28108 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Notices

No. CP93–541–000, and (iii) modified

the capacity release portion to more

closely reflect that of Colorado Interstate

Gas Company, the operator of Young,

and also to reflect changes associated

with Order No. 577 issued March 29,

1995, in Docket No. RP95–5–000.

Young states that copies of this filing

were served upon all holders of its

FERC tariff, which becomes effective

June 1, 1995.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, in accordance

with §§ 385.211 and 385.214 of the

Commission’s rules of practice and

procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211).

All such petitions or protests should be

filed on or before May 31, 1995. Protests

will be considered by the Commission

in determining the appropriate action to

be taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

commission and are available for public

inspection in the public reference room.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–13089 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPPTS–211041; FRL–4954–3]

Response to TSCA Section 21 Petition

for Regulations Requiring Public

Notice and Comment Prior to the

Issuance of Certain PCB Commercial

Storage or Disposal Approvals

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; Denial of TSCA Section

21 Petition.

SUMMARY: This notice responds to a

citizen’s petition submitted by FulCircle

Ballast Recyclers under section 21 of the

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to

initiate a rulemaking to require public

notice and comment prior to granting

approvals under section 6(e) of TSCA

for certain facilities handling

fluorescent lighting ballasts that contain

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). EPA

is denying this petition because EPA

does not believe that issuing a rule to

require public notice and comment

prior to approval of commercial storage

facilities and alternate destruction

methods which handle fluorescent

lighting ballasts is necessary. However,

EPA does agree that public notice and

comment should be part of the approval

process. To that end, EPA will clarify to

the approving authorities that public

notice and an opportunity for comment

must be provided prior to decision on

all storage and disposal approvals. The

first step of this process has been

accomplished by a letter from the

Assistant Administrator from the Office

of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic

Substances (OPPTS) to the Regional

Administrators clearly stating the

substance of and rationale for EPA’s

policy. Further, EPA will revise its

existing TSCA approval guidance to

more clearly define the notice and

comment procedures which are to be

followed when conducting a review of

an application for a PCB storage or

disposal approval.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and

all related information used by the

Agency to develop this response are

located in the TSCA Non-Confidential

Information Center (7407), Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

B–607, Northeast Mall, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. They are

available for review and copying from

12 noon to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except for legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. E–543B, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 554–1404,

TDD (202) 554–0551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this

notice, EPA is responding to the petition

of FulCircle Ballast Recyclers under

section 21 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2620,

requesting that rules be issued under 40

CFR part 761 to require public notice

and comment prior to the issuance of

certain approvals to commercially store

and dispose of fluorescent lighting

ballasts.

I. Background

A. TSCA Section 21

Section 21 of TSCA provides that any

person may petition the Administrator

of EPA to initiate a proceeding for the

issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule

under section 4, 6, or 8, or an order

under section 5(e) or 6(b)(2) of TSCA.

Section 21(b)(3) requires that EPA grant

or deny a petition within 90 days of its

filing. If EPA grants a section 21

petition, EPA must promptly commence

an appropriate proceeding in

accordance with the relevant TSCA

section. If EPA denies the petition, the

reasons for denial must be published in

the Federal Register.

If EPA denies a petition within 90

days of the filing date, or fails to grant

or deny within the 90–day period, the

petitioner may commence a civil action

in a Federal district court to compel

EPA to initiate the requested action.

This suit must be filed within 60 days

of the denial, or within 60 days of the

expiration of the 90–day period if EPA

fails to grant or deny the petition within

that period.

B. Summary of Petition

By petition dated February 14, 1995

(EPA received the petition on February

17, 1995), FulCircle Ballast Recyclers

(herein referred to as ‘‘petitioner’’)

requested EPA, under section 21 of

TSCA, to initiate rulemaking to require

public notice and comment prior to

granting approvals under 40 CFR part

761 for certain facilities handling

fluorescent lighting ballasts that contain

PCBs. Specifically, there are two parts to

the petition. First, the petitioner

requested that there should be public

notice and comment in connection with

EPA approvals under the following

sections:

(1) Section 761.65(d), approval of

commercial storers of PCB waste, where

the waste involved is fluorescent

lighting ballasts containing PCBs.

(2) Section 761.60(e), approval of

alternative methods of destruction of

PCBs, if the proposal involves

fluorescent lighting ballasts containing

PCBs at a facility where the alternative

technology will be operated.

Second, the petitioner requested a

ruling by EPA temporarily holding in

abeyance regulatory approval action by

EPA’s Regional offices on any

applications under the sections

mentioned above dealing with

fluorescent lighting ballasts containing

PCBs until there has been a reasonable

opportunity for public notice and

comment on those applications.

The petitioner is currently in the

business of recycling PCB-containing

lighting ballasts for disposal and has an

approval issued by EPA Region II to do

so. The petitioner removes the PCBcontaining capacitors and potting

materials from the ballasts, which are

disposed of at an approved PCB

disposal facility, and recycles the

copper, aluminum and steel

components. It is the petitioner’s

position that there should be nationally

uniform rules assuring notice and an

opportunity for the public to comment

on applications pursuant to § 761.65(d)

and § 761.60(e) for facilities handling

fluorescent lighting ballasts containing

PCBs and that EPA should respond to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Notices 28109

those comments before acting on the

applications.

In support of the petition, the

petitioner states that public notice and

comment allows for those

knowledgeable about the management

of PCBs to review an application from

a sophisticated point of view, and

therefore raise pertinent questions based

on that knowledge. In addition, it allows

for those living and working in the

vicinity of the facility’s location to

review the application from a local

point of view, allowing for sensitivity to

problems not readily apparent to

someone outside the locality of the

operation.

In further support of its request, the

petitioner cites 40 CFR part 124, which

establishes procedures, including notice

and comment requirements, for issuing

RCRA, UIC, PSD and NPDES permits

and asks that EPA apply the appropriate

provisions of these regulations to TSCA

approvals for PCBs. In addition, the

petitioner asserts that the Superfund

program requires extensive public

involvement in connection with site

cleanups. Also, in the case of

commercial storers of PCB waste, EPA

published a Federal Register notice on

June 10, 1991 (56 FR 26673) soliciting

comments on the qualifications of the

applicants and their principals and key

employees to engage in PCB commercial

storage activities.

Lastly, the petitioner points out that it

is already a ‘‘widely held practice’’ in

many EPA Regions to provide for public

notice and a public comment period for

applications involving PCB recycling,

storage and disposal operations and

cites three examples of this common

practice by EPA, including the

petitioner’s own approval recently

issued by Region II.

II. EPA’s Decision

EPA agrees with the petitioner’s

underlying premise that there should be

public notice and comment prior to

issuing commercial storage or disposal

approvals under the TSCA PCB

regulations. However, EPA is denying

the petition because it does not believe

it is necessary to write a Federal

regulation to achieve this end.

EPA believes it is important to have

public notice and comment prior to the

issuance of certain commercial storage

and disposal approvals for many of the

reasons the petitioner has stated in its

request. In fact, EPA’s existing TSCA

approval guidance (Guidance Manual

for Writers of PCB Disposal Permits for

Alternate Technologies, October 1, 1988

(Ref. 2)) requires public notice and

comment prior to the issuance of an

alternate disposal technology approval.

The failure to follow this guidance for

one disposal approval was an isolated

instance resulting from a

misunderstanding between

Headquarters and the Regional office

and is not to be considered as reflecting

EPA’s philosophy or practice as a

whole.

The input of the public, especially

those in the vicinity of a proposed

commercial storage or disposal facility,

must play a role in the issuance of an

approval to operate such a facility. By

informing the public and receiving

public input, EPA can achieve its goal

of protecting public health and the

environment while at the same time not

unfairly subjecting any citizen to unjust

or disproportionate environmental

impacts.

In the PCB program, most approval

applications mentioned by the

petitioner are granted or denied by the

Regional Administrators; however, the

Director of CMD at Headquarters also

has the authority to act on such

requests. Therefore, the review process

is under EPA’s control and direction.

With this in mind, EPA will revise its

existing TSCA approval guidance to

more clearly define the notice and

comment procedures which are to be

followed when conducting a review of

an application for a PCB storage or

disposal approval. The revised guidance

that approving authorities have been

directed to follow will include specific

procedures to follow when conducting

public notice and comment. The

procedures will include such things as

the format and content of the public

notice, timing of the notice, length of

time it should appear, length of

comment period, and procedures for

responding to and incorporating

comments into the final approval. Not

only will the procedures be revised, but

the scope of the guidance will be

expanded to include public notice and

an opportunity for comment prior to a

decision on not only approvals relating

to fluorescent light ballast, but on all

fixed-site storage and disposal approvals

issued pursuant to 40 CFR 761.60(a)(5),

761.60(e), 761.65(d), 761.70 and 761.75.

Amending EPA’s existing guidance as

opposed to initiating rulemaking will be

a quick and relatively economical way

to implement the petitioner’s request for

a consistent national policy. Given

EPA’s firm commitment to the principle

of notice and comment prior to issuance

of PCB approvals, we do not see what

added value is provided by

implementing this principle through

more costly, and ultimately less flexible

rulemaking procedures.

As a matter of record, and as evidence

in support of EPA’s commitment to

adhere to the guidance, EPA

Headquarters has notified the Regional

Administrators that public notice and

comment must be part of the approval

process and has received written

assurances from all ten of its Regional

offices that they heartily endorse and

will implement EPA’s policy to provide

public notice and an opportunity for

comment prior to the issuance of fixedsite commercial storage or disposal

approvals.

Lastly, on February 21, 1995, the

President announced a new initiative

mandating a line-by-line review of all

existing regulations in the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR). The intent of

this initiative is to move towards a

regulatory system that focusses on

results rather than procedures and,

towards that end, to eliminate any

unnecessary Federal regulatory language

that appears in the CFR. EPA believes

that it would be at odds with this

Presidential initiative if it were to add

to the CFR procedural rules for issuing

commercial storage and disposal

approvals when the same result can be

achieved through issuance of clear

guidance to Regional and Headquarters

decisionmakers on precisely what

notice and comment opportunities must

be provided in connection with the

issuance of PCB storage and disposal

approvals.

III. Record

EPA has established a record for its

response to this petition under Docket

number OPPTS–211041. The record

contains the basic information

considered by EPA in reaching this

decision.

The following references are included

in the record for this action:

(1) Petition submitted to USEPA by

Karl R. Morthole representing FulCircle

Ballast Recyclers (February 14, 1995)

and attachments.

(2) Guidance Manual for Writers of

PCB Disposal Permits for Alternate

Technologies (October 1, 1988).

(3) Reinventing Environmental

Regulation, President Bill Clinton and

Vice President Al Gore, March 16, 1995.

(4) Letter from Lynn R. Goldman,

M.D., Assistant Administrator, OPPTS,

to the Regional Administrators

requesting public notice and comment

be part of their PCB commercial storage

and disposal approval process (April 11,

1995).

(5) Replies to Dr. Goldman’s April 11,

1995 letter from the Regional

Administrators affirming their support

for public notice and comment being a

part of their PCB commercial storage

and disposal approval process.

Region I, May 1, 1995
28110 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Notices

Region II, May 11, 1995

Region III, May 4, 1995

Region IV, May 3, 1995

Region V, April 28, 1995

Region VI, April 24, 1995

Region VII, May 1, 1995

Region VIII, May 2, 1995

Region IX, May 2, 1995

Region X, April 18, 1995

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons detailed above, EPA is

denying the petition filed by FulCircle

Ballast Recyclers under section 21 of

TSCA.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2620.

Dated: May 22, 1995.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 95–13136 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[FRL–5212–9]

Georgia Transformer Site; Notice of

Proposed Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement.

SUMMARY: Under Section 122(h) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA), the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed to

settle claims for response costs at the

Georgia Transformer Site (Site) located

in Thomasville, Georgia, with

approximately 80 potentially

responsible parties (PRPs) at the Site.

EPA will consider public comments on

the proposed settlement for thirty days.

EPA may withdraw from or modify the

proposed settlement should such

comments disclose facts or

considerations which indicate the

proposed settlement is inappropriate,

improper, or inadequate. Copies of the

proposed settlement and a list of

proposed settling parties are available

from: Mr. Greg Armstrong, Enforcement

Project Manager, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IV, Waste

Programs Branch, Waste Management

Division, 345 Courtland Street, N.E.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30365, (404) 347–5059

ext. 6188.

Written comment may be submitted to

the person above within 30 days of the

date of publication.

Dated: May 19, 1995.

Richard D. Green

Acting Director, Waste Management Division.

[FR Doc. 95–13245 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Semiannual Report of Payment

Accepted From Non-Federal Sources

Under 31 U.S.C. 1353; for the Period

Beginning October 1, 1994 and Ending

March 31, 1995; Summary Report

Reimbursement/In-kind Payments In

Excess of $250

Total Number of Sponsored Events:

65.

Total Number of Sponsoring

Organizations: 59.

Total Number of Different

Commissioners/Employees Attending:

67.

Total Amount of Reimbursement

Received

Check In-kind

In excess of

$250 .............. $63,591.98 $29,472.74

Under $250 (Detail not included) ........... 568.25 321.48

Total ........... 64,160.23 29,794.22

1. Agency: Federal Communications

Commission.

2. Employee: Ralph A. Haller.

Government position: Chief, Private

Radio Bureau.

3. Event: Annual Technical

Conference of the Communication and

Signal Division of AAR.

4. Sponsor of Event: Association of

American Railroads—AAR.

5. Sponsor Address: 50 F Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20001.

6. Location of Event: New Orleans,

Louisiana.

7. Employee’s Role: Speaker.

8. Dates of Event: 08/22–24/94.

9. Travel Dates: 08/20–27/94.

10. (a)

Nature of benefit

(c)

Type & amount of

payment

Check In-kind

1. Roundtrip Transportation ................ $416.00 ...............

2. Hotel Room ........... ............... $122.52

3. Meals .................... 161.50 ...............

4. Parking, Mileage &

Taxi ........................ 48.00 ...............

625.50 122.52

(b) Non-Fed Source: Same as No. 4.

1. Agency: Federal Communications

Commission.

2. Employee: Catherine K. Sandoval.

Government position: Attorney, Office

of International Communications.

3. Event: Panel on ‘‘Regulatory

Regimes and the Global Information

Infrastructure’’.

4. Sponsor of Event: American Bar

Association—ABA.

5. Sponsor Address: 750 North Lake

Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60611.

6. Location of Event: New Orleans,

Louisiana.

7. Employee’s Role: Panelist.

8. Dates of Event: 08/07/94.

9. Travel Dates: 08/05–07/94.

10. (a)

Nature of benefit

(c)

Type & amount of

payment

Check In-kind

1. Roundtrip Transportation ................ $416.00 ...............

2. Hotel Room ........... 198.00 ...............

3. Meals .................... 68.00 ...............

4. Fax, Telephone &

Taxi ........................ 78.70 ...............

760.70 ...............

(b) Non-Fed Source: Same as No. 4.

1. Agency: Federal Communications

Commission.

2. Employee: Michael L. Katz.

Government position: Chief

Economist, Office of Plans and Policy.

3. Event: Panel Discussion

‘‘Regulatory Regimes and the Global

Information Infrastructure’’.

4. Sponsor of Event: American Bar

Association—ABA.

5. Sponsor Address: Young Lawyers

Division, 750 North Lake Shore Drive,

Chicago, IL 60611.

6. Location of Event: New Orleans,

Louisiana.

7. Employee’s Role: Panelist.

8. Dates of Event: 08/07/94.

9. Travel Dates: 08/06–07/94.

10. (a)

Nature of benefit:

(c)

Type & amount of

payment

Check In-kind

1. Roundtrip Transportation ................ $416.00 ...............

2. Hotel Room ........... 66.00 ...............

3. Meals .................... 42.50 ...............

4. Parking, Mileage &

Taxi ........................ 67.00 ...............

591.50 ...............

(b) Non-Fed Source: Same as No. 4.

1. Agency: Federal Communications

Commission.

2. Employee: Fred L. Thomas.

Government position: Electronics

Engineer, Office of Engineering &

Technology.