Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 2449

reasonable possibility that available

evidence identified by the requestor

would, if established, resolve one or

more of such issues in favor of the

requestor; and (3) Resolution of one or

more of the factual issues in the manner

sought by the person requesting the

hearing would be adequate to justify the

action requested.

Any person wishing to comment on

any objections or requests for a hearing

may submit such comments to the

Hearing Clerk on or before March 11,

1996.

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [OPP300394A] (including objections and

hearing requests submitted

electronically as described below). A

public version of this record, including

printed, paper versions of electronic

comments, which does not include any

information claimed as CBI, is available

for inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The public record is located in

Room 1132 of the Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Written objections and hearing

requests, identified by the document

control number [OPP-300394A], may be

submitted to the Hearing Clerk (1900),

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460.

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk can be sent directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk must be submitted as an ASCII file

avoiding the use of special characters

and any form of encryption.

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, as described above will be kept

in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will

transfer any objections and hearing

requests received electronically into

printed, paper form as they are received

and will place the paper copies in the

official rulemaking record which will

also include all objections and hearing

requests submitted directly in writing.

The official rulemaking record is the

paper record maintained at the address

in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of

this document.

B. Effective Date

EPA is making this final rule effective

January 26, 1996 given the lack of

adverse comments on EPA’s proposed

action. In addition, if EPA does not

receive objections to this Order, this

Order and the factual and legal basis for

this Order become final and are not

judicially reviewable. See section

409(g)(1), 21 U.S.C. 348(g)(1), and Nader

v. EPA: 859 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1988),

cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1931 (1989).

C. Request for Stays of Effective Date

A person filing objections to this final

rule may submit with the objections a

petition to stay the effective date of this

final rule. Such stay petitions must be

submitted to the Hearing Clerk on or

before February 26, 1996. A copy of the

stay request filed with the Hearing Clerk

shall be submitted to the Office of

Pesticide Programs Docket Room. A stay

may be requested for a specific time

period or for an indefinite time period.

The stay petition must include a citation

to this final rule, the length of time for

which the stay is requested, and a full

statement of the factual and legal

grounds upon which the petitioner

relies for the stay. In determining

whether to grant a stay, EPA will

consider the criteria set out in the Food

and Drug Administration’s regulations

regarding stays of administrative

proceedings at 21 CFR 10.35. Under

those rules, a stay will be granted if it

is determined that: (1) The petitioner

will otherwise suffer irreparable injury;

(2) The petitioner’s case is not frivolous

and is being pursued in good faith; (3)

The petitioner has demonstrated sound

public policy grounds supporting the

stay; and (4) The delay resulting from

the stay is not outweighed by public

health or other public interests.

Under FDA’s criteria, EPA may also

grant a stay if EPA finds such action is

in the public interest and in the interest

of justice.

Any person wishing to comment on

any stay request may submit such

comments and objections to a stay

request, to the Hearing Clerk, on or

before March 11, 1996. Any subsequent

decisions to stay the effect of this Order,

based on a stay request filed, will be

published in the Federal Register, along

with EPA’s response to comments on

the stay request.

V. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, the

Agency must determine whether the

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and

therefore subject to review by the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) and

the requirements of the Executive Order.

Under the order, a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ is an action that is

likely to result in a rule (1) having an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or adversely and

materially affecting a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, and the environment, public health

or safety, of State, local, or tribal

governments or communities’’; (2)

creating serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfering with an action

taken or planned by another agency; (3)

materially altering the budgetary

impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)

raising novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order. EPA

has determined that this final rule is not

a ‘‘significant’’ action under E.O. 12866.

EPA is taking this action because it has

determined that the food additive

regulation for trifluralin is not needed.

Therefore, the Agency expects that no

economic impact will result.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The regulatory action has been

reviewed under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, and, as stated

above, EPA expects that it will not have

any economic impacts, including

impacts on small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This Order does not contain any

information collection requirements

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 185

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedures,

Agricultural commodities, Food

additives, Pesticides and pests,

Reporting and recordkeeping.

Dated: January 19, 1996.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 185 is

amended as follows:

PART 185—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 185

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 348.

§ 185.5900 [Removed]

2. By removing § 185.5900 Trifluralin.

[FR Doc. 96–1402 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F
2450 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–5402–4]

New Mexico: Final Authorization of

State Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Review of Immediate Final

Rule; Response to Public Comments.

SUMMARY: This notice responds to

comments received on the immediate

final rule published on October 17, 1995

(60 FR 53708), and affirms the agency’s

decision to authorize the State of New

Mexico’s revised program pursuant to

40 CFR 271.21(b)(3).

DATES: Final authorization for New

Mexico’s program revisions shall be

effective January 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alima Patterson, Region 6 Authorization

Coordinator, Grants and Authorization

Section, (6PD–G), U.S. EPA Region 6,

First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain

Place, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas

75202, phone (214) 665–8533.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 17, 1995, EPA published an

immediate final rule pursuant to 40 CFR

271.21(b)(3) which announced the

agency’s decision to authorize New

Mexico’s revisions to it’s hazardous

waste program. Comments were

received during the public comment

period from one responder. After

considering the comments received, the

Regional Administrator has decided to

affirm her decision to authorize the

State of New Mexico for the program

revisions. The significant issues raised

by the commentor and EPA’s responses

are summarized below. The comments

have been summarized, to the extent

possible, according to common areas for

ease of response. All comments have

been carefully considered in reaching

the decision to approve the State’s

program revision.

Comment: The EPA has not provided

detailed or specific information

regarding how the Regional

Administrator arrived at her

determination that New Mexico’s

hazardous waste program is (1)

equivalent to the Federal program (2) is

consistent with the Federal program,

and (3) provides for adequate

enforcement of compliance with the

requirements of RCRA.

Response: The EPA appreciates these

comments and certainly has taken these

factors into consideration in reaching a

decision. The primary standard against

which EPA measures the New Mexico

Program revision are those set out in

Section 3006(b) of RCRA; namely (1) the

State program is equivalent to the

federal program, (2) the State program is

consistent with the Federal or state

programs applicable in other states, and

(3) the State provides adequate

enforcement of compliance with

program requirements.

1. Equivalent Program

The State demonstrated equivalency

through it’s legal authorities in their

statutes and regulations. The EPA also

reviewed the State’s Attorney General

Statement, Memorandum of Agreement,

Program Description and other

documents included in the State’s

application. The State’s regulatory

authority for the Hazardous and Solid

Waste amendments of 1984 (HSWA) is

identical to the federal authority. The

State adopts EPA hazardous waste

regulations by reference. Therefore, the

State will enforce equivalent standards

for HSWA provisions within the State.

2. Consistent Program

The EPA implemented the

requirement to be consistent with the

federal program at 40 CFR 271.4. This

regulation defines an inconsistent State

program as: (1) Any aspect of the State

program which unreasonably restricts,

impedes, or operates as a ban on the free

movement across the State border of

hazardous waste from or to other States

for treatment, storage, or disposal at

facilities authorized to operate under

the Federal or an approved State

program shall be deemed inconsistent.

(2) Any aspect of State law or of the

State program which has no basis in

human health or environmental

protection and which acts as a

prohibition on the treatment, storage or

disposal or hazardous waste in the State

may be deemed inconsistent. (3) If the

State manifest system does not meet the

requirements of this part, the State

program shall be deemed inconsistent.

After review of the State’s program

revision application and 40 CFR part

271.4, EPA determined that the State

complies with the consistency

requirement.

3. Adequate Enforcement

The EPA has thoroughly and carefully

evaluated the State’s hazardous waste

management program and is confident

that the State does, in fact, have the

resources to administer the HSWA

program. The State maintains a

competent permitting staff who are

already actively involved in HSWA

permitting.

The EPA and the State are committed

to carrying out a quality Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

program in New Mexico. EPA does not

require a State to have a specific amount

of resources in order to be authorized.

A State, though, must have sufficient

resources to carry out it’s

responsibilities. EPA is concerned that

New Mexico, and all States, have the

resources and capabilities to implement

the program.

Based on a review of the State’s

application for program revisions of its

hazardous waste program, EPA

determined that the State operates a

RCRA enforcement program which

satisfactorily meets the requirements for

compliance evaluation and enforcement

authority of 40 CFR 271.15 and 271.16.

The State’s compliance and

monitoring enforcement strategy

contains enforcement timeframes which

are at least equivalent to EPA’s

enforcement timeframes. EPA has

evaluated the State’s performance with

respect to meeting those enforcement

timeframes and has found that the State

performance has been satisfactory. The

EPA, through oversight responsibility,

must monitor the State’s enforcement

program. The Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA), Program Description

(PD), and the RCRA section 3011

Multiyear grant entered into by the State

and EPA, establish the procedures for

oversight and the terms of the State’s

accountability for compliance

monitoring and enforcement. These

agreements enable EPA to track the

State’s enforcement process and

determine if the State is meeting

specific commitments which it agreed to

accomplish.

The RCRA section 3011 Multiyear

grant awarded to the State will function

like a contract between the State and

EPA. The EPA agrees to pay the State if

the State performs certain program

activities. If, through EPA’s oversight

and grant review, it determines that the

State is not meeting its commitments,

limited funding and authorization may

be withdrawn. Although, the State has

primary enforcement responsibility,

EPA retains the right to conduct

inspections under section 3007 of RCRA

and to take enforcement actions under

sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA.

The EPA believes that the State has

demonstrated in its application that it

will have adequate funds and staffing. It

is EPA’s responsibility in the exercise of

its oversight role, to insure after the

State is authorized, that it maintains

adequate funding and staff to operate

the program according to the

commitments set out in the application.

The EPA has conducted extensive

training for the staff of the State on the

corrective action program.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 2451

Also, the commentor expressed a

concern regarding the Federal Register

notice not listing detailed or specific

information on how the Administrator

reached a decision. There is no

requirement to provide in the public

notice detailed or specific information

regarding how the Regional

Administrator reached her decision. As

required by 40 CFR Part 271.21(b), the

Federal Register notice did include a

summary of New Mexico’s program

revisions and indicated that EPA

intended to approve the State’s program

revision (See 60 FR 53708 and 53709).

The notice also provided that ‘‘Copies of

the New Mexico program revision

application and the materials which

EPA used in evaluating the revision are

available for inspection and copying

from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday at the New Mexico

Environment Department and EPA’’

(See 60 FR 53709).

Comment: The Work Share

Agreement between EPA and the State

materially impacts the State’s ability to

meet the statutory requirements

necessary to qualify for authorization.

Response: In the spirit of

authorization, the State and EPA have

agreed to a Work Share Plan to enhance

the State’s hazardous waste program to

ensure that it will be consistent with,

equivalent to, and as stringent as the

federal requirements. The EPA

headquarters encourages the use of

Work Share Plan to assist the States.

The Work Share Plan is a agreement

between EPA Region 6 and the State

providing for EPA to give technical

assistance to the New Mexico

Environment Department’s (NMED)

hazardous waste management program

revision in the review of certain

corrective action documents. The Work

Share Plan specifically acknowledges

that the State is the regulatory authority

for the correction action program and

EPA will not be making final

determinations, thus there is no sharing

of regulatory responsibilities in the

authorized program. There should be no

ambiguity in how EPA and the State

function as regulators because the State

will make all regulator determinations

for those areas that they are authorized

for. The continued involvement of EPA

at selected facilities should ensure

consistency between the State and EPA

programs.

Decision

The EPA has reevaluated its decision

to approve this final authorization for

the State’s hazardous waste program

and all documentation, including the

authorization application and several

EPA mid-year and end of year

evaluation reports on New Mexico.

Additionally, EPA also considered the

New Mexico HSWA capability

assessment. The EPA hereby affirms its

decision to approve this final

authorization.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 3 of Executive

Order 12866.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 4 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this

authorization will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This

authorization effectively suspends the

applicability of certain Federal

regulations in favor of New Mexico’s

program, thereby eliminating

duplicative requirements for handlers of

hazardous waste in the State. This

authorization 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 271

Administrative practice and

procedure, Confidential business

information, Hazardous materials

transportation, Hazardous waste, Indian

lands, Intergovernmental relations,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control,

Water supply.

Authority: This Final Determination is

issued under the authority of sections

2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste

Disposal Act amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a),

6926, 6974(b).

Dated: December 14, 1995.

Linda Carroll,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–1208 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5403–5]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Contingency Plan;

National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Deletion of the

Anderson Development Company

Superfund Site from the National

Priorities List (NPL).

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of

the Anderson Development Company

site in Michigan from the National

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is

Appendix B of the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.

EPA and the State of Michigan have

determined that all appropriate Fundfinanced responses under CERCLA have

been implemented and that no further

response by responsible parties is

appropriate. Moreover, EPA and the

State of Michigan have determined that

remedial actions conducted at the site to

date remain protective of public health,

welfare, and the environment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita

Garner-Davis at (312) 886–2440,

Associate Remedial Project Manager,

Office of Superfund, U.S. EPA—Region

V, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL

60604. Information on the site is

available at the local information

repository located at: Adrian Public

Library, 143 East Maumee, Adrian

Michigan 49221, Contact: Jule

Foebender, Phone No. (517) 263–2265;

and Adrian City Hall, 100 East Church

Street, Adrian, MI. Requests for

comprehensive copies of documents

should be directed formally to the

Regional Docket Office. The point of

contact for the Regional Docket Office is

Jan Pfundheller (H–7J), U.S. EPA,

Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

IL 60604, (312) 353–5821.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to

be deleted from the NPL is the

Anderson Development Company Site

located in Adrian, Michigan. A Notice

of Intent to Delete was published

August 30, 1995 (60 FR 13944) for this

site. The closing date for comments on

the Notice of Intent to Delete was

September 29, 1995. EPA received no

comments and therefore a

Responsiveness Summary was not

prepared.

The EPA identifies sites which appear

to present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

it maintains the NPL as the list of those

sites. Sites on the NPL may be the

subject of Hazardous Substance

Response Trust Fund (Fund-) financed

remedial actions. Any site deleted from

the NPL remains eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions in the

unlikely event that conditions at the site

warrant such action. Section

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that

Fund-financed actions may be taken at

sites deleted from the NPL in the