. to

5:00 p.m., and Thursday, March 9, from

8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., at the Sheraton

National Hotel, Commonwealth

Ballroom, Columbia Pike and

Washington Boulevard, Arlington, VA

22204. Seating will be available on a

first-come, first-served basis.

The meeting will include a

description of the charge to the

subcommittee, orientation to the FACA

process, review and approval of

operating principles, review and

discussion of proposed work plan items,

and discussion of formation of work

groups for accepted work plan items.

Opportunity for public comment on

major issues under discussion will be

provided at intervals throughout the

meeting.

INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS:

Documents relating to the above noted

topics will be publicly available at the

meeting. Thereafter, these documents,

together with the CSI–ES meeting

minutes will be available for public

inspection in room 2417M of EPA

Headquarters, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Concerning

this meeting of the CSI–ES, please

contact Gina Bushong, US EPA (202)

260–3797, FAX (202) 260–1096, or by

mail at U.S. EPA (7405), 401 M Street

SW., Washington, DC 20460; Mark

Mahoney, Region 1, US EPA, (617) 565–

1155; or Dave Jones, Region 9, U.S. EPA,

(415) 744–2266.

Dated: February 7, 1995.

Gina Bushong,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 95–3607 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5155–1]

New Hampshire; Final Adequacy

Determination of State/Tribal Municipal

Solid Waste Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Final Determination of

Full Program Adequacy for the State of

New Hampshire’s Municipal Solid

Waste Landfill Permitting Program.

SUMMARY: Section 4005(c)(1)(B) of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA), as amended by the

Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, 42 USC

6945(c)(1)(B), requires states to develop

and implement permit programs to

ensure that municipal solid waste

landfills (MSWLFs), which may receive

hazardous household waste or small

quantity generator hazardous waste, will

comply with the revised Federal

MSWLF Criteria (40 CFR Part 258).

RCRA Section 4005(c)(1)(C), 42 USC

§ 6945(c)(1)(C), requires the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

to determine whether states have

adequate ‘‘permit’’ programs for

MSWLFs, but does not mandate

issuance of a rule for such

determinations. EPA has drafted and is

in the process of proposing a State/

Tribal Implementation Rule (STIR) that

will provide procedures by which EPA

will approve, or partially approve,

State/Tribal landfill permit programs.

The Agency intends to approve

adequate State/Tribal MSWLF permit

programs as applications are submitted.

Thus, these approvals are not dependent

on final promulgation of the STIR. Prior

to promulgation of the STIR, adequacy

determinations will be made based on

the statutory authorities and

requirements. In addition, States/Tribes

may use the draft STIR as an aid in

interpreting these requirements. The

Agency believes that early approvals

have an important benefit. Approved

State/Tribal permit programs provide

for interaction between the State/Tribe

and the owner/operator regarding sitespecific permit conditions. Only those

owners/operators located in State/Tribes

with approved permit programs can use

the site-specific flexibilities provided by

40 CFR part 258 to the extent the State/

Tribal permit program allows such

flexibility. EPA notes that regardless of

the approval status of a State/Tribe and

the permit status of any facility, the

federal landfill criteria shall apply to all

permitted and unpermitted MSWLF

facilities.

The State of New Hampshire applied

for a determination of adequacy under

Section 4005(c)(1)(C) of RCRA, 42 USC

§ 6945(c)(1)(C). EPA Region I reviewed

New Hampshire’s MSWLF permit

program adequacy application and

made a determination that all portions

of New Hampshire’s MSWLF permit

program are adequate to assure

compliance with the revised Federal

MSWLF Criteria. After consideration of

all comments received, EPA is today

issuing a final determination that the

State’s program is adequate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The determination of

adequacy for the State of New

Hampshire shall be effective on

February 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA

Region I, John F. Kennedy Federal

Building, Boston, MA 02203, Attn: Mr.

John F. Hackler, Chief, Solid Waste and

Geographic Information Section, mail

code HER-CAN 6, telephone (617) 573–

9670.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated

revised criteria for MSWLFs (40 CFR

part 258). Subtitle D of RCRA, as

amended by the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA),

requires states to develop permitting

programs to ensure that MSWLFs

comply with the Federal Criteria under

40 CFR part 258. Subtitle D also requires

in Section 4005(c)(1)(C), 42 USC

§ 6945(c)(1)(C), that EPA determine the

adequacy of state municipal solid waste

landfill permit programs to ensure that

facilities comply with the revised

Federal Criteria. To fulfill this

requirement, the Agency has drafted

and is in the process of proposing a

State/Tribal Implementation Rule

(STIR). The rule will specify the

requirements which State/Tribal

programs must satisfy to be determined

adequate.

EPA intends to approve State/Tribal

MSWLF permit programs prior to the

promulgation of the STIR. EPA

interprets the requirements for states or

tribes to develop ‘‘adequate’’ programs

for permits, or other forms of prior

approval and conditions (for example,

license to operate) to impose several

minimum requirements. First, each

State/Tribe must have enforceable
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Notices 8385

standards for new and existing MSWLFs

that are technically comparable to EPA’s

revised MSWLF criteria. Second, the

State/Tribe must have the authority to

issue a permit or other notice of prior

approval and conditions to all new and

existing MSWLFs in its jurisdiction. The

State/Tribe also must provide for public

participation in permit issuance and

enforcement as required in Section

7004(b) of RCRA, 42 USC § 6974(b).

Finally, the State/Tribe must show that

it has sufficient compliance monitoring

and enforcement authorities to take

specific action against any owner or

operator that fails to comply with an

approved MSWLF program.

EPA Regions will determine whether

a State/Tribe has submitted an

‘‘adequate’’ program based on the

interpretation outlined above. EPA

plans to provide more specific criteria

for this evaluation when it proposes the

STIR. EPA expects States/Tribes to meet

all of these requirements for all

elements of a MSWLF program before it

gives full approval to a MSWLF

program.

B. State of New Hampshire

On July 7, 1993, EPA Region I

received New Hampshire’s final

MSWLF permit program application for

adequacy determination. EPA published

in the Federal Register a tentative

determination of adequacy for all

portions of New Hampshire’s program.

Further background on the tentative

determination of adequacy appears at 59

FR 52299 (October 17, 1994).

Along with the tentative

determination, EPA announced the

availability of the application for public

comment. In addition, a public hearing

was tentatively scheduled. However,

there were no requests for such, and as

a result the hearing was not held.

C. Public Comment

EPA Region I received the following

written comments on the tentative

determination of adequacy for New

Hampshire’s MSWLF permitting

program, all of which have been made

a part of the administrative record and

are available to the public for review.

Several commenters were generally

supportive of EPA’s tentative

determination to provide full program

approval to New Hampshire’s MSWLF

permitting program. These commenters

encouraged EPA Region I to work

quickly towards the final determination

of adequacy of the State’s program.

A response was required by only one

comment, in which the commenter

questioned the effectiveness of the

State’s Guidance Document for ensuring

compliance with both state and federal

requirements for MSWLFs. Specifically,

the commenter felt there were instances

in which the Guidance may prove

confusing to the regulated community

(due in part to typographical errors and

cross-references to part 258). EPA

Region I forwarded a summary of the

comments to the New Hampshire

Department of Environmental Services

(NH DES), which agreed that clarifying

changes to its Guidance might be

beneficial. Without creating any

substantive changes, the Guidance was

revised after review and approval by

EPA Region I. The clarifying revisions

ensure consistency with 40 CFR part

258, while maintaining the integrity of

the State’s original Guidance. To further

prevent any chance of confusion, the

State of New Hampshire will append

the part 258 regulations to its Guidance

document for direct reference.

D. Decision

After evaluating the New Hampshire

program, EPA Region I concludes that

the State of New Hampshire’s MSWLF

Permitting Program meets all of the

statutory and regulatory requirements

established by RCRA. The New

Hampshire MSWLF Permitting Program

is technically comparable to, no less

stringent than, and equally as effective

as the revised Federal Criteria.

Accordingly, the State of New

Hampshire is granted a determination of

adequacy for all portions of its

municipal solid waste permit program.

To ensure full compliance with the

Federal Criteria, New Hampshire has

revised its current MSWLF permitting

requirements by development of the

Guidance Document for the State

Permitting of Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills Regulated Under Federal Rules

(40 CFR Part 258) in New Hampshire.

This guidance document has

incorporated those requirements from

the Federal Criteria not found in the

State’s existing MSWLF program which

are applicable to all existing MSWLFs

and to all MSWLF permit applications.

New Hampshire will implement its

MSWLF permit program through

enforceable permit conditions. These

new requirements occur in the

following areas:

1. The adoption of the following

definitions as required by the revised

Federal Criteria, 40 CFR 258.2: Active

life, active portion, director, household

waste, industrial solid waste, owner,

saturated zone, sludge, solid waste,

state, state director, and waste

management unit boundary.

2. Compliance with the location

restrictions of 40 CFR 258.10, 258.11.

258.12, 258.13, 258.14, 258.15, and

258.16, which pertain to airport safety,

floodplains, wetlands, fault areas,

seismic impact zones, unstable areas

and closure of existing MSWLF units.

3. Compliance with the operating

criteria of 40 CFR 288.20, 258.21,

258.23, 258.24, 258.28, 258.29, which

pertain to excluding the receipt of

hazardous waste, cover material

requirements, explosive gases control,

air criteria, liquid restrictions, and

record keeping requirements.

4. Compliance with the design criteria

of 40 CFR 258.40.

5. Compliance with the ground-water

monitoring and corrective action

requirements of 40 CFR 258.53, 258.54,

258.55, 258.56, 258.57, and 258.58,

which pertain to groundwater sampling

and analysis requirements, detection

monitoring, assessment monitoring,

assessment of corrective measures,

selection of remedy, and

implementation of the corrective action

program.

6. Compliance with the closure and

post-closure criteria of §§ 258.60 and

258.61.

7. Compliance with the financial

assurance criteria of 40 CFR 258.70,

258.71, 258.72, 258.73, and 258.74,

which pertain to applicability and

effective date, financial assurance for

closure, financial assurance for postclosure care, financial assurance for

corrective action, and allowable

mechanisms.

New Hampshire’s Department of

Environmental Services requires all

existing MSWLFs to have either an

existing permit or a temporary permit,

both of which require compliance with

the Federal Criteria in 40 CFR part 258

pursuant to state laws and regulations,

found at New Hampshire Revised

Statutes Annotated Chapter 149–M:11

and New Hampshire Code of

Administrative Rules Env-Wm 308.03.

The State of New Hampshire is not

asserting jurisdiction over Indian land

recognized by the United States

government for the purpose of this

notice. Tribes recognized by the United

States government are also required to

comply with the terms and conditions

found at 40 CFR Part 258.

Region I notes that New Hampshire’s

receipt of Federal financial assistance

subjects the State to the statutory

obligations of Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964. EPA Region I is committed

to working with the State to support and

ensure compliance with all Title VI

requirements. Furthermore, the

narrative portion of the State’s

application expresses New Hampshire’s

voluntary support of environmental

justice principles in the management of

the Subtitle D program. Although this is

not a criterion for program approval,
8386 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Notices

Region I acknowledges New

Hampshire’s support of environmental

justice principles.

Section 4005(a) of RCRA, 42 USC

§ 6945(a) provides that citizens may use

the citizen suit provisions of Section

7002 of RCRA, 42 USC 6972, to enforce

the Federal MSWLF Criteria set forth in

40 CFR part 258 independent of any

State/Tribal enforcement program. As

EPA explained in the preamble to the

final MSWLF criteria, EPA expects that

any owner or operator complying with

provisions in a State/Tribal program

approved by EPA should be considered

to be in compliance with the Federal

Criteria. See, 56 FR 50978, 50995

(October 9, 1991).

Today’s action takes effect on the date

of publication. EPA believes it has good

cause under Section 553(d) of the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC

§ 553(d), to put this action into effect

less than 30 days after the 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’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. Consequently, EPA

finds that it does not need to give notice

prior to making its approval effective.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this notice from the

requirements of Section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 USC

605(b), I hereby certify that this

approval will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. It does not

impose any new burdens on small

entities. This notice, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of Sections 2002, 4005 and 4010(c)

of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended,

42 USC §§ 6912, 6945 and 6949a(c).

Dated: February 4, 1995.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–3660 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Public Information Collection

Requirement Submitted to Office of

Management and Budget for Review

February 7, 1995.

The Federal Communications

Commission has submitted the

following information collection

requirement to OMB for review and

clearance under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507).

Copies of this submission may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW, Suite

140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857–

3800. For further information on this

submission contact Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, (202)

418–0214. Persons wishing to comment

on this information collection should

contact Timothy Fain, Office of

Management and Budget, Room 10214

NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202)

395–3561.

OMB Number: 3060–0136.

Title: Temporary Permit to Operate a

General Mobile Radio Service System.

Form Number: FCC Form 574–T.

Action: Extension of a currently

approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or

households.

Frequency of Response:

Recordkeeping requirement.

Estimated Annual Burden: 1,500

recordkeepers; .10 hours average burden

per recordkeeper, 150 hours total annual

burden.

Needs and Uses: Commission rules

state that eligible applicants for new or

modified radio stations in the General

Mobile Radio Service complete FCC

Form 574–T for immediate

authorization to operate the radio

station. The applicant is required to

retain this form during processing of the

application for license grant.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3576 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 94–29 et al.]

Trans-Atlantic Agreement

In the matter of; docket No. 94–29,

practices of the Trans-Atlantic Agreement

and its members with respect to independent

action; docket No. 94–30, container pool

practices of the Trans-Atlantic Agreement

and its members; fact finding investigation

No. 21, activities of the Trans-Atlantic

Agreement and its members, order inviting

amicus curiae filings.

On February 2, 1995, the TransAtlantic Conference Agreement

(‘‘TACA’’ or ‘‘Conference’’) and its

member lines, the Commission’s Bureau

of Hearing Counsel (‘‘Hearing Counsel’’)

and the Investigative Officers in Fact

Finding Investigation No. 21 submitted

a proposed settlement of these

proceedings. The settlement is now

before the Commission for review.

By this Order, the Commission is

inviting any interested member of the

public to comment on the settlement.

This is being done pursuant to the

Commission’s amicus curiae procedure,

46 CFR 502.76, whereby the

Commission at its own initiative may

solicit expressions of views on matters

of law or policy.

Under the terms of the settlement, the

TACA lines would agree to certain

undertakings, including broad rate

reductions; amendments to the TACA

agreement provisions on service

contracts, independent action (‘‘IA’’)

and other matters; cancellation of other

agreements; and increased reporting to

the Commission. These undertakings are

described in more detail below. In

exchange, the Commission would

terminate or withdraw Dockets Nos. 94–

29, 94–30, Fact Finding Investigation

No. 21 and its outstanding subpoenas,

and certain other orders issued under

section 15 of the Shipping Act of 1984

(‘‘1984 Act’’). TACA and its members

would not admit to any violations of

law. In addition, the settlement

agreement would bar the Commission

from commencing any new actions or

proceedings against the Conference or

its members for possible violations or

actions in contravention of sections 5, 6,

and 10 of the 1984 Act, Commission

regulations, or Commission orders, if

such possible violations arose from

activities or practices disclosed to the

Commission through one of the

following sources: Fact Finding

Investigation No. 21; documents or

depositions furnished by TACA in

Dockets Nos. 94–29 or 94–30;

documents furnished pursuant to the

settlement agreement; minutes or

conference documents provided by

TACA to the Commission; additional

information requested by the

Commission pursuant to section 6(d) of

the 1984 Act; and documents furnished

by TACA in response to the

Commission’s section 15 compulsory

orders of March 28 and July 17, 1994.

The settlement includes the following

commitments from TACA and its

member lines: