30064 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Notices

investigations, experiments, surveys,

studies, public-private partnerships, or

approaches to develop, evaluate, and

demonstrate non-regulatory strategies

and technologies.

II. Definitions of Environmental Justice

and Pollution Prevention

Environmental justice is defined by

EPA as the fair treatment of people of all

races, cultures, and incomes with

respect to the development,

implementation, and enforcement of

environmental laws, regulations,

programs, and policies. Fair treatment

means that no racial, ethnic or socioeconomic group should bear a

disproportionate share of the negative

environmental consequences resulting

from the operation of industrial,

municipal, and commercial enterprises

and from the execution of federal, state,

local, and tribal programs and policies.

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

establishes a hierarchy of environmental

management practices. In order of

preferences, these practices include:

• Pollution prevention

• Recycling

• Treatment

• Disposal

Pollution prevention means source

reduction; that is, any practice that

reduces or eliminates any pollutant at

the source prior to recycling, treatment,

or disposal. Pollution prevention also

includes practices that reduce or

eliminate the creation of pollutants

through:

Increased efficiency in the use of raw

materials, energy, water, or other

resources; and

Protection of natural resources by

conservation.

This grant program is focused on

using the top of the hierarchy--pollution

prevention--to bring about better

environmental protection.

III. Possible Approaches

Below are brief summaries of sample

projects which meet the definitions of

pollution prevention and environmental

justice. These may help guide

applicants as they develop their

proposals.

• Provide funding, assistance, or

technical support to organizations that

will assist minority and low-income

communities and Tribal organizations

in obtaining environmental information

or designing and implementing training

programs for such communities to

promote pollution prevention

initiatives.

• Provide funding, assistance, or

technical support to organizations that

will conduct demonstration programs in

concert with voluntary programs (e.g.,

the Green Lights program or the Waste

Wise program) which promote resource

efficiency, or EPA; industry sector

projects such as the Common Sense

Initiative.

• Provide funding, assistance, or

technical support to organizations that

will conduct research, demonstrations,

or public educational training activities

to institutionalize sustainable

agricultural practices including

integrated pest management techniques

to reduce use of pesticides.

• Provide funding, assistance, or

technical support to organizations that

will establish demonstration projects to

provide financial assistance through

establishment of revolving loan funds to

assist small businesses in obtaining

loans for pollution prevention-oriented

activities.

• Provide funding, assistance, or

technical support to organizations that

will be working with the business

community in a collaborative fashion to

address community environmental

justice issues.

IV. Eligibility

Eligible applicants include currently

incorporated organizations that are not

intended to be profit-making

organizations, including any Federallyrecognized Tribal organizations.

Organizations must be incorporated by

July 31, 1996, in order to receive funds.

Governments other than Tribal entities

are not eligible to receive funding under

this program. Private businesses and

individuals are not eligible.

Organizations excluded from applying

directly are encouraged to work with

eligible applicants in developing

proposals that will include them as

participants in the projects. For this

funding cycle, EPA especially

encourages organizations that are not

experienced in grant writing to seek out

partnerships with national or regionalbased organizations.

No applicant can have two grants for

the same project at one time. EPA will

consider only one proposal for a given

project. Applicants may submit more

than one application as long as the

applications are for separate and

distinct projects. However, no

organization will receive more than one

grant per year under the EJP2 grant

program. Organizations seeking funds

from the EJP2 grants can request up to

$250,000. EPA anticipates most grants

will be awarded in the $100,000 and

$200,000 range. All grants are subject to

a 5% matching requirement. All

grantees are required to contribute at

least 5% of the total project cost, either

through in-kind or monetary

contributions.

Dated: June 6, 1996.

William H. Sanders III,

Director, Office of Pollution, Prevention, and

Toxics.

[FR Doc. 96–15042 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[FRL–5519–5]

National Advisory Council for

Environmental Policy and Technology;

Reinvention Criteria Committee; Public

Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, PL 92–463, EPA gives

notice of a two-day meeting of the

National Advisory Council for

Environmental Policy and Technology

(NACEPT) Reinvention Criteria

Committee (RCC). NACEPT provides

advice and recommendations to the

Administrator of EPA on a broad range

of environmental policy issues. The

RCC has been asked to identify criteria

the Agency can use to measure the

progress and success of specific

reinvention projects and its overall

reinvention efforts; and to identify

criteria to promote opportunities for

self-certification, similar to the concept

used for pesticide registration. This

meeting is being held to provide the

EPA with perspectives from

representatives of state and local

government, academia, industry, and

NGOs.

DATES: The two-day public meeting will

be held on Wednesday, July 24, 1996,

from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on Thursday,

July 25, 1996 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Dupont Plaza Hotel, 1500 New

Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20036.

Materials, or written comments, may

be transmitted to the Committee through

Gwendolyn Whitt, Designated Federal

Official, NACEPT/RCC, U.S. EPA, Office

of Cooperative Environmental

Management (1601–F), 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gwendolyn Whitt, Designated Federal

Official for the Reinvention Criteria

Committee at 202–260–9484.

Dated: May 30, 1996.

Gwendolyn C.L. Whitt,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 96–15036 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Notices 30065

[FRL–5515–6]

Utah; Final Determination of Adequacy

of State/Tribal Municipal Solid Waste

Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (Region VIII).

ACTION: Notice of final determination of

full program adequacy for Utah’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

conditionally exempt small quantity

generator waste will comply with the

revised Federal MSWLF Criteria (40

CFR Part 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 for such

determinations. On January 26, 1996,

EPA proposed a State/Tribal

Implementation Rule (STIR) (40 CFR

Parts 239 and 258) 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

interaction between the State/Tribe and

the owner/operator regarding sitespecific permit conditions. Only those

owners/operators located in States/

Tribes with approved permit programs

can use the site-specific 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 Criteria will apply to all

permitted and unpermitted MSWLFs.

Utah applied for a determination of

adequacy under Section 4005 of RCRA.

EPA reviewed Utah’s application and

proposed a determination that Utah’s

MSWLF permit program is adequate to

ensure compliance with the revised

MSWLF Criteria. After review of all

comments received, EPA is today

issuing a final determination that Utah’s

program is adequate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The determination of

adequacy for Utah shall be effective May

29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Walters, Pollution Prevention

Program (8P2–P2), US EPA Region VIII,

999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,

Colorado 80202–2466, phone 303/312–

6385.

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 proposed a

State/Tribal Implementation Rule

(STIR)(40 CFR Parts 239 and 258,

January 26, 1996). 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

final promulgation of STIR. 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 in the proposed

State/Tribal Implementation Rule

(STIR). EPA expects States/Tribes to

meet all of these requirements for all

elements of an MSWLF program before

it gives full approval to an MSWLF

program.

On September 27, 1993, the EPA

Administrator signed the final rule

extending the effective date of the

landfill criteria for certain

classifications of landfills (proposed

rule 58 Federal Register 40568, July 28,

1993). Thus, for certain small landfills

that fit the small landfill exemption as

defined in 40 CFR Part 258.1(f), the

Federal Criteria were effective on

October 9, 1995, rather than on October

9, 1993. The final ruling on the effective

date extension was published in the

Federal Register October 1, 1993.

On August 10, 1995, the EPA

published a proposed rule to solicit

comments on a two-year delay, until

October 9, 1997, of the general

compliance date of the MSWLF criteria

for qualifying small MSWLFs. This will

allow EPA time to finalize the proposed

alternatives. The final ruling on the

delay of the compliance date was

published in the Federal Register on

October 6, 1995.

B. State of Utah

On July 20, 1993, Utah submitted an

application for adequacy determination

for the State’s MSWLF permit program.

On October 8, 1993, EPA published a

final determination of partial program

adequacy for Utah’s program. Further

background on the final determination

of partial program adequacy appears in

58 Federal Register 52489 (October 8,

1993). In that action, EPA approved all

portions of the State’s MSWLF permit

program except Utah’s regulations

incorporating the Federal financial

assurance requirements in 40 CFR Part

258, Subpart G.

On November 28, 1994, the State of

Utah submitted a revised application

package for full program adequacy. EPA

reviewed Utah’s application and

tentatively determined that the State’s

Subtitle D program will ensure

compliance with the Federal financial

assurance requirements in 40 CFR

258.70 through 258.74.

During its November 9, 1995 meeting,

the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste

Control Board adopted proposed

changes in the Utah Solid Waste

Permitting and Management Rules
30066 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Notices

R315–309, Financial Assurance, as

required by 40 CFR Part 258, Subpart G.

EPA has reviewed Utah’s application

and has determined that all portions of

the State’s MSWLF permit program will

ensure compliance with the revised

Federal Criteria. In its application, Utah

demonstrated that the State’s permit

program adequately meets the location

restrictions, operating criteria, design

criteria, groundwater monitoring and

corrective action requirements, closure

and post-closure care requirements, and

financial assurance criteria in the

revised Federal Criteria. In addition, the

State of Utah also demonstrated that its

MSWLF permit program contains

specific provisions for public

participation, compliance monitoring,

and enforcement.

C. Public Comment

The EPA received three public

comments on the tentative

determination of adequacy for Utah’s

MSWLF permit program.

The State of Utah, in two comments,

requested that EPA re-evaluate language

in the tentative determination regarding

jurisdiction over ‘‘Indian Country’’,

especially the use of the term ‘‘former

Indian reservation lands’’. The

commentors requested that EPA

approve the State’s MSWLF permit

program within the State of Utah except

for Indian lands. EPA has revised this

language in the section below entitled

‘‘Decision’’.

In its application for adequacy

determination, Utah has not asserted

jurisdiction over ‘‘Indian Country’’ as

defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1511. Until

EPA approves a State or Tribal MSWLF

permitting program, the requirements of

40 CFR Part 258 in Utah for any part of

‘‘Indian Country’’ will automatically

apply to that area. Thereafter, the

requirements of 40 CFR Part 258 will

apply to all owners/operators of

MSWLFs located in any part of ‘‘Indian

Country’’ that is not covered by an

approved State or Tribal MSWLF

permitting program. For further

information regarding this issue, see the

‘‘Decision’’ section.

One commentor maintained that use

of the proposed STIR as guidance is a

violation of the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA) requirements that

a rule must go through notice and

opportunity for comment. EPA does not

believe that it is violating requirements

of the APA. The Agency is not utilizing

the proposed STIR as a regulation which

binds either the Agency or the States/

Tribes. Instead, EPA is using the

proposed STIR as guidance for

evaluating State/Tribal permit programs

utilizing the proposed STIR and/or

other criteria which assure compliance

with 40 CFR Part 258.

In addition, members of the public

have an opportunity to comment on the

criteria by which EPA assures the

adequacy of State/Tribal MSWLF permit

programs because the Agency discusses

the criteria for approval of a permit

program when it publishes each

tentative determination notice in the

Federal Register. In the tentative

determination notice for the State of

Utah’s permit program, the Agency set

forth for public comment the

requirements for an adequate permit

program (58 FR 42965–42967, August

12, 1993).

D. Decision

After reviewing the public comments,

I conclude that Utah’s application for

adequacy determination meets all of the

statutory and regulatory requirements

established by RCRA. Accordingly, Utah

is granted a determination of adequacy

for all portions of its MSWLF permit

program.

This approval does not extend to

‘‘Indian Country’’, as defined in 18

U.S.C. Section 1511, including lands

within the exterior boundaries of the

following Indian reservations located

within or abutting the State of Utah:

1. Gosute Indian Reservation

2. Navajo Indian Reservation

3. Northwestern Band of the Shoshone

Nation of Utah (Washakie) Indian

Reservation

4. Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Indian

Reservation

5. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians

of Utah Indian Reservation

6. Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

7. Ute Mountain Indian Reservation

EPA is cognizant that the State of

Utah and the United States Government

differ as to the exact geographical extent

of Indian Country within the Uintah and

Ouray Indian Reservation and are

currently litigating this question in

Federal Court. Until that litigation is

completed and this question is resolved,

EPA will enter into discussions with the

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and

Ouray Indian Reservation and the State

of Utah to determine the best interim

approach to managing this program in

the disputed area. EPA will notify the

public of the outcome of these

discussions. In excluding Indian

Country from the scope of this approval,

EPA is not making a determination that

the State either has adequate

jurisdiction or lacks jurisdiction over

sources in Indian Country. Should the

State of Utah choose to seek program

approval within Indian Country, it may

do so without prejudice. Before EPA

would approve the State’s program for

any portion of Indian Country, EPA

would have to be satisfied that the State

has authority, either pursuant to explicit

Congressional authorization or

applicable principles of Federal Indian

law, to enforce its laws against existing

and potential pollution sources within

any geographical area for which it seeks

program approval and that such

approval would constitute sound

administrative practice.

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 Federal

Criteria. See 56 Federal Register 50978,

50995 (October 9, 1991).

This action takes effect on May 29,

1996. 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/Tribe’s program are already in

effect as a matter of State/Tribal law.

EPA’s action today does not impose any

new requirements with which the

regulated community must begin to

comply. 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

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this notice 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. 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 Sections 2002, 4005 and 4010 of

the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended; 42

U.S.C. 6912, 6945, 6949(a).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Notices 30067

Dated: May 16, 1996.

Max Dodson,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–15031 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5520–8]

Settlement Under Section 122(h) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act; In the Matter of Waukegan Paint

and Lacquer Company, Inc.,

Waukegan, IL

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Settlement of CERCLA Section

107 Cost Recovery Matter.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to settle a

cost recovery claim with certain

potentially responsible parties (PRPs)

with regard to past costs at the

Waukegan Paint and Lacquer Company,

Inc. Site in Waukegan, Illinois. EPA is

authorized under Section 122(h) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’) to

enter into this administrative

settlement.

Response costs totalling $165,118

were incurred by EPA in connection

with an emergency removal action at the

Waukegan Paint and Lacquer Site. On

February 23, 1995, U.S. EPA sent the

PRPs a demand for reimbursement of

the Agency’s past costs. The Settling

Parties have agreed to pay $94,000 to

settle EPA’s claim for reimbursement of

response costs related to the Site. EPA

is proposing to approve this

administrative settlement because it

reimburses EPA, in part, for costs

incurred during its response activities at

this Site.

DATES: Comments on this administrative

settlement must be received by no later

than July 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments relating

to this settlement, Docket Number V–

W–96–C–325, should be sent to Cynthia

N. Kawakami, Associate Regional

Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Mail Code: CM–29A,

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604–3590.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Copies of the

Agreement and the Administrative

Record for this Site are available at the

following address for review. It is

strongly recommended that you

telephone Ms. Mila Bensing at (312)

353–2006 before visiting the Region 5

Office. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Superfund Division,

Emergency Response Branch, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604–3590.

Authority: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

9601 et seq.

William E. Muno,

Director, Superfund Division.

[FR Doc. 96–15037 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collections being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission;

Comments Requested

June 3, 1996.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications,

as part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burden invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on the

following proposed and/or continuing

information collections, as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. An agency may not

conduct or sponsor a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid control number. No

person shall be subject to any penalty

for failing to comply with a collection

of information subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA) that does not

display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commissions

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before August 12, 1996.

If you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESS: Direct all comments to

Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications, Room 234, 1919 M

St., NW., Washington, DC 20554 or via

internet to dconway@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collections contact Dorothy

Conway at 202–418–0217 or via internet

at dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0398.

Title: Equipment Authorization

Measurement Standards; Sections 2.948,

15.117(G)(2).

Form No.: None.

Type of Review: Revision of existing

collection.

Respondents: Businesses/For Profit

Institutions.

Number of Respondents: 320.

Estimated Time Per Response:

28.4375

Total Annual Burden: 9,100 hours

Needs and Uses: The information

gathered is used by the Commission to

ensure that data accompanying all

requests for equipment authorization are

valid, and that proper testing

procedures are used. Testing ensures

that potential interference to radio

communications is controlled, and if

necessary, the data gathered may be

used for investigating complaints of

harmful interference, or for verifying the

manufacturer’s compliance with the

Commission’s Rules. This revision

eliminates the necessity for

manufacturer’s to file UHF noise figure

data documenting the performance of

TV receivers tested and marketed in the

U.S. The requirement was eliminated

from the rules by the adoption of the

Report and Order in ET Docket No. 95–

144.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–14959 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

Renewal Application Designated for

Hearing

1. The Assistant Chief, Audio Services

Division, has before him the following

application for renewal of broadcast

license: