21190 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices

For information about the SSO

Subcommittee, please contact: Kevin

Weiss, SSO Matrix Manager, Office of

Wastewater Management, US EPA

(4203), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20460, telephone: (202) 260–9524.

For information about the Phase II

Subcommittee, please contact: Pam

Mazakas, Phase II Matrix Manager,

Office of Wastewater Management, US

EPA (4203), 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202)

260–6599.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In 1972, under the authority of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act

(later called the Clean Water Act

(CWA)), the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) developed the

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permitting

program to control pollutant discharges

to the Nation’s waters from industrial,

commercial, and municipal point

sources. These discharges created a

threat not just to water quality, but to

the health of millions of people. Initial

efforts to control pollution from these

entities were focused on ‘‘traditional’’

pollutant sources, such as discharges

from industrial manufacturing processes

and municipal wastewater treatment

plants.

Since the NPDES program’s inception,

the Agency has undertaken efforts to

address other, ‘‘non-traditional,’’

sources of pollution, including those

resulting from precipitation events, such

as rainfall and snowmelt. These

precipitation-related sources of

pollution are referred to as ‘‘wet weather

discharges.’’ Wet weather discharges

include both point sources, which are

required to have an NPDES permit

under the CWA, and nonpoint sources,

such as those resulting from most

agricultural activity. Nonpoint sources

are not regulated by the NPDES

permitting program.

Wet weather discharges of pollutants

often occur in urban areas and include

municipal and industrial storm water

discharges; sanitary sewer overflows

(SSOs), which occur when the volume

of flows in a separate municipal sanitary

sewer system exceeds its capacity due

to, among other things, unintentional

inflow and infiltration of storm water;

and combined sewer overflows (CSOs),

which occur during wet weather events

in some cities which have combined

sanitary and storm sewers (these are

known as combined sewer systems or

CSSs). EPA’s National Water Quality

Inventory, 1992 Report to Congress,

notes that pollution from wet weather

discharges is cited by States as the

leading cause of water quality

impairment. Based on this Report and

other assessments, EPA has concluded

that wet weather discharges, whether

they be from point or nonpoint sources,

are one of the largest remaining threats

to water quality, aquatic life, and human

health that exist today.

EPA believes that urban wet weather

discharges, such as storm water

discharges, SSOs, and CSOs, should be

addressed in a coordinated and

comprehensive fashion in order to

reduce the threat to water quality,

reduce pollution control costs, and

provide State and local governments

with greater flexibility to solve wet

weather problems. EPA intends to build

on the stakeholder involvement process

that led to the development of the CSO

Control Policy, published on April 19,

1994 (59 FR 18688). To this end, the

Agency is establishing the Urban Wet

Weather Flows Federal Advisory

Committee, an SSO subcommittee, and

a Storm Water Phase II subcommittee.

Announcement of SSO Subcommittee

Meeting

Notice is hereby given that the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is convening a public meeting of the

SSO subcommittee on May 18 and 19,

1995. The meeting has several purposes:

(1) To discuss goals, objectives and

desired outcomes for the SSO policy

dialogue, such as ensuring national

consistency and adequate municipal

investment in collection system

operation and maintenance; (2) to

evaluate information needs to support

consideration of the costs and benefits

of selected policy options as well as

identify other information needs

associated with developing other

products; (3) to identify and discuss the

appropriateness of nonregulatory and

regulatory options for addressing

reporting of SSOs, collection system

evaluations, sewer design, collection

system operation and maintenance, and

system rehabilitation; (4) to discuss

incentives for proper operation and

maintenance of collection systems and

the development of outreach materials

to clarify the benefits associated with

proper operation and maintenance of

collection systems; (5) to discuss issues

associated with reporting of SSOs,

including how data is used by EPA and

authorized NPDES States, and public

access to reporting information; (6) to

discuss the relationship of enforcement

to information voluntarily submitted to

support the policy dialogue; (7) to

summarize approaches to permits for

discharges from sanitary sewer

collection systems which are currently

being used; and (8) to discuss how

watershed concepts could be

incorporated into SSO efforts.

The meeting, which will be held on

May 18 and 19, 1995, is open to the

public without need for advance

registration. On May 18, the meeting

will begin at approximately 8:30 AM

and run until about 5:00 PM. On May

19, the meeting will begin at 8:30 AM

and continue until completion. The

meeting will be held at the Best Western

Old Colony Inn, 625 First Street,

Alexandria, VA 22314. The hotel

telephone number is (703) 548–6300.

Dated: April 24, 1995.

Michael B. Cook,

Director, Office of Wastewater Management.

[FR Doc. 95–10621 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[OPPTS–400093; FRL–4952–6]

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know; Notice of Public

Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: EPA will hold a one-half day

public meeting to discuss the options

the Agency is considering for expanding

the industries covered under the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313

reporting requirements. In connection

with this meeting, the Agency has

prepared an issues paper that will be

available at no charge from the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Information Hotline at

the address or telephone number given

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

DATES: The meeting will take place on

May 25, 1995, at 9 a.m. and adjourn by

12 noon.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the: Environmental Protection Agency,

Auditorium, Education Center, 401 M

St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Crawford, Toxic Release Inventory

Branch at (202) 260–1715, or the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Information Hotline,

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail

Stop 5101, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460, Toll Free: 1–800–535–0202,

Washington, DC and Alaska (703) 920–

9877, Attention: TRI Facility Expansion.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1986,

Congress enacted the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA). Section 313 of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices 21191

EPCRA requires certain businesses to

submit reports each year on the amounts

of toxic chemicals their facilities release

into the environment or otherwise

manage. The purpose of this

requirement is to inform the public and

government officials about chemical

management practices of specified toxic

chemicals.

The current reporting requirements

apply to facilities in the manufacturing

sector (Standard Industrial

Classification codes 20–39), that have 10

or more full-time employees, and that

manufacture, process, or otherwise use

one or more chemicals on the section

313 list of toxic chemicals above certain

reporting thresholds.

EPA has been in the process of

evaluating several industries for

potential addition under EPCRA section

313. EPA has developed an issues paper

that presents background information

on this effort, EPA’s analytical

approach, preliminary findings that

indicate which industries may be

potential candidates for addition, and

several issues that will affect how these

facilities might be affected if they were

to be covered under EPCRA section 313.

Copies of this issues paper will be

available on or before May 1, 1995, from

the address or telephone number cited

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. Oral statements will be

scheduled on a first-come first-serve

basis by calling the Emergency Planning

and Community Right-to-Know Hotline

at the number listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

All statements will be made part of the

public record and will be considered in

the development of any proposed rule

amendment.

Dated: April 21, 1995.

Susan B. Hazen,

Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 95–10620 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[FRL–5198–9]

Campo Band of Mission Indians; Final

Determination of Adequacy of Tribal

Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Final Determination of

Full Program Adequacy for the Campo

Band of Mission Indians Application.

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

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA), as amended by the

Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984, requires states to

develop and implement permit

programs to ensure that municipal solid

waste landfills which may receive

hazardous household waste or small

quantity generator waste will comply

with the revised Federal Municipal

Solid Waste Landfill Criteria (40 CFR

part 258 or Federal Criteria). RCRA

section 4005(c)(1)(C) requires the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

to determine whether states have

adequate ‘‘permit’’ programs for

municipal solid waste landfills

(MSWLFs). EPA believes that adequate

authority exists under RCRA to allow

tribes to seek an adequacy

determination for purposes of sections

4005 and 4010.

The Campo Band of Mission Indians

(Campo Band) applied for a

determination of adequacy under

section 4005 of RCRA. EPA reviewed

the Campo Band’s application and

proposed a determination that the

Campo Band’s MSWLF permit program

is adequate to ensure compliance with

the revised MSWLF Criteria. After

consideration of all comments received,

EPA is today issuing a final

determination that the Campo Band’s

program is adequate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The determination of

adequacy for the Campo Band shall be

effective on May 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S.

EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105, Attn: Ms.

Christiane M. Camp, Mail Code H–W–

3, telephone (415) 744–2097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. 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, requires

states (and, as discussed below, allows

Indian tribes) to develop permitting

programs to ensure that MSWLFs

comply with the Federal Criteria under

40 CFR part 258. Section 4005 of RCRA

also requires that EPA determine the

adequacy of state MSWLF permit

programs to ensure that facilities

comply with the revised Federal

Criteria. 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. As

explained below, the Agency intends to

approve adequate state/tribal MSWLF

permit programs as applications are

submitted. 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.

EPA is extending to tribes the same

opportunity to apply for permit program

approval as is available to states.

Providing tribes with the opportunity to

apply for adequacy for purposes of

adopting and implementing permit

programs is consistent with the EPA

Policy for the Administration of

Environmental Programs on Indian

Reservations (November 8, 1984) (EPA’s

Indian Policy). This Policy, formally

adopted in 1984, recognizes tribes as the

primary sovereign entities for regulating

the reservation environment and

commits the Agency to working with

tribes on a ‘‘government-to-government’’

basis to effectuate that recognition. A

major goal of EPA’s Indian Policy is to

eliminate all statutory and regulatory

barriers to tribal assumption of federal

environmental programs. Today’s

determination to approve a tribal

MSWLF permit program represents

another facet of the Agency’s continuing

commitment to the implementation of

this long-standing policy.

EPA’s interpretation of RCRA is

governed by the principles of Chevron,

USA v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

Where Congress has not directly

addressed the precise question at issue

or otherwise explicitly stated its intent

in the statute or in legislative history,

the Agency charged with implementing

that statute may adopt any

interpretation which, in the Agency’s

expert judgment, is reasonable in light

of the goals and purposes of the statute

as a whole. Id. at 844. Interpreting

RCRA to allow tribes to apply for an

adequacy determination satisfies the

Chevron test.

States generally are precluded from

enforcing their civil regulatory programs

in Indian country, absent an explicit

Congressional authorization. California

v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians,

480 U.S. 202 (1987). Yet, under the

current statutory scheme, EPA generally

is precluded from enforcing the federal

Criteria as well. Furthermore, Congress

has not yet created an explicit role for

tribes to implement the RCRA Subtitle

D program, as it has done under most

other major environmental statutes

amended since 1986 (Safe Drinking

Water Act; Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act; Clean Water Act;

Clean Air Act).

To have its permit program deemed

adequate by EPA, a tribe must have

adequate authority over the regulated

activities. Indian reservations may