Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Notices 62439

M. How Much Time do Grant Recipients

Have to Complete the work Proposed?

Activities must be completed within

the time frame specified in the grant

award, usually one or two years from

award date. Grant project periods may

be approved for up to two years.

N. Who Will Develop and Manage the

Partnerships?

Grant recipients are responsible for

the successful development and

management of all projects. All

applications must identify a project

manager. The recipient’s project

manager is subject to approval by the

EPA project officer, but EPA may not

direct that any particular person be the

project officer. The lead institution

(applicant) is recognized as the grantee

and as such is responsible for all

activities under the agreement.

O. What Reports Must Grant Recipients

Complete?

Recipients of grants will be expected

to report on quarterly progress, as well

as final project completion. All

recipients must submit final reports for

EPA approval prior to the expiration of

the project period. Specific reporting

requirements will be detailed in the

award agreement. EPA plans to collect,

evaluate, and as appropriate,

disseminate grantees’ final reports to

serve as model programs. Since

networking is crucial to the success of

the program, grantees may be asked to

transmit an extra copy to a central

collection point.

P. What is the Expected Time frame for

the Review and Awarding of the Grants?

December 1, 1995

Request for Applications Published in

the Federal Register

December 1, 1995–March 2, 1996

Eligible grant recipients develop their

proposals

March 2, 1996

Proposals must be postmarked or

received by EPA by this date

March 2, 1996–May 1, 1996

Federal Agency Officials and review

panel evaluate and recommend

award selection

May 1, 1996–June 30, 1996

EPA Grants Administration Division

processes grants. Applicants will be

contacted by the grants office if

their proposals were selected for

funding. Additional information

may be required from the selectees.

August 1, 1996

EPA anticipates the awarding of the

grants and the beginning of the

partnership projects/activities.

Fiscal Year 1997 Grants

To Receive Information on the Fiscal

Year (FY) 1997 Environmental Justice

Community/University Partnership

(CUP) Grants Program and future year

grants, please mail or fax your request

along with your name, organization,

address, and phone number to the

Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ),

FY 1997 CUP Grants. OEJ’s address is

provided in Section H. OEJ’s fax number

is (202) 260–0852. You may also obtain

this information by calling OEJ’s 24

hour hotline number 1–800–962–6215

Available Translations

A Spanish translation of this

announcement is available upon

request. Please call the Office of

Environmental Justice at 1–800–962–

6215 for a copy.

Hay traducciones disponibles en

espanol. Si usted esta interesado en

obtener una traduccion de este anunclo

en espanol, por favor llame a la Officina

de Justicia Ambiental conocida como

‘‘Office of Environmental Justice’’, linea

de emergencia (1–800–962–6215).

Working Definitions

Tribe—all federally recognized

American Indian tribes (including

‘‘Alaskan Native Villages’’), pueblos,

and rancherios. Although the term

‘‘tribe,’’ as defined in this notice, refers

to only ‘‘federally recognized tribes,’’

state recognized tribes or indigenous

peoples organizations are able to apply

for grant assistance as ‘‘other eligible

grass-roots organizations’’ as long as

they meet the definition of an

incorporated, nonprofit organization.

Nonprofit—means any corporation,

trust, association, cooperative, or other

organization which (1) is operated

primarily for scientific, educational,

service, charitable, or similar purposes

in the public interest: (2) is not

organized primarily for profit: and (3)

uses its net proceeds to maintain,

improve, and/or expand its operations.

November 27, 1995.

Clarice E. Gaylord,

Director, Office of Environmental Justice.

[FR Doc. 95–29744 Filed 12–05–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5340–3]

State of New Jersey; Final Partial

Program Determination of Adequacy of

State/Tribe Municipal Solid Waste

Landfill Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Final Partial Program

Determination of Adequacy on New

Jersey’s Application.

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, 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 waste will

comply with the revised Federal

MSWLF Criteria (40 CFR 258). RCRA

section 4005(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 governing 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 has approved and will

continue 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

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 site-specific permit

conditions. Only those owner/operators

located in States/Tribes with approved

permit programs can use the sitespecific flexibility provided by 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 will apply to all permitted and

unpermitted MSWLF facilities.

The State of New Jersey applied for a

partial program determination of

adequacy under Section 4005 of RCRA.

EPA reviewed New Jersey’s application

and made a tentative determination of

adequacy for those portions of the

MSWLF permit program that are

adequate to ensure compliance with the

revised MSWLF Criteria. After

reviewing all comments received, EPA

today is granting final partial approval

to New Jersey’s program.
62440 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Notices

EFFECTIVE DATE: The partial program

determination of adequacy for New

Jersey shall be effective on December 6,

1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lorraine Graves, U.S. EPA Region II,

Mail code 2AWM, 22nd Floor, 290

Broadway, New York, New York,

10007–1866, telephone: (212) 637–4099.

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 facilities

comply with the Federal Criteria under

Part 258. Subtitle D also requires in

Section 4005 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 the

State/Tribal Implementation Rule

(STIR). The rule will specify the

requirements which State/Tribal

programs must satisfy to be determined

adequate.

EPA intends to propose in STIR to

allow partial approval if: 1) the Regional

Administrator determines that the State/

Tribal permit program largely meets the

requirements for ensuring compliance

with Part 258; 2) changes to a limited

narrow part(s) of the State/Tribal permit

program are needed to meet these

requirements; and, 3) provisions not

included in the partially approved

portions of the State/Tribal permit

program are a clearly identifiable and

separable subset of Part 258. As

provided in the October 9, 1991,

municipal landfill rule, EPA’s national

Subtitle D standards took effect in

October, 1993. Consequently, any

portions of the Federal Criteria which

are not included in an approved State/

Tribal program by October, 1993, would

apply directly to the owner/operator.

The requirements of the STIR, if

promulgated, will ensure that any

mixture of State/Tribal and Federal

rules that take effect will be fully

workable and leave no significant gaps

in environmental protection. These

practical concerns apply to individual

partial approvals granted prior to the

promulgation of the STIR rule.

Consequently, EPA reviewed the

program approved today and concluded

that the New Jersey permit program and

the Federal requirements mesh

reasonably well and leave no significant

gaps. Partial approval will allow the

Agency to approve those provisions of

the New Jersey permit program that

meet the requirements and provide the

State time to make necessary changes to

the remaining portions of its program.

As a result, owners/operators will be

able to work with the New Jersey

permitting agency to take advantage of

the Criteria’s flexibility for those

portions of the program which have

been approved.

EPA has reviewed New Jersey’s

requirements to determine whether they

are ‘‘adequate’’ under section

4005(c)(1)(C) of RCRA. EPA interprets

the requirements for States or Tribes to

develop ‘‘adequate’’ programs for

permits or other forms of prior approval

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. Next, the State/Tribe

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/Tribe 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/

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

State/Tribal Implementation Rule. 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. EPA

also is requesting States/Tribes seeking

partial program approval to provide a

schedule for the submittal of all

remaining portions of their MSWLF

permit programs. EPA notes that it

intends to propose to make submissions

of a schedule mandatory in STIR.

On March 3, 1994, the State of New

Jersey submitted an application to

obtain a partial program adequacy

determination for its municipal solid

waste landfill permit program.

Additional material was submitted on

July 21, 1994 and September 6, 1994.

On October 28, 1994, EPA published a

tentative partial determination of

adequacy for New Jersey’s program.

Further background on the tentative

partial program determination of

adequacy appears at 59 FR 54190,

October 28, 1994.

Along with the tentative

determination, EPA announced the

availability of the application for public

comment. The New Jersey application

for partial program adequacy

determination was available for public

review and comment at the New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

in Trenton, New Jersey and at the EPA

Region II Library in New York, New

York. The public comment period

commenced on October 28, 1994 and

ended on December 14, 1994.

Although RCRA does not require EPA

to hold a hearing on any determination

to approve a State/Tribe’s MSWLF

program, the Region scheduled a public

hearing on this tentative partial

determination. A public hearing was

held in Trenton, New Jersey on

December 14, 1994. A summary of the

comments received, and EPA’s

responses thereto is contained in the

public comment section of this notice.

On March 3, 1994, the State of New

Jersey submitted an application for

partial determination of adequacy of its

solid waste landfill permit program.

Certain revisions and amendments were

submitted on July 21, 1994 and

September 6, 1994. The application

addressed all components of 40 CFR

Part 258 and discussed New Jersey’s

enforcement authority, provisions for

citizen participation, and the current

status of solid waste landfills within the

State. EPA reviewed New Jersey’s

application and tentatively determined

that the State’s program met the

requirements necessary to qualify for a

determination of partial program

approval of adequacy to ensure

compliance with the Federal Criteria

with the exception of Subpart E—

Ground-Water Monitoring and

Corrective Action. Upon appropriate

adoption of revisions to its existing

ground-water regulations, it is expected

that New Jersey will become eligible for

full approval, which will include

Subpart E—Ground-Water Monitoring

and Corrective Action. New Jersey has

provided a revised schedule for

adoption of proposed regulatory

revisions. The revised regulations are

expected to be fully effective by late

1996, rather than by the end of 1995 as

set forth in the original schedule. EPA

has reviewed the revised schedule and

concluded that it is reasonable. In

addition, all of the New Jersey solid

waste regulations are scheduled to be readopted during the 1995–1996 period to

comply with the Governor’s Executive

Order #66 requiring periodic readoption of administrative rules.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Notices 62441

B. Public Comment

A summary of the public comments

received on the tentative determination

of partial program adequacy and EPA’s

responses follows. Two comments were

received by mail. The first involved

questions and concerns of a site-specific

nature in several New Jersey counties.

Since the questions and concerns raised

were specific to either particular

facilities or working operations and

were not relevant to the State’s program

as to its equivalency to the federal

criteria or overall program adequacy,

these questions were not considered in

this determination and will not be

discussed in this notice. However,

concerns were addressed by direct

correspondence with the commentor.

The second comment challenged New

Jersey’s wetlands protection standards.

The comment asserted that New Jersey’s

wetland standards were not ‘‘technically

comparable’’ to the Federal Criteria and

that the State application ‘‘failed to cite

regulations’’ that adequately protect

wetlands. It also asserted that New

Jersey regulations lack a counterpart to

40 CFR § 258.12(a)(1), which provides

significant restrictions on locating solid

waste landfill units in wetlands. In

addition, the commentor remarked that

New Jersey had permitted a particular

county landfill expansion in violation of

the Federal landfill criteria.

The New Jersey application identified

and discussed its wetlands regulations

as they appear in N.J.A.C. 7:26, the solid

waste requirements, as well as N.J.A.C.

7:7A, the Freshwater Wetlands

Protection Act Rules. The narrative

portion of the New Jersey application

clearly states that the New Jersey

Department of Solid Waste Management

shall issue a freshwater wetlands or

open water fill permit only if it finds

that there is no practicable alternative to

the proposed activity. The rules apply to

sanitary landfills proposing to engage in

regulated activities set forth in N.J.A.C.

7:7A. Subsequent to the public hearing,

New Jersey again addressed this issue in

correspondence with EPA and

reaffirmed that New Jersey regulations

are consistent with the federal

approach.

As to the matter of the particular

county landfill expansion, it is EPA’s

understanding that the owner/operator

of the facility in question has not

received a permit to proceed with these

activities. Furthermore, EPA’s

responsibility in this matter is only

directed to a determination concerning

the adequacy of the State permit

program.

C. Decision

After reviewing the public comments,

I conclude that New Jersey’s application

for a partial program adequacy

determination meets all of the statutory

and regulatory requirements established

by RCRA. Accordingly, New Jersey is

granted a partial program determination

of adequacy for the following areas of its

municipal solid waste permit program:

location restrictions, operating criteria,

design criteria, closure and post-closure

care, and financial assurance criteria.

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/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 relevant

portions of 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 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

12291

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this notice from the

requirements of Section 3 of Executive

Order 12291.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this final

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 Section 4005 of the Solid Waste

Disposal Act as amended; 42 U.S.C. 6946.

Dated: November 7, 1995.

William J. Muszynski,

Deputy Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–29740 Filed 12–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[OPP–42075; FRL–4968–7]

Oregon Plan for Certification of

Pesticide Applicators

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to approve

Amendment to Oregon Certification

Plan.

SUMMARY: On March 30, 1976, EPA

announced approval of the Oregon plan

for the certification of applicators of

restricted use pesticides. Oregon has

submitted an amendment to this

certification plan to permit certification

of applicators of 1080 Livestock

Protection Collars (LPC). Notice is

hereby given of the intention of EPA to

grant approval of this amendment.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before January 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments,

identified by docket control number

‘‘OPP–42075’’ to Allan Welch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Eighth

Floor, Seattle, WA 98101.

The comments received pursuant to

this notice will be available at the

aforementioned location from 8 a.m. to

4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to:

welch.allan@epamail.epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be submitted

as an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII

file format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number ‘‘OPP–42075.’’ No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail.

Electronic comments on this document

may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries. Additional

information on electronic submissions

can be found under the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

unit of this document.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as CBI.

Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with