14372 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

ACTION: Notice of final determination on

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’

application for final approval.

SUMMARY: The Commonwealth of

Massachusetts has applied for final

approval of its Underground Storage

Tank (UST) Program under Subtitle I of

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 9004. The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

has reviewed Massachusetts’s

application and has reached a final

determination that Massachusetts’s UST

Program satisfies all the requirements

necessary to qualify for final approval.

Thus, EPA is granting final approval to

Massachusetts to operate its program in

lieu of the Federal UST program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Final approval for the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ UST

Program shall be effective at 1:00 p.m.

on April 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Myra Schwartz, Office of Underground

Storage Tanks, HPU–CAN7, U.S. EPA,

Region I, JFK Federal Building, Boston,

MA 02203, (617) 573–5743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 9004 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

enables EPA to approve state

underground storage tank programs to

operate in a state in lieu of the Federal

UST program. To qualify for final

authorization, a state’s program must:

(1) Be ‘‘no less stringent’’ than the

Federal program, and (2) provide for

adequate enforcement. Section 9004 (a)

and (b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c (a)

and (b).

On October 5, 1992, as required by 40

CFR 281.50(c), EPA acknowledged

receiving from Massachusetts a

complete official application requesting

final approval to administer its UST

program. On May 17, 1994, EPA

published a tentative decision

announcing its intent to grant

Massachusetts final approval of its

program. See 59 FR 25588 (1994).

Further background on EPA’s tentative

decision to grant approval is included in

that decision.

Along with the tentative

determination, EPA announced the

availability of the application for public

comment and the date of a public

hearing on the application. EPA

received written and oral comments on

the application, and a public hearing

was held on June 30, 1994.

Three commentators raised concerns

regarding the applicability of

environmental justice to the

Massachusetts UST program

implementation. EPA notes that

Massachusetts’ receipt of Federal

financial assistance subjects

Massachusetts to the obligations of Title

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. EPA

is committed to working with

Massachusetts to support and ensure

compliance with all Title VI

requirements. Furthermore, the

narrative portion of Massachusetts’

application expresses its voluntary

support of environmental justice

principles in the management of the

UST program. Although this is not a

criterion for program approval, EPA

acknowledges Massachusetts’ support of

environmental justice principles.

B. Decision

I conclude that Massachusetts’

application for final approval meets all

of the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by Subtitle I of

RCRA. Accordingly, Massachusetts is

granted final approval to operate its

UST program in lieu of the Federal

program. Massachusetts now has the

responsibility for managing all regulated

underground storage tank facilities

within its borders and carrying out all

aspects of the Federal UST program,

except with regard to Indian lands,

where EPA will continue to have

regulatory authority. Massachusetts also

has primary enforcement responsibility,

although EPA retains the right to

conduct inspections under Section 9005

of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d, and to take

enforcement actions under Section 9006

of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991e. EPA will

continue to work together with the

Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) in its

ongoing commitment and efforts to

address environmental justice concerns

in low-income urban and minority

neighborhoods in Massachusetts.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule 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 the approval

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This approval effectively

suspends the applicability of certain

federal regulations in favor of

Massachusetts’ Program, thereby

eliminating duplicative requirements for

owners and operators of underground

storage tanks within Massachusetts. It

does not impose any new burdens on

small entities. This rule, therefore, does

not require flexibility analysis.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Hazardous materials.

Authority: Section 9004 of the Solid Waste

Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6991c.

Dated: March 3, 1995.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–6675 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 281

[FRL–5173–5]

Texas; Final Approval of State

Underground Storage Tank Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final determination on

Texas’ application for final approval.

SUMMARY: The State of Texas has

applied for final approval of its

underground storage tank (UST)

program under Subtitle I of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) has reviewed Texas’ application

and has reached a final determination

that Texas’ UST program satisfies all of

the requirements necessary to qualify

for final approval. Thus, EPA is granting

final approval to Texas to operate its

program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Final approval for Texas

shall be effective at 1:00 p.m. Central

Standard Time on April 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe

Womack, Texas Program Officer,

Underground Storage Tank Program, US

EPA, Region 6, Mailcode: 6H–A, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202,

Phone: (214)665–6586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 9004 of RCRA enables EPA to

approve State UST programs to operate

in the State in lieu of the Federal UST

program. To qualify for final

authorization, a state’s program must:

(1) Be ‘‘no less stringent’’ than the

Federal program; and (2) provide for

adequate enforcement (sections 9004(a)

and 9004(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6991c(a)).

B. Texas

On April 28, 1994, Texas submitted

an official application for final approval.

On January 24, 1995, EPA published a

tentative decision announcing its intent
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14373

to grant Texas final approval. Further

background on the tentative decision to

grant approval appears at 60 FR 4586,

January 24, 1995.

Along with the tentative

determination, EPA announced the

availability of the application for public

comment. EPA also provided notice that

a public hearing would be provided

only if significant public interest was

shown. No requests to present testimony

at the public hearing were submitted

and no written comments on the

application were submitted.

D. Decision

I conclude that the State of Texas’

application for final approval meets all

of the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by Subtitle I of

RCRA. Accordingly, Texas is granted

final approval to operate its UST

program in lieu of the Federal program.

Texas now has the responsibility for

managing UST facilities within its

borders and carrying out all aspects of

the UST program except with regard to

Indian lands, where EPA will retain and

otherwise exercise regulatory authority.

Texas also has primary enforcement

authority, although EPA retains the right

to conduct inspections under Section

9005 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d, and to

take enforcement actions under Section

9006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991e.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule 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. The approval

effectively suspends the applicability of

certain Federal regulations in favor of

Texas’ program, thereby eliminating

duplicative requirements for owners

and operators of USTs in the State. It

does not impose any new burdens on

small entities. This rule, therefore, does

not require a regulatory flexibility

analysis.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281

Administrative Practice and

Procedure, Hazardous Materials, State

Program Approval, Underground

Storage Tanks.

Authority: This Notice is issued under the

authority of section 2002(a), 7004(b), and

90044 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6974(b), and

6991(c).

Dated: March 7, 1995.

William B. Hathaway,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–6674 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MM Docket Nos. 92–266 and 93–125, FCC

95–42]

Cable Television Act of 1992

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted

an Eighth Order on Reconsideration to

revise certain cable regulations affecting

small systems and certified local

franchising authorities. Certified local

franchising authorities, independent

small systems, and small systems

owned by small multiple system

operators (‘‘small MSOs’’) will be

permitted to enter into alternative rate

regulation agreements that comply with

the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1995, except

for 47 CFR section 76.934(f)(2) which

will become effective upon OMB

approval. The Commission will issue

written confirmation of OMB approval

at a later date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Cosentino, (202) 416–0800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Eighth Order on

Reconsideration in MM Docket No. 92–

266 and MM Docket No. 93–215, FCC

95–42, adopted February 3, 1995 and

released February 6, 1995.

The complete text of this Eighth Order

on Reconsideration is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service at (202) 857–3800, 2100 M

Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC

20037.

Synopsis of the Eighth Order on

Reconsideration

The 1992 Cable Act requires the

Commission to reduce regulatory

burdens and the cost of compliance for

small systems. Small systems are

defined in the statute as systems serving

1,000 or fewer subscribers. Pursuant to

that mandate, the Commission has

created different regulatory approaches

that are available to small systems.

The Cable Telecommunications

Association (‘‘CATA’’) and other groups

generally believe that our efforts have

not produced the intended result of

reducing administrative burdens and

costs for smaller systems. Preliminarily,

industry associations and individual

operators assert that small systems face

higher costs than other cable operators.

In our Fifth Order on Reconsideration

and Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (‘‘Fifth Reconsideration

Order’’), MM Docket No. 92–266 and

MM Docket No. 93–215, FCC 94–234, 59

FR 51869 (October 13, 1994), we sought

comment on definitions of small

businesses that could be used to define

eligibility for any special rate or

administrative treatment. In response, a

number of commenters point out that

smaller systems do not qualify for the

volume discounts offered by equipment

and program suppliers to larger systems.

In addition, commenters observe that a

smaller system serving a large rural area

faces increased construction costs due

to the increased amount of cable that

must be installed to reach the entire area

and increased operating costs given the

greater amount of facilities that must be

maintained. Moreover, commenters note

that the total costs for which a small

system is responsible must be recovered

from a small subscriber base. Although

our current rules take into account the

number of subscribers a system has, the

commenters are unanimous that the

rules do not do so adequately. CATA

further asserts that complexities in our

rules, and the cost of enforcing them,

have discouraged local franchising

authorities in smaller communities from

seeking certification. While CATA

highlights the fact that, even in these

circumstances, the mere potential of rate

regulation hinders small systems in

their attempts to obtain financing and

capital, thus increasing their cost of

doing business, we are equally

concerned that there are local

franchising authorities which desire to

regulate basic rates but which lack the

resources to do so in accordance with

our existing rules.

Based on these factors, these groups

have urged the Commission to adopt

different and less stringent rules for

small cable companies. In comments

and in a letter to Chairman Reed E.

Hundt, CATA proposes an alternative

rate regulation scheme that differs

significantly from the present method of

rate regulation which CATA, and other

commenters, claim is too complicated

and burdensome. CATA’s proposal is as