Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Notices 8381

U188

U189

U190

U191

U192

U193

U194

U196

U197

U200

U201

U202

U203

U204

U205

U206

U207

U208

U209

U210

U211

U213

U214

U215

U216

U217

U218

U219

U220

U221

U222

U223

U225

U226

U227

U228

U234

U235

U236

U237

U238

U239

U240

U243

U244

U246

U247

U248

U249

U328

U353

U359

This modification will add to the

above list of approved codes in the

existing exemption, so that CWM may

also dispose of wastes denoted by the

following RCRA waste codes: F037,

F038, F086, K107, K108, K109, K110,

K123, K124, K125, K126, K141, K142,

K143, K144, K145, K147, K148, K149,

K150, and K151 through its deep wells

upon the effective date of this petition

modification. When K131 and K132 are

banned from land disposal on June 30,

1995, this modification will allow

continued disposal of those wastes

through the deep-well system.

D. Submission

On September 12, 1994, and October

28, 1994, CWM submitted requests to

modify its existing petition for

exemption from the land disposal

restrictions on hazardous waste disposal

under the HSWA of RCRA (40 CFR Part

148). The submissions were reviewed by

staff at the EPA.

II. Basis for Determination

A. Waste Description and Analysis

CWM reports that the wastes codes for

which this modification has been

requested have not been disposed of by

the Vickery facility. The actual chemical

constituents found in the proposed

codes are already found in previously

exempted waste codes, which CWM

does accept. CWM anticipates the

possibility that manufacturers may

proffer wastes containing the waste

codes for which this exemption is

requested.

B. Model Demonstration of No Migration

The grant of an exemption from the

land disposal restrictions imposed by

the HSWA of RCRA is based on a

demonstration that disposed wastes will

not migrate out of the defined waste

management unit for a period of 10,000

years. This demonstration is based on

the results of computer simulations

which use geological information

collected at the site or found to be

appropriate for the site and

mathematical models which have been

proven to be capable of simulating

natural responses to injection. The

simulator is calibrated by matching

simulator results against observations at

the site. In this case, CWM simulated

movement of a conservatively defined

ion released at the top of the injection

interval. Using values for geological

parameters which have been shown to

be exceptionally conservative (their use

results in greater vertical movement of

waste constituents than can reasonably

be expected), CWM demonstrated that

injected wastes will not migrate out of

the defined injection zone for a period

of 10,000 years. The Agency accepted

the demonstration and granted the

existing exemption in 1990.

A modification of an existing

exemption to allow injection of

additional hazardous waste constituents

must show that the waste constituents

denoted by the codes for which the

modification is requested must behave

similarly to those constituents for which

the original demonstration of no

migration was made. In this case, the

underlying waste constituents have

been shown to behave similarly because

each is also a constituent of wastes

denoted by codes which have already

been exempted. This approach

eliminated the need to reconsider each

waste constituent individually.

Comments on this approach are

solicited.

III. Conditions of Petition Approval

The existing petition was issued with

conditions. Conditions numbered: (5),

(6), (7), and (8) required CWM to

perform actions which might provide

additional confirmation that the

conditions at the site were

conservatively considered in the

demonstration of no migration from the

injection zone. The work required under

these conditions has been completed by

CWM, and no additional work by CWM

under these conditions is anticipated,

except that the Knox-Kerbel ground

water monitoring well (condition 5)

must remain active at least as long as

the facility is active. The remaining

conditions, those numbered: (1), (2), (3),

(4), and (9) place well operation

conditions on CWM and continue in

force. No new conditions are attached to

this modification.

Dated: February 6, 1995.

Edward P. Watters,

Acting Director, Water Division, Region 5,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

[FR Doc. 95–3611 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5154–9]

California State Nonroad Engine and

Equipment Pollution Control

Standards; Opportunity for Public

Hearing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of an Opportunity for

Public Hearing and Public Comment.

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources

Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it

has adopted regulations for exhaust

emission standards and test procedures

for 1996 and later model heavy-duty offroad diesel cycle engines 175

horsepower or greater. CARB has

requested that EPA authorize CARB to

enforce regulations pursuant to section

209(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act), as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 7543. This notice

announces that EPA has tentatively

scheduled a public hearing to consider

CARB’s request and to hear comments

from interested parties regarding

CARB’s request for EPA’s authorization

and CARB’s determination that its

regulations, as noted above, comply

with the criteria set forth in section

209(e). In addition, EPA is requesting

that interested parties submit written

comments. Any party desiring to

present oral testimony for the record at

the public hearing, instead of, or in

addition to, written comments, must

notify EPA by February 21, 1995. If no

party notifies EPA that it wishes to
8382 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Notices

1See 59 FR 36969, July 20, 1994 (to be codified

at 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart Q, §§ 85.1601–85.1606).

This final rule titled ‘‘Air Pollution Control;

Preemption of State Regulation for Nonroad Engine

and Vehicle Standards’’ was proposed at 56 FR

45866, Sept. 6, 1991. 2 59 FR 31306 (June 17, 1994).

testify on the nonroad emission

amendments, then no hearing will be

held and EPA will consider CARB’s

request based on written submissions to

the record.

DATES: EPA has tentatively scheduled a

public hearing for March 1, 1995

beginning at 9:00 a.m., if any party

notifies EPA by February 21, 1995 that

it wishes to present oral testimony

regarding CARB’s request. Any party

may submit written comments regarding

CARB’s requests by March 31, 1995.

After February 21, 1995, any person

who plans to attend the hearing may

call Janice Raburn of EPA’s

Manufacturers Operations Division at

(202) 233–9294 to determine if a hearing

will be held.

ADDRESSES: If a request is received, EPA

will hold the public hearing announced

in this notice at the Channel Inn

(Captain’s Room), 650 Water Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20024. Parties wishing

to present oral testimony at the public

hearing should notify in writing, and if

possible, submit ten (10) copies of the

planned testimony to: Charles N. Freed,

Director, Manufacturers Operations

Division (6405J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In addition, any

written comments regarding the waiver

request should be sent, in duplicate, to

Charles N. Freed at the same address to

the attention of Docket A–94–44. Copies

of material relevant to the waiver

request (Docket A–94–44) will be

available for public inspection during

normal working hours of 8 a.m. to 5:30

p.m. Monday through Friday, including

all non-government holidays, at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center, 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 260–7548.

FAX Number: (202) 260–4400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Raburn, Attorney/Advisor,

Manufacturers Operations Division

(6405J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC 20460.

Telephone: (202) 233–9294.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 209(e)(1) of the Act as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 7543(e)(1), provides

in part: ‘‘No State or any political

subdivision thereof shall adopt or

attempt to enforce any standard or other

requirement relating to the control of

emissions from either of the following

new nonroad engines or nonroad

vehicles subject to regulation under this

Act: (A) New engines which are used in

construction equipment or vehicles or

used in farm equipment or vehicles and

which are smaller than 175 horsepower,

and (B) new locomotives or new engines

used in locomotives.’’

For those new pieces of equipment or

new vehicles other than those a State is

not permanently preempted from

regulating under section 209(e)(1), the

State of California may promulgate

standards regulating such new

equipment or new vehicles provided

California complies with Section

209(e)(2). Section 209(e)(2) provides in

part that the Administrator shall, after

notice and opportunity for public

hearing, authorize California to adopt

and enforce standards and other

requirements relating to the control of

emissions from such vehicles or engines

‘‘[i]f California determines that

California standards will be, in the

aggregate, at least as protective of public

health and welfare as applicable Federal

standards. No such authorization shall

be granted if the Administrator finds

that: (i) The determination of California

is arbitrary and capricious, (ii)

California does not need such California

standards to meet compelling and

extraordinary conditions, or (iii)

California standards and accompanying

enforcement procedures are not

consistent with this section.’’

EPA interpreted the preceding

criterion regarding consistency in the

final regulation it issued to implement

section 209(e) entitled ‘‘Air Pollution

Control; Preemption of State Regulation

for Nonroad Engine and Vehicle

Standards’’ (section 209(e) rule). This

rule sets forth several definitions and

the authorization criteria EPA must

consider before granting California an

authorization to enforce any of its

nonroad engine standards.1 As

described in the section 209(e) rule, in

order to be deemed ‘‘consistent with

this section’’, California standards and

enforcement procedures must be

consistent with section 209. In order to

be consistent with section 209,

California standards and enforcement

procedures must reflect the

requirements of sections 209(a),

209(e)(1), and 209(b). Section 209(a)

prohibits states from adopting or

enforcing emission standards for new

motor vehicles or new motor vehicle

engines. Section 209(e)(1) identifies the

categories preempted from state

regulation. As stated above, the

preempted categories are (a) new

engines which are used in construction

equipment or vehicles or used in farm

equipment or vehicles and which are

smaller than 175 horsepower, and (b)

new locomotives or new engines used in

locomotives. The section 209(e) rule

includes definitions for farm equipment

or vehicles and construction equipment

or vehicles. California’s proposed

regulations would be considered

inconsistent with section 209 if they

applied to these permanently preempted

categories. Additionally, the section

209(e) rule requires EPA to review

nonroad authorization requests under

the same ‘‘consistency’’ criterion that it

reviews motor vehicle waiver requests.

Under section 209(b)(1)(C), the

Administrator shall not grant California

a motor vehicle waiver if she finds that

California standards and accompanying

enforcement procedures are not

consistent with section 202(a) of the

Act. California’s nonroad standards

would not be consistent with section

202(a) if there were inadequate lead

time to permit the development of

technology necessary to meet those

standards, giving appropriate

consideration to the cost of compliance

within that time frame. Additionally,

California’s nonroad accompanying

enforcement procedures would be

inconsistent with section 202(a) if the

Federal and California test procedures

were inconsistent, that is, manufacturers

would be unable to meet both the State

and Federal test requirements with one

test vehicle or engine.

Once California has been granted an

authorization, under section 209(e)(2),

for its standards and accompanying

enforcement procedures for a category

or categories of equipment, it may adopt

other conditions precedent to initial

retail sale, titling or registration of the

subject category or categories of

equipment without the necessity of

receiving further EPA authorization.

By letter dated August 24, 1993,

CARB submitted to EPA a request that

EPA authorize California to adopt

regulations for 1996 and later model

heavy-duty off-road diesel cycle

engines. By letter dated July 26, 1994,

EPA informed CARB that in light of two

final rules issued by EPA, it would be

necessary for CARB to revise its waiver

request before EPA could begin the

waiver process. First, EPA had not been

able to process the nonroad waiver

request until it issued a final section

209(e) rule (discussed above). In

addition, EPA issued a rulemaking

setting federal nonroad standards under

section 213 of the Act.2 One of the

waiver requirements under section 209

is that CARB make a determination that

its standards and test procedures are, in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Notices 8383

3 59 FR 31306 (June 17, 1994).

4 ‘‘Air Pollution Control; Preemption of State

Regulation for Nonroad Engine and Vehicle

Standards’’ at 59 FR 36969, July 20, 1994 (to be

codified at 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart Q, §§ 85.1601–

85.1606).

the aggregate, at least as protective of

public health and welfare as applicable

federal standards. At the time CARB

made the analysis for its August 23,

1993, waiver request, EPA had proposed

but not finalized federal standards for

nonroad engines at or above 37kW.

Thus, CARB made a determination

based upon a comparison between its

standards and the standards EPA was

proposing at that time. EPA made a few

changes to its final rule, thus making it

necessary for CARB to revise its finding

and determination so as to have

compared its standards with the final

federal standards. By letter dated

August 17, 1994, CARB submitted to

EPA a supplement to its request of

August 24, 1993, with the updated

comparison that EPA requested.

California’s regulations apply to all

new heavy-duty off-road diesel cycle

engines, 175 horsepower or greater,

including alternate-fueled engines,

produced on or after January 1, 1996.

These regulations:

a. Establish tier 1 smoke and exhaust

emission standards for engines 175 to

750 horsepower produced on or after

January 1, 1996.

b. Establish smoke and exhaust

emission standards for engines greater

than 750 horsepower produced on or

after January 1, 2000. (These engines are

low sales volume, so longer

development time is allowed.)

c. Establish tier 2 smoke and exhaust

emission standards for engines 175 to

750 horsepower produced on or after

January 1, 2001.

d. Require that crankcase emissions

be controlled for 1996 and later

alternate-fueled engines derived from

diesel cycle engines and naturally

aspirated diesel-fueled engines used in

heavy-duty off-road applications.

e. Require that commencing in the

year 2000, replacement engines for pre1996 equipment comply with the 1996

emission regulations. Replacement

engines for 1996 and later equipment

are required to comply with the

emissions standards applicable to the

original engine.

f. Establish an 8-mode steady state

emissions test for certification testing.

g. Require certification compliance

testing, quality audit assembly line

testing, and new engine compliance

testing.

h. Establish a labeling requirement.

i. Require manufacturers to provide a

five year or 3000 hour emissions

warranty.

EPA issued a final rule (referenced

above) for nonroad engines of similar

horsepower on June 17, 1994.3 EPA set

standards for engines at or greater than

130 to 560 kW (175 horsepower to 750

horsepower) identical to the CARB

standards and effective January 1, 1996,

the same date as the CARB standards.

Also, EPA set standards for engines

greater than 560 kW (750 horsepower)

identical to CARB standards and

effective January 1, 2000, the same date

as the CARB standards. EPA did not

promulgate tier 2 standards for the

175—750 horsepower category, so

beginning in 2001 CARB standards

would be more stringent than EPA

standards.

California states in its August 17,

1994 letter that it has determined that

its standards and test procedures for

1996 and later model heavy-duty offroad diesel cycle engines would not

cause California emission standards, in

the aggregate, to be less protective of

public health and welfare as the

applicable Federal standards. Further,

California references its August 24, 1993

letter, which explained why compelling

and extraordinary conditions warrant

the need in California for separate

standards for heavy-duty off-road diesel

cycle engines. Finally, California states

that its standards and test procedures

are consistent with section 209 of the

Act. California’s request will be

considered according to the criteria for

an authorization request as set forth in

the section 209(e) regulation.4 Any party

wishing to present testimony at the

hearing or by written comment should

address, as explained in the section

209(e) rule, the following issues:

(1) Whether California’s

determination that its standards are at

least as protective of public health and

welfare as applicable Federal standards

is arbitrary and capricious;

(2) Whether California needs separate

standards to meet compelling and

extraordinary conditions; and,

(3) Whether California’s standards

and accompanying enforcement

procedures are consistent with (i)

section 209(a), which prohibits states

from adopting or enforcing emission

standards for new motor vehicles or

engines, (ii) section 209(e)(1), which

identifies the categories preempted from

state regulation, and (iii) section 202(a)

of the Act.

II. Public Participation

If the scheduled hearing takes place,

it will provide an opportunity for

interested parties to state orally their

views or arguments or to provide

pertinent information regarding the

issues as noted above and further

explained in the section 209(e) rule.

Any party desiring to make an oral

statement on the record should file ten

(10) copies of its proposed testimony

and other relevant material along with

its request for a hearing with the

Director of EPA’s Manufacturers

Operations Division at the Director’s

address listed above not later than

February 21, 1995. In addition, the party

should submit 50 copies, if possible, of

the proposed statement to the presiding

officer at the time of the hearing.

In recognition that a public hearing is

designed to give interested parties an

opportunity to participate in this

proceeding, there are no adverse parties

as such. Statements by participants will

not be subject to cross-examination by

other participants without special

approval by the presiding officer. The

presiding officer is authorized to strike

from the record statements which he

deems irrelevant or repetitious and to

impose reasonable limits on the

duration of the statement of any

participant.

If a hearing is held, the Agency will

make a verbatim record of the

proceedings. Interested parties may

arrange with the reporter at the hearing

to obtain a copy of the transcript at their

own expense. Regardless of whether a

public hearing is held, EPA will keep

the record open until March 31, 1995.

Persons with comments containing

proprietary information must

distinguish such information from other

comments to the greatest extent possible

and label it as ‘‘Confidential Business

Information.’’ To ensure that proprietary

information is not inadvertently placed

in the docket, submissions containing

such information should be sent directly

to the contact person listed above and

not to the public docket. If a person

making comments wants EPA to base its

final decision in part on a submission

labeled as confidential business

information, then a non-confidential

version of the document which

summarizes the key data or information

should be placed in the public docket.

Information covered by a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA

only to the extent allowed by the

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies the submission when it is

received by EPA, it may be made

available to the public without further

notice to the person making comments.
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