34982 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices

Respondents: Handlers, users, storers

and disposers of PCBs, and owners and

operators of PCB disposal facilities.

Estimated No. of Respondents:

22,600.

Estimated No. of Responses per

Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 175,648 hours.

Frequency of Collection: Annually

and on occasion.

Send comments regarding the burden

estimate, or any other aspect of the

information collection, including

suggestions for reducing the burden,

(please refer to EPA ICR #1446.05 and

OMB #2070–0112) to:

Sandy Farmer, EPA ICR #1446.05, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Regulatory Information Division

(2136), 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460.

and

Tim Hunt, OMB #2070–0112, Office of

Management and Budget, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

725 17th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20503.

Dated: June 28, 1995.

Joseph Retzer,

Director, Regulatory Information Division.

[FR Doc. 95–16424 Filed 7–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[FRL–5253–7]

Massachusetts: 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

Commonwealth of Massachusetts’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

U.S.C. 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

U.S.C. 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 Commonwealth of Massachusetts

(Commonwealth or Massachusetts)

applied for a determination of adequacy

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

U.S.C. 6945(c)(1)(C). Region I reviewed

Massachusetts’s MSWLF permit

program adequacy application and

made a determination that all portions

of Massachusetts’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

Commonwealth’s program is adequate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The determination of

adequacy for the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts shall be effective on July

5, 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 U.S.C.

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

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 U.S.C. 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. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

On August 13, 1993, Region I received

Massachusetts’s final MSWLF permit

program application for adequacy

determination. On May 5, 1994, EPA

published in the Federal Register the

first tentative determination of adequacy

for all portions of Massachusetts’s

program. Further background on the

tentative determination of adequacy

appears at 59 FR 23202 (May 5, 1994).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices 34983

Along with the tentative

determination, EPA announced the

availability of the application for public

comment. In addition, a public hearing

was tentatively scheduled. However,

because there were no requests for a

hearing, a hearing was not held.

In an effort to seek additional public

comments, EPA extended the public

comment period for the tentative

determination of adequacy for

Massachusetts’s municipal solid waste

landfill permitting program by

publishing on September 21, 1994, a

second tentative determination of

adequacy for all portions of

Massachusetts’s program. Further

background on the tentative

determination of adequacy appears at 59

FR 48427 (September 21, 1994).

C. Public Comment

EPA received written comments on

the tentative determination of adequacy

for Massachusetts’s MSWLF permit

program. One commentor supported full

approval of the Commonwealth’s

program. The commentor stated that the

Massachusetts Part 258 program

‘‘satisfies all of the federal Criteria, and

* * * the Commonwealth has

demonstrated its ability and willingness

to equitably and effectively administer a

Part 258 program.’’ In particular, the

commentor believes that the alternative

liner designs authorized by

Massachusetts’s regulations are

consistent with the criteria set forth in

40 CFR 258.40(a)(1).

The same commentor also noted that

full approval should be granted upon

the condition that the Commonwealth’s

regulations are revised to ensure

consistency with the 40 CFR Part 258

standards. Specifically, the commentor

recommended the following amendment

to 310 CMR 19.080: ‘‘No variance will

be approved if such approval would

result in the imposition or recognition

of a requirement less stringent than

comparable federal requirements.’’

EPA agrees that a state program must

be implemented consistently with the

federal requirements of Part 258.

However, EPA believes that

Massachusetts’s laws, regulations, and

guidance documents will ensure that

Massachusetts’s permit program is as

stringent as the federal requirements.

For example, to account for local sitespecific conditions, Part 258 allows the

Director of an approved state some

flexibility. The Director may approve

the use of alternate daily cover material

when an owner/operator demonstrates

that the alternate meets the performance

standard of 40 CFR 258.21(b). EPA’s

tentative adequacy determination for the

Massachusetts MSWLF program was

based on the condition that the variance

provisions of 310 CMR 19.080 will be

implemented in accordance with the

flexibilities and performance standards

set forth in the Federal Criteria, and will

not result in less stringent requirements.

The Commonwealth’s existing variance

provision, 310 CMR 19.080(2)(b),

requires a demonstration to ensure that

‘‘substitute measures will provide the

same or greater degree of protection to

public health, safety and the

environment as the application of the

regulation(s) from which a variance is

requested.’’ EPA believes the

requirement that substitute measures

provide the same or greater degree of

protection is consistent with the specific

flexibilities and performance standards

contained in the Federal Criteria.

Another group of commentors

expressed their concern that

Massachusetts’s MSWLF program does

not go far enough to protect low income

communities and communities of color

against bearing a disproportionate

burden of environmental harm. While

the commentors noted that ‘‘the

Commonwealth’s program does provide

an effective framework for public

participation and for minimizing

disproportionate siting of landfills,’’

they believe ‘‘the siting process would

not require consideration of background

health problems, undue environmental

burdens, and cumulative environmental

risks in determining the suitability of

future landfill sites.’’ Specifically, the

commentors recommended that the

Massachusetts MSWLF program: (1)

Consider the nature of residential

neighborhoods near a proposed site; (2)

require some consideration of

background or disproportionate health

and environmental burdens in making

siting decisions; and (3) increase

opportunities for public involvement

specifically from communities that

suffer disproportionate or

undocumented environmental burdens.

EPA shares the commentors’ concerns

that low income communities and

communities of color be adequately

protected in the siting and permitting of

municipal solid waste landfills. EPA

believes, however, that the Federal

MSWLF Criteria and the guidelines set

forth in the STIR will serve to

adequately protect public health in all

communities. Massachusetts has

demonstrated that its program is no less

stringent than the criteria for program

approval set forth in 40 CFR part 258

and in the STIR. In addition,

Massachusetts has voluntarily included

in the narrative portion of its

application a commitment to implement

its MSWLF permitting program in

accordance with the principles of

environmental justice. Although, not

specifically required by its regulations

to consider the nature of residential

neighborhoods near a proposed site and

background or disproportionate health

and environmental burdens in making

siting decisions, the MADEP may

always consider these factors in the

siting process and has historically done

so in other siting decisions. In addition,

the Massachusetts Environmental

Protection Act (MEPA) requires

extensive public review of a proposed

solid waste site before it can be

approved. With regard to public

involvement, the Massachusetts

program provides for public notice to

boards of health, abutters and the

general public, allows for public

comment from any interested party and

requires public hearings.

The final commentor expressed

concern that unlined landfills in

Massachusetts are not being closed

quickly enough. The Federal Criteria do

not establish a deadline for the closure

of unlined landfills. Nevertheless, EPA

is also concerned that any landfills

which may pose a threat to public

health or the environment be closed as

soon as practicable. EPA is satisfied that

Massachusetts is making satisfactory

progress in this area.

D. Decision

After evaluating the Massachusetts

program, Region I concludes that the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s

MSWLF permitting program meets all of

the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by RCRA.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts is granted a

determination of adequacy for all

portions of its municipal solid waste

permit program.

The Massachusetts MSWLF

permitting program is technically

comparable to, no less stringent than,

and equally as effective as the revised

Federal Criteria. The revised Landfill

Assessment and Closure Guidance

Manual (LAC Manual) is applicable to

all existing MSWLFs and to all MSWLF

permit applications effective July 1,

1993. Massachusetts will implement its

MSWLF permit program through

enforceable permit conditions. To

ensure compliance with the Federal

Criteria, Massachusetts has revised its

current permit requirements through the

existing Supplement to Landfill

Assessment and Closure Manual. These

revisions occur in the following areas:

1. The adoption of the EPA approved

method 8260 to test ground water;

2. The addition of the provision on

the minimum distance of ground water
34984 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices

monitoring wells from the landfill

boundary;

3. Compliance with the protocols for

testing and analyzing ground water for

constituents listed in Appendix II to

Part 258;

4. Compliance with the procedures for

notifying the Department of

Environmental Protection about

explosive levels of landfill gas;

5. Compliance with the protocols for

conducting inspections to detect the

presence of hazardous waste and

procedures for reporting results of such

inspections; and

6. Compliance with the minimum

design standard for alternative landfill

cover.

The Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection will update

the permits of existing municipal solid

waste landfills scheduled to remain

open after the effective date of 40 CFR

Part 258, to assure compliance with

current state requirements. The

Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not

asserting jurisdiction over Tribal 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 Massachusetts’s

receipt of federal financial assistance

subjects the Commonwealth to the

statutory obligations of Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. EPA Region I

is committed to working with the

Commonwealth to support and ensure

compliance with all Title VI

requirements. Furthermore, the

narrative portion of the

Commonwealth’s application expresses

Massachusetts’s voluntary support of

environmental justice principles in the

management of the Subtitle D program.

Although this is not a criterion for

program approval, Region I

acknowledges Massachusetts’s support

of environmental justice principles.

Section 4005(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6945(a) provides that citizens may use

the citizen suit provisions of Section

7002 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C.

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

Commonwealth’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 U.S.C.

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 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and

6949a(c–c).

Dated: June 25, 1995.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–16422 Filed 7–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[OPP–34078; FRL–4959–9]

Notice of Receipt of Requests for

Amendments to Delete Uses in Certain

Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),

as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of

receipt of request for amendment by

registrants to delete uses in certain

pesticide registrations.

DATE: Unless a request is withdrawn, the

Agency will approve these use deletions

and the deletions will become effective

on October 3, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: James A. Hollins, Office of

Pesticide Programs (7502C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460,

Office location for commercial courier

delivery, telephone number, and

internet e-mail address: Room 216,

Crystal Mall No. 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703)

305–5761, Hollins.james@epamail.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that

a registrant of a pesticide product may

at any time request that any of its

pesticide registrations be amended to

delete one or more uses. The Act further

provides that, before acting on the

request, EPA must publish a notice of

receipt of any such request in the

Federal Register. Thereafter, the

Administrator may approve such a

request.

II. Intent to Delete Uses

This notice announces receipt by the

Agency of applications from registrants

to delete uses in the 14 pesticide

registrations listed in Table 1 below.

These registrations are listed by

registration number, product names/

active ingredients and the specific uses

deleted. Users of these products who

desire continued use on crops or sites

being deleted should contact the

applicable registrant before October 3,

1995 to discuss withdrawal of the

applications for amendment. This 90–

day period will also permit interested

members of the public to intercede with

registrants prior to the Agency approval

of the deletion.

TABLE 1.—REGISTRATIONS WITH REQUESTS FOR AMENDMENTS TO DELETE USES IN CERTAIN PESTICIDE REGISTRATIONS

EPA Reg Nr Product Name (Active Ingredient) Delete From Label

000070–00232 Rigo Dursban 2E (Chlorpyrifos) Mosquito control adulticide & larvicide

000070–00286 Rigo Dursban 1E Insecticide (Chlorpyrifos) Mosquito adulticide & larvicide use