ENVlRONMEIfTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 124-and 270
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237. / Monday, December 11, 1995 /Rules and Regulations 63417
Instrument Approach Procedures
(TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the
TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the
affected airports-
The FAA has determined through
testing that current non-localizer type,
non-precision instrument approaches
developed using the TERPS criteria ran
be flown by aircraft equipped with
Global Positioning System (GPS) .
equipment In consideration of die
above, the applicable Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures
(SIAPs) will be altered to include "or
GPS" in the title without otherwise
reviewing or modifying the procedure.
(Once a stand alone GPS procedure is
developed, the procedure title will.be '
altered to remove, "or GPS" from these
non-localizer, non-precision instrument
approach procedure titles.) Because of
the close and immediate relationship
between these SIAPs and safety in air
commerce, I find that notice and public
procedure before adopting these SIAPs
are impracticable and contrary to the'
public interest and, where applicable, .
that good cause exists for making some
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. .
The FAA has determined that this .
regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which
frequent and ronti
necessary to keep them operationally
current. It, therefore(1) is net a
"significant regulatory action" under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
"signiftnflTit nila" imHpr lYIT . '''':._
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR11034; February 26,1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a,
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. For the same
reason, the FAA certifies that this
amendment will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
lost of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97
Aii Traffic Control, Airports, .
Navigation (Air).
Issued in Washington, DC on December \,
"1995. '
Thomas C. Accardi, > ..
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority delegated to me, part 97 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
part 97) is amended by establishing,
amending, suspending,- or revoking
Standard Instrument Approach .
Procedures, effective at 0901DTC on
the dates specified, as follows:
PART 97-^STANDARDINSTRUMENT
APPROACH PROCEDURES
. 1. The authority citation for part 97 is
revised to read as follows: :'.
. Authority: 49 U.S.C 106(g), 40103,40113,
40120,44701; and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
2. Part 97 is amended to read as
follows:
§§97.23,97.27,97.33,97.35 [Amended!]
By amending: §97.23 VOR, VOR/
DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME
.or TACAN; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME-,
§97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and §.97.35
COPTER SIAPs, identified as follows:
"'Effective JAN 04,1996
Madera, CA Madera Muni, VOR or GPS RWY
. 30, Amdt 9 CANCELLED"
Madera, CA Madera Muni, VOR RWY 30,
Amdt 9
Webster City, IA, WebsterCity Muni, NDB or
GPSRWY32;Amdt7.CANCELLED .
Webster City, IA; Webster City Muni, NDB
RWY 32, Amdt 8 ;
Augusta, KS, Augusta Muni, VOR/DME
. RNAV or GPS RWY 36, Orig-A
CANGEtLED! ',"
Augusta, KS, Augusta Muni, VOR/DME
RNAV RWY 36, Orig-A
Olathe, KS, Johnson County Executive, VOR
" or GPS RWY 35, Amdt 1O CANCELLED
Olathe, KS, Johnson County Executive, VOR
RWY 35,* Amdt 10 '.
Eastport, ME, Eastport Muni, NDB or GPS
RWYl5,OrigCANCELLED .
Eastport, ME, Eastport Muni, NDB RWY 15, -
Orig. ' . . " ' ' . -
Hamsonville, MO, Lawrence Smith ' .
' Memorial, VOR/DMEorGPS RWY 35, Orig
CANCELLED-. ' ' "-.-
" Harrisonville, MO, Lawrence Smith :-
Memorial, VOR/DME RWY 35, Orig
Omaha, NE, Millard, VOR/DME RNAVor
< GPS RWY 12,: Amdt 6 CANCELLED .
Omaha, NE, Miflard, VOR/DME RNAV-RWY
12,Amdt6 ' ..." '
Sidney, NE, Sidney Muni, VOR/DME OR.
TACAN or GPS RWY:30 Amdt 4
CANCELLED
Sidney, NE, Sidney Muni, VOR/DME OR
TACAN RWY 30 Amdt 4
Clinton, OK, Clinton-Sherman, NDB or GPS
RWY 17R, Amdt 10 CANCELLED
Clinton, OK, Clinton-Sherman, NDB KWY
ITR.AmdtlO ,
Pauls Valley, OK, Pauls Valley Muni, NDB or
GPS RWY 35, Amdt ^CANCELLED
Pauls Valley, OK, Pauls VaUey Muni, NDB
RWY;35, Amdt 3
Gainesville, TX, Gainesville Muni, NDB or
GPS RWY 17, Amdt 8 CANCELLED
Gainesville, TX, Gamesville'Muni, NDB RWY
' 17,Amdt8 .
IFR Doc. 95-30098 Filed 12-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 431O-33-M -
RCRA Expanded Public Participation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.- ' . .
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA] is issuing new regulations
under the Resource Conservation and .
Recovery Act (RCRA.). The new -. - .
regulations will improve the process for
permitting fatalities that store, treat, or :
dispose of nasardous wastes by
providing earlier opportunities for
. public involvement in the process and ~
expanding public access to information
throughout the permitting process and
the operational lives of facilities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Supporting materials are
available for \iewing in the RCRA ,
Information Center (RIC) located at 1235
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington VA.
The Docket Identification Number-is F-
gs-PPGF-FFITF (tiie docket number for
the proposed rule is F-94-PPCP-
FFFFF). The 1{IC is open from 9 aon. to
4 pjn.,Mondiy through Friday, .
excluding federal holidays. To review.
docket materials, the public must make
an appointment by oatti-ng (703) 603
9230. The puldic may copy a maximum
of 100 pages from .any regulatory docket
at no charge.' Additional copies cost
$.15/page. The index and some
supporting nuiterials are available .
electronically. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for information on
accessing them. ' "
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For;
general information, contact the RCRA .
Hotfine at l-iOO-42^-9346 or;TDD 1-
800-553-7672. (hearing impaired). In .
.the Washington metropolitan area, call
7O3-T412-9810 orTDD 703-412-3323.
. For more detailed information on -
specific aspects of this rulemaking, .
contact Patricia BuzzeH, Office of Solid
Waste (5303W), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 4QTM Street SW.,
.Washington, IDC 20460, (703) 308^6632,
email address '-.-'
bu2zell.triciaSJtepamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
internet Access -
An abstract and fact sheet on this rule'
are available on the Internet. Follow .
these instructions to access the
information electronically:
. Gopher, gopher.epa.gov ..''.
WWW: http://www.epa.gov '
-------
- f
- -'-v^
63418 Federal'Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 /.Monday, December 11, 1995 / Rules rand'Regulations
Dial-up: (919) 558-k)335. .''.'". ./'
From the main EPA Gopher menu, -
select: EPA Offices and Regions/Office .
of Solid Waste" and'Emergency- Response
(OSWER)/Office,ofSolid Waste (RCRA)/
Hazardous Waste/Permits and .
Permitting. ' " ' ' . ' " "
FTP: ftp.epa.gov .
Login: anonymous
Password: Yourjntemet address
Files are located in /pub/gopher?
OSWRGRA" . - -..
, Preamble Outline : , '
L Statutory Authority ' ..
EL Background . , ' , .,
A." Overview of the RCRA Permitting
.
B. Shortcomings of me Current Program
C. How TodayVRule will Improve the
"Program
D. The-Rulo: From Proposal to Final
EL Applicability of Today's Rule
IV. Review of Public. Comments, Responses,
and Changes &om the Proposed Rule
A. Equitable Puoh'c Participation and
" E^xvironmcn^sTJustice *
B. Pre-ApplicaHdn Meeting and Notice
C, Notice at Application .Submittal
,"D\ Information. Repository
E, Trial Bum Notices
V. State Authority.';
A. ApplicabOitypf Today's Rule in
Authorized States ,
B. Schedules and Requirements for
Authorization
VI Permits Improvement Team
VIL Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Order"12866 ,
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
. CPaperworiReduction Act
D..tJnfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental.
Partnership
I. Statutory Authority .
. "' EPA'is issuing these regulations under
the authority of sections 2002. 3004.
3005 and7004(b) of the Solid Waste
DisposaljAct, as" amended hy the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), as amended by the
Hazardous and'Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
IL Background
A. Overview of the RCRA Permitting
Program
In RCRA, Congress gave EPA the
authority to write regulations, or
"rules," to govern, among other things,
the permitting of hazardous waste
management facilities. EPA is issuing
today's regulations to "enhance public
participation in the hazardous waste
facility permitting process:'
Under RCRA, EPA is -responsible for
regulating the "cradle to grave"
management of hazardous wastes. .
Hazardous wastes come'in many shapes
and forms. They may be liquids, solids,
orsludges.'/They may bethe by-products
of manufecturing-processes^or simply...;.
commercial productssuch as
household cleaning fluids or battery :
addthat have been 'discarded, EPA
determines if wastes are hazardous by
judging, among other things, 'the . ' .
characteristics of the wastes and their
. potential to cause harm to human health
and the environment when not properly
managed. RCRA regulations identify
hazardous wastes based on'their .
characteristics and also proyide.a list of
specific hazardous .wastes (refer to 40
CTR26ifbrm'oreinfonnatiOh):T6 .';
manage'hazardous waste in an
environmentally sound manner, .
companies often need to store it, treat it
(for instance, by burning it or mixing it
with sta>ri1i9nTignT>pTrrira1g)J'flT)<3/nT ,
dispose of itinto specially built "" : '
landfills. In most cases, a business'that
stores, treats? or disposes'of'hazardous"
waste, needs a permit under RCRA. . ,
Section 3004 of RCRA requires';:'.. :'.'
owners and operators, of facilities that
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
wastes to comply with standards that
are "necessary to protect human health
and the envnx>nmeht"EPA or EP.A-
authorized States .implement these
standards"by issuing RCRA.pemiits to -
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous, wastes. In some -..'.' ,
rirmTngtanrpgj g-jfigiiTig facilities may
continue to operate without a full RCRA
permit under the "interiih status.".'.
provision of RCRA §3005(e). MRCRA,
Congress gave EPA broad authority to.
provide for public participation, in the
RCRA permitting process-Section .. ,
7004(b)ofRCRAre
CrHow'Today's Rule.Will-Improvethe.
Program- .'. ;-' . .' >. .j .". '.:.
Today's final rule wUI require a- ':
pr6sjpectiveapplicanttbhold.ari '"
informal public; meeting before ;_' .
subnntting an application" for a RCRA
permit: Also, the regulations will '
. require the applicant to advertise the
meeting in the.newspaper, through a . '
broadcast announcement (e.g.rby radio
or television),.and on a, sign posted at or
near the property. This meeting will'.
provide a chance for the community to
interact with and provide input to-a'-.. ."
facility owrier.or operator;before the
owner or operator submits a permit,
application. The rule also directs the
permitting -agencyto-mail-a notice to
interested people when the facility :..
submits-its application. The notice will
tell members of the public where they
can-examine, the application at the same
time thatthe agency reviews, it. " -..-, ;
- In some cases, RCRA. permits can be
the subject.of intense debate. When ,
permits raise a lot of public interest, the
public's demand for information
increases. Today's rule will give the
.permitting agency the authority to'. .
require a facility owner or operator to
set up an information repository at any
time during the permitting process or .
the permit Me. We anticipate that
agencies will use this authority only in .
those permitting cases that raise a lot of
public interest, or in other cases where
the public needs more access to
information. The repository will hold all
. information and documents that the
permitting agency decides are necessary
to fulfill tite purposes for which .ithe
repository was established. Finally,
today's rule will require combustion
facilities (i.e., incinerators and other
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No^237. / Monday, .-December 11. 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63419
facilities that burn hazardous wastes) to
notify thp public before they hold a trial
bum.1 , . / \
EPA anticipates that these regulations
will provide an opportunity fbrthe
. public to participate earlier in the - -
permitting process, in addition, the rule
will give the public increased access to
facility and permitting information. '
Finally, we hope that the rule will help
people become involved in the
permitting process and increase
understanding of hazardous waste :
management facilities. . .
.D. The BnleiFrom Proposal to FinaT.' ".'
EPA proposed theRCRA Expanded
PublicParticipation and Revisions to
-Combustion Permitting Procedures rule
on June 2,1994 (59.FR 28680-28711).
.The proposed rule contained changes
and additions to the RCRA public
participation regulations (40'CFR124) '
and RCRA Subtitle C permitting. -
regulations (40 CFR 270). -
" Today, EPA is finalizing the public
participation portion of the proposal
(with a-number of changes in response
to comments received by the Agency
during the comment .period for the
proposed rulesee Section IV below),
which includes changes to both Parts
124 and 270. The Agency is not
finalizing the proposed revisions to
combustion permitting procedures at
this time.
EPA decided to separate the two
' portions for a number of reasons. First,
the public comments on the proposed
. rule were more favorable towardsthe
public participation changes. On the '
otherTiand, the commenters were less
satisfied with the proposed combustion
permitting changes, particularly those
changes regarding the trial bum. The
Agency is currently considering and "
' addressing the commenters' concerns .on.'
the proposed,combustion permitting'
changes. la the meantime, EPA sees no
reason to delay the'important changes to '
the public participation provisions..
. Moreover, EPA is committed to
issuing comprehensive emissions . . '
standards for combustion facilities
under RCRA and the Clean Air Act The
Agency anticipates issuing a proposed
v rule on these standards in the iMI of
1995. Due to potential overlap between
the procedures in the emissions ' ."
standards proposed rule and the
combustion-permitting,procedures in
the June 2,1994 pioppsed..rule,.EaPA has
nt*f**naA +f*. +*ifc"»iv'»».»«« -t-f-m,r "'y-'- ^ j
1 The-owner or operator of a combustion unit
must conduct a trial bum as part of the permitting
process for a combustion unit The trial burn, is a '
demonstration period held by the^uwner or operator
of a combustion unit-to test the unifs ability to
the permitting provisions in the June2
proposal We intend to find the best
possible solution to coordinate these
two rulemakings;
Finally, EPA realized that the '"
proposed rule may have caused some
. confusion. A few commenters pointed
to the different character of the .public. .
. participation changes, and the ' '
combustion permitting changes.' The
' commenters expressed concern, over
combining these two dissimilar portions
in the. same rule. Moreover,-a.huiiaber of
commenters seemed to be. confused over
theapplicabili^r6ftherule..In '.'
. particular, since the .combustion
permitting provisions would apply only-
to combustion facilities, and the ,;
proposed rule was an outgrowth of the
Combustion Strategy, a number of'
connnenters seemed confused over the
applicability of the public participation
procedures to all RCRA TSDFs.
«*«**». uu? *^£u4auMJr £JmUUU£UlU3 XTHntTMl-f^g JOi
treatment of hazardous Wastes.' The permitting
agency uses the results of the trial burn to establish
operating conditions in the RCRA .permit.
m. Applicability of Today's Rule -."
Today's rule promulgates changes and
. additions to Parts 124 and 270 in the *
Code of Federal Regulation^ (CFR). The.
Part 124. changes, which include new ,
and earlier public involvement steps
and procedures/apply to every facility
that has or is seeking a RCRA. subtitle C
permit to treat,; store, or dispose of
hazardous waste, unless exempted:
under a specific section. The changes to
Part 270; in §$270.2,270.14, and ,
270.30, also apply to every facility. The
changes to §§270.62 and 270.66,
however, apply only to combustion
facilities.
The lute does not'requiie RGRA
facilities that are already involved in the
permitting process to step back in fie
process to comply with the new
requirements.-Instead, the rule 'wijl .
apply to a facility according tpwhjit
stage of the process the' facility is in
when the rule becomes .effective.' For
instance; if a facility' has submitted its
. part B permit application before the
effective date of this rule', then the :rule-
does not require the facility to hbldt a
pre-applicatibn meeting under § 124.31.
Thisfaciliry would, however, have to
comply with all requirements relating to
.steps in the permitting process thafrit "
has notyet undertaken: : '.
IV. Review of Public Comments,
Responses, and Changes From the '
Proposeid Rule ' '.
The following (IV. A through E)is a
section-by-section summary of the most
significant comments on the proposed
rule, EPA's responses to those .
comments,and. an.explanation of any
changes from the proposed rule to the
; finaL.AUofthepi^h'coominentsand
EPArs comprehensive response to
comments document on this rulemaking
are available through the RCRA Docket
(see theparagraph entitled ADDRESSES,
above);
The most significant changes in the
final rule involve our decision to use
guidance, iinstead of rule language, to
encourage facilities to strive toward
some of the important goals in the;
proposed rule. EPA recognized in the
proposal ttiat some of the proposed
regulatory provisions were very general
and requested comment on how they .
could be eifectively implemented (see, .
e.g., 59 FR 28702). m response,
commenteis argued that several portions
of the proposed regufatory language
were vague and. would spawn disputes,
- controversy, and litigation. The
commenters suggested that EPA relocate
some of the proposed regulatory text to
EPA found these comments
persuasive :in. certain instances. The
development of today's" rule has, from
the start, involved a balance between
promoting broader, more equitable
public participation while maintaining
the flexibility for individual.pennit -.
.writers, facilities, and communities to
adopt the most appropriate, site-specific
approach consistent with the principles '
of fairness and- openness. -Some of-the
principles underlying the proposed and
final rules are inherently, difficult to
prescribe through regulation. For .:
example, it its possible to require an
applicant to hold a meeting; it is much
more difficult to require through
regulation that the meeting be .
conducted ia an equitable fashion, since
the steps recpiired to. accomplish this
objective will necessarily, vary from
situation to inruation. Although the final
rule retains most of the proposed
regulatory changes, EPA concluded that,
in certain instances, the need to
maintain flexibility is inconsistent with
a national regulatory, approach. In these
instances, as explained more fully in the
sections below, EPA has decided to
proceed by uising- guidance, rather than
regulations,- to encourage facilities to
adopt and strive towards a number of
the goals in the proposed rule. The
Agency will-provide some guidance in
today's preamble; however, we also :
anticipate releasing a guidance
document, in the near future, to help
permitting agencies and facilities to.
implement today's rule. . ..-..- ."
The Agency believes that facility '
owners, State.environmental agenciesi
tribes, and private citizens are often in.
the best-position to determine what.
modes of communication and
-------
63420 "Federal Register /Vol. 60, ..No,. 237 V-Monday,. December 11, 1995-/ Rules and Regulations'
participation will work best in ihelr
communities. The final rule provides
the flexibility necessary to find the best
local solutions to ensure.equal V '
opportimities for aU members of the '
community. . '
A. Equitable Public Participation and .
Environmental Justice-. '.-' :.-, .
Proposed § 124.30 and Preamble. In
section 12&30 of the proposed rule;
entitled"EquitablePublic. "...
Participation;" EPA proposed to'require
facilities and permitting agencies to '
"make all reasonable efibrts" to ensure .:
equal opportunity for the publicib
participate in the permitting process. .
The proposed rule language 'defined
"reasonable efforts" as including the use
of multilingual feet sheets_and' -
interpreters at meetings and hearings, .
"when the "affected community contains
q ^tgniflfant Tipn-KnglisH speaking .
population." . '
In the preamble to the proposed role
(see 59 FR 2868S), EPA;Solicited
comments 'on- several key environmental
justice issues for'the RCRA permitting---
program: (1) The siting of hazardous
waste facilities; (2) the manner in which'
EPA shonid respond when confronted
with a challenge to a'RCRA permit '.
based on environmental justice -issues;
(3) environmental justice-cbncerns in
conective action cleanups; and (4)'how,,
EPA programs-can take accbunt'of
"cumulative risk" and "cumulative °
effects" assodated*wth'the«iting. of a '.
hazardous waste management facility.
The Agency noted that, while it did not-
expect to address'theseissues in this' ...
ruuanaking, public input;on these topics
would be helpfuL-' , ' - ,
Synopsis of Major Comments on ' -
§124.30 and Preamble. The major'
comments on this-section of the
proposal involved definitions..: . .-.
Commenters asked the Agency to define
many of the terms in § 124.30,-including
"all reasonable efforts," f.'significant,"
"non-English, speaking" and "affected.
community." The commenters were
concerned about the disputes,'. "'
controversy, and litigation that could
arise from these undefined terms. Other
commenters supported the concept of
equitable public participation, " . -
particularly as an approach to .. "
addressing any environmental justice:
concerns that mightbe present'. -'
Th&Agency.ieceiveda-iiumberof-.-. .
comments supporting expanded public -.
participation, as an effective approach to:
addressing environmental justice issues.
CommenlerS' stated that additional
opportunities for public involvement
and access to information will increase
the probability that all communities will
.have input into -the permitting process,'
'and should strengthen involvement of '.
those who have felt disenfranchised
from the process.'Some commenters .'
urged EPA to avoid a one-size-fits-all
' approach and aUow flexibility for State,"
local, and facility leadership to make
suitable determinations about how to
address environmental justice issues.
EPA's Response to Commenters'.;EPA:
is committed to the principles of. ' ;*
equitable public participation and equal
treatment of all people under puf :
environmental'statutes and regulations.
The regulatory changes we are makirig
today will enhance' the RCRA public '
participation process for all citizens: We
urge all permitting'agencies, permit
. holders, and applicants, to make all
reasonable efforts to provide equal
access to information and participation'
in the RCRA permitting process.
While we continue to promote
equitable public participation, we have
decided to address the objectives' of
§ 124.30 in guidance rather than through
regulatory language. In response to the.
concerns expressed by many ;.-....
commenters, we. are not including.; -
§ 124.30 in the fin^ri^e.rThe Agency .
agrees with thecoimrrienters who j
expressed'concern that the language in.
the prpposal.wasjunbiguous, making .
compliance .wilii&e requirements '
difficult to .evaluate and enforce,, and .'_
could engender, disputes, and litigation ,
without advancing the objectives of
today'srulemaldng. .- . .:/.
As we noted earlier; EPA-continues to
support the principles-embpdied in . . _
§ 124.30 of;the-proposed rule. Wei .
encourage permitting.agencies.and ._ ,., :
facilities to follow the spirit of .that ;. ,
section and use all reasonable means to
ensure that-all segments of. the
population have an equal opportunity to
participate in the permitting process .
and have, equal-access to information in
die process..These means may include,
but are not limited to,-multiHngual . .
notices and factsheets, as well as. ,
translatorsy in' areas where the affected
rnmTniTnity rnntafns aignifiraTit. . ,.
numbers of people who do not speak.
EngUshas a-first language.. -'' :. .
In Keu of a regulation, the Agency .
will take additional steps to encourage
equitable.public participatipn-in. RCRA
permitting.- In the near -future, EPA .will
issue further guidance to assist facilities)
permitting agencies, .and communities '
in implementing.the expanded public
participation requiremenls ifi today's
'rule. In this guidance documentj'EPA
plans to discuss additional options for
increasing public participation by going .
beyond the regulatory requirements. ..
' The guidance document will address; in
more detail, the approaches to equitable
public participation that we are' '
emphasizing in this preamble. '
EPA believes that Sis rule presents .
significant opportunities to be ,
responsive to environmental justice
concerns in the context of public.
involvement-Prior to the, promulgation
of today !s rule, the permitting process;;
did not formally involve the public until
the permitting agency issued a draft .
permit or an intent to-deny a permit..In
many cases, communities around RCRA
facilities felt that the .draft permit stage
was too late to enter the process, that.
the facility and the permitting agency,. .
had already made all the: major
decisions by that point, and any. ..."
comments the public offered, would - ;''
have no real effect Insufficient . ..
opportunity for communities to become
involved in. environmental decision-
making is a contributing factor to .. , .
environmental justice concerns.. The
provisions in today's rule will address'
many of these concerns by expanding
public participation and access to
peTirritting infnmiatinTi. , . . .
EPA continues to.see public ,."" .
participation as an important activity
that empowers communities to.become...
actively involved in.local waste .
management activities. The Agency .. .
believes that this ruleinaking is an
important step in empowering all- ' '' .
communities, including communities of
color and low-income communities., '
EPA agrees wath tbe.commenters who
stated that the expanded public,.
pajrticipaiSpn requirements in today's'
rule wUl lie useful'tools for addressing. ,
environmental justice concerns. Today's'
rule provides attcornrnunities'wifh' a ;:"
greater voice in decisipn. making and a'
stronger opportunity tp iiiifluence permit
decisions early in the. process. EPA also'
agrees with the cpmrhenters who stated";
be addressed at a local level and on a
site-specific basis.. Local agencies and '
leaders" have an important role to play
in Addressing environmental justice ;
concerns. States and EPA .Regional
offices are'the.principal unplementors
of the RCilA perinitting; program,.and .
have been directed to develop'.:"
mechanisms thatiespond effectively to
environmental justice concerns during
permitting activities (RCRA
Implefnehtatibn Plan (R1IP), 1995): In the
RIP, EPA asked RCRA implementing
agencies to continue their commitment
to seek opportunities to address patterns
of disproportionately hiipi and adverse
environmental effects and human health
impacts, on low-income communities .
and communities of color that may
result from hazardous waste..
management activities. The States and
Regions have, been involved in '
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday. December. 11, 1995 / Rules-and Regulations 63421
environmental justice pilot projects, .
which'have included, among other
. activities, increasing.ptifalic
. involvement by tailoring outreach
activities to affected communities."
EPA and its Office of Solid Waste and
EmergencyResponse (OSWER) also
remaM.-committed.to addressing
environmental justice, concerns beyond
those related to public participation,
The preamble to the proposed rule (see
59 FR 28686>discussed OSWER's
. environmental justice efforts.;Elliott P;
. Iiws,6SWI» Assistant Aoiunistrator,
formed the OSWER-.Environmental
Justice Task Force ("EJ Task Force") to
begin addressing many of these issues.
ERAreleased.the-OSWER
/ Environmental Justice Task Force Draft
Final Report" (OSWER 9200.3-16 Draft)
and its separate executive summary
(OSWER 9200.3-16-1 Draft) on April
25,1994. Since liat time, the EPA
Regional offices and the OSWER
program offices have been
implementing the recommendations
outlined in the EJ Task Force's draft
final report The report was distributed-
to 'the National JSnvironmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC) for comment.
In June 1995, after careful consideration
of all comments, EPA released the
"OSWER Environmental Justice Action
Agenda." The Action Agenda provides
a concise summary of OSWER's current
strategy and describes the
implementation process for ensuring
. that major issues, identified by the
NEJAC and others, continue to be
recognized and addressed. A full report,
on implementation progress and
accomplishments, entitled "Waste,
/Programs'Environmental Justice
. Accomplishments Report." was released
concurrently with the Action Agenda.
All of these documents are "living
documents!' and, as such, are a part of
the process-of continuously addressing
. environmental justice concerns. This
process represents OSWER's
commitment to adhere to the principles
of Executive Order 12898, in which the
President directed federal agencies to
identify and address the environmental
concerns' and issues of minority and
low-income communities. Furthermore,
in an effort to make environmental
justice an integral part of the way we do '
business, the Agency issued a policy
directive, in. September 1994 (OSWER
9200.3-17), that requires all future
OSWER-policy and guidance documents
to consider, environmental justice
issues.. .
: During the public comment period .on-
the proposed rule; EPA reeeived.a large
number of comments on preliminary.
recommendations that the EJ Task Force
had developed regarding several other
(i.e., beyond.today's public involvement
rule) key environmental justice.issnes . -
facing the RCK^.permitting, Jprbgram.
The commentsianged from general'
observations .to more detailed
suggestions, particularly with regsird to.
sitmg criteria, cumulative risk
assessments, and the need to base.
decisions on sound science.
We are disseminating th
that deal with these environmental
justice issues in the following manner: c
. (1) We are forwarding the comments on .
RCRA facility siting to the.Office raf '
Solid Waste's (OSW) RCRA Siting
Workgroup and to-the NEJACs Waste.
and Facility Siting.Siibcominittee's:
Siting Workgroup; (2X we are forwarding
the comments on issues affecting RCRA
corrective action to the RCRA Subpart S.
Workgroup, which is developing a rule-
to establish corrective action
requirements for releases;of hazardous .
wastes or hazardous waste constituents
to any environmental medium, .
including ground water, from any-solid
waste management-unit, including
regulated units; (3) we are sharing the
comments on cumulative risk, multiple
exposure, and synergistic effects with
the EPA Science Policy Council, the
group actively working to address these
issues; and (4) the comments on how
EPA should respond to RCRA permit
challenges-based on-environmental
justice issues^are-being-addressed-by.;
OSWER with assistance from the Officer
of General Counsel, Office of Civil
Rights, and any other .appropriate party.
1. EPA also received several comments
that did not approve of the Agency's . -
decision to discuss and solicit..
comments on the more-technical:-
environmental justice issues in the
context of a RCRA public involvement
rule. Many commenters argued: that
these issues are broaci farrreaehing, and
impact a much larger constituency than
the intended audience Jorthepublic
participation rulemaking.
EPA acknowledges the breadth of
these issues. The preamble to the .
proposed rule has not been the only;
forum for discussing theseassues. As, we
discussed above, EPA has received and .,
considered comments from additional.
stakeholders, including States, the
NEJAC,;environmental-groups, .
environmental^ justice groups, and
regulated industries in developing the
"OSWER Environmental Justice Action
Agenda." Furthermore, since the Action
Agenda is a living document, OSWER
will continue to seek external .
comments, suggestions and experiences
as. we strive to ensure- environmental
justice.in all our programs. . '
B. Pre-Appl'ication Meeting and Notice ..
. 1. Applicability (Proposed .
§ 124.31(d)]!. EPA proposed to exempt
permit modifications, permitrenewals,
and permit applications submitted for
> the sole puiposeof.conducting post- :"
closure activities from the requirements
in §124.31. - '
Synopsis of Major Comments oh ; -
§ 124.31{d). A number of commenters
stated thatthe rule should require
. facilities.se«]dng p^nnitrenewals.to'
hold a-pre-application meeting.. Other.
commenters; recommended that .the pre*-
application meeting requirements apply
to facilities making significant changes
during the renewal process, or, thatthe
permitting agency.-shouldiave
discretion ur applymg the. requirement
to renewals. Opposing these . . :
. commentersi, several commenters
supported .die requirement as proposed
and iii^ed EPA to keep the exemption....
for renewals;-, since, many, -renewal
applications; simply continue "business
as usual" M these cases,.said the
commenters, the .community will have
adequate opportunity to participate in .-
the renewal process; for instance, at the ,
draft permit-stage. . : . ' ''
EPA's Response to Commenters. EPA
has decided to expand § 124^31 to cover
facilities that jnake a significant change
at permit renewal. Forthe-purposes.of
§ 124.31, a "significant'.'change in.;
facility pperiitions is a change that is
equivalent ti> a class 3 modification in
§ 270.42, e.g, operating conditions. .
The Agency believes that this .
approach is a common sense
compromise that will ensure adequate-
public-participation in the necessary
cases.. At the same time, the regulated: .
community :nvill -have the assurance that'
facilities unelergoing minor, changes wfll -..
be spared unnecessary administrative ;:.-
burden. . -
.EPA will continue the.exemption for,.
fanillties'that submit permits for the,- '
purpose of conducting post-closure i
activities. As we stated in the proposed .
rule, the goals of thepre-.application
meeting (e.g., establishing an early -.
dialogue between the facih'ry and flie
public) do hot apply at most post-
closure facilities. EPA?s experience is
that the public has usually been
concerned wiith permit decisions '
relating to active hazardous-waste-
management operations, as opposed to
decisions relating to closed facilities. In
addition, most post-closure- activities are
mandatory (e.g., maintenance .of a
closed unit) amd involve fewer
discretionary judgments-than are
involved in issuing an operating .permit..
The existing public participation
-------
63422 Federal Register / Vol. 60; -No. 237 / Monday, December 11. 1995 / Rules and. Regulations
requirements in Part 124 (e.g., the notice
and comment period at the draft permit
stage) will continue to apply. Since
closure and post-closure plans are
included in me permit application, arid '
becomepart of the permit, they, will be
available for publicxeview and
comment along with the application and
the draft permit. Any changes to these
plans afterpermitissuarice will'fellow;
the modification procedures in § 270.42;
* which also have public notice
requirementsl'We think.that the existing
process provides 'suffidentpuhlic
involvement in post-closure'permitting.
While we are retaining Ihe exemption
forpost-closure permit appHrationsln'
the final rule, we have trifcd to.clarify
ourintent in the applicability .'
requirements. Specifically, we have
clarified that the exemption applies to
facilities seeiing.permits solely to "
conduct post-closure activities,- as well
as to raciSties seeking permits to ; T'
conduct post-closure activities along
with corrective action; Ourintent in the
proposal, which remains our intent in.
ttiefinal rule, was to distinguish post-
closure facilities from facilities with-
operating units.' However, -someone' '
could have read the proposed rule" as "
not providing an exemption for post-
closure facilities-'with remaining ".
, corrective action obligations- (which ' .
post-cl6sure facilities often.have).
Because the rationale tor exempting
.post-closure activities applies whether
ornotthe facility is also performing' " "
corrective action,"EPA has added
language to §§124.31(a) and 124.33(a) to
clarify our intent. , ' .
" 2. Meeting Requirements (Proposed
§ 124.3i(aHb)). In these two-
paragraphs, EPA proposed to require the
permit applicant to hold af least one
meeting with the public before
submitting the part B permit ' . .
application. The proposed rule listed .
topics that the applicant must cover and
required the applicant to submit a
record of the meeting and a list of
attendees.
Synopsis of the Major Comments on
§ 124.31(aHb). The commenters
generally .expressed support for the pre-
application meeting.-Few commenters
opposed EPA's proposal to have a
meeting early in the process, though
many suggested changes to the-proposed
rule itself. ' .
Several commenters thought that the
pre-application stage is too early fqr a
'.public-meeting. Some commenters
stated that neither the applicant nor the
agency could provide the public with ;
accurate and complete information
about the facility at such an early stage.-
" Moreover, they noted, the application'
could change dramatically between the
pre-application meeting and application
submittal.. . ' -
Some commenters asked EPA to
clarify the jecordrkeeping requirements
mihefinalTule-'Anumberof .
commenters opposed the requirement,
with some commenters opposing, the'
term "record" because it would.qualify
the meeting summary as an official :
document and make it subject to
litigation. Other commenters opposed
the rule's requirement that the applicant
submit the record as a component of the
part B'pennit application.- ;
. Concerning whether the permitting '
agency-should conduct, or-even-attend,'
the meeting/ the comments'varied.- Some
commenters supported agency
attendance because the agency; would
' provide the meeting with credibility and
a source of-accurate information..Other
commenters expressed concern that
agency attendance would interfere with
the "open and infoimal dialogue"
betweenihe facility owner and the
public. " * .": ' .
Finally, many commenters supported
alternatives to the. pre-application
meeting. Numerous commenters backed
the idea, of combining pre-application .
meetings with the siting meetings that
many States already, require. A few-
commenters noted that EPA should
allow such a combination only where
the State meetmg'fulfills- all the.
requirements of the pre-application
meeting. Another group' of commenters
supported other options, such as using
an Jntent-to-Submit form in place of Ihe
meeting or holding the meeting-after
application submittal.
EPA's Response to Commenters. ... .
Section 124:31(6) of the fmal rule
requires the facility to hold a meeting .
prior to submitting the part B permit
.application; however, the rule language
no longer lists specific topics that the
facility must cover in the'meeting,
requiring'instead that "the facility solicit
' questions from, the Community and ;
inform the community about proposed
hazardous waste management activities.-.
After, the meeting, the facility must
prepare a '"summary" of the meeting
and submit it as a component of the part
B permit application. The agency
should use its. judgement in deciding
whether to attend the meeting.
EPA disagrees with the commenters
who stated that the pre-application stage
is too early to hold -a meeting with the
public. The most important-goal we
hope to achieve from the pre-.
application meeting requirement is the
opening of a dialogue between the .
permit applicant and the community.
We.believe that the'appHcant should
open this dialbgue-at liie-beginning of.
the process. The meeting will give the
public direct input to facility-owners or_
operators; at the same time, facility
owners or operators can gain.an
understanding of public expectations
and attempt to address public concerns
in their permit applications .(see the
discussion two paragraphs below). We .
hope that this requirement will help.
address the public concern that public
involvement occurs too late in the ,
RCRA permitting-proipess. Although the
Agency agrees with the commenters'that
Ihe early timing of the meeting may
prevent the agency and Ihe applicant
from having complete, information-; we-
believe that the benefits of early public
involvement and early.access to " . .
information outweigh the drawbacks of
incomplete information. . . :'-..'.
.In any case, EPA does not intend -for'
thepre-applieation,meeJingtobea . .
forum for examining technical aspects
of die permit application in extensive _
detail; such.technical examination is
more suited to the> draft permit stage.".
Instead,, the pre-application meeting..
.should provide an-ppen^flexible, -and
informal occasion for-the applicant and
the public to discuss various aspects of
ahazardous waste, management .......
facility's operations. Weianticipate that.
the applicant and the puiblic will share -
ideas, educate each other, and start
building the .framework for a solid
working relationship. Of course, the . .
public retains the opportunity to submit
comments throughout the process. ',
EPA has also revised the pre- . :-
application meeting-requirements in the
fi-nal rule to make them .more . .
straightforward and more flexible than
the requirements in the proposed rule.
The Agency is trying to provide '. .
flexibility in the way that permit
applicants hold pre-application . .
meetings. To this end, sve have removed
the list of required discussion topics,
proposed in § 124.31(a). In addition, we
have removed from the rule provisions
that the commenters considered vague,
including the requirement that the
. applicant describe.the facility "in.
sufficient detail to allow the community
to understand the nature of the ;
operations to be'conducted at the
facility and the implications for human
health and the environment." We agree
with commenters that such a .
requirement would be' difficult- to.
implement and enforce. .
While we have removed such
requirements from the final rule, .we
expect permit applicants to follow the-
spirit of the proposed requirements. For
: instance, we-encourage permit
applicants to address, at the level of
detail that is practical at the time of the
meeting, the topics we identified in
§ 124.31(a) of the proposed rule: the
-------
Federal Register / Vol.-60. No. 237 / .Monday, December 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63423
type of fecffity, the location, the general
processes involved, the types of wastes
gerieratecl and managed, and-
implementation of waste minimization
and pdUution control measures. The
discussions may also include such
topics as the transportation routes to Be
used by waste transporters and planned
procedures and equipment for
preventing or responding to accidents or
releases. These are examples of the
types of Jssues that might he of
particular concern to a community and
about which the community might be
able to provide useful suggestions to the
, applicant. The applicant might then be .
able to incorporate that information into
the proposed facility designer
operations,.either as part of the initial
application, if time allows, or at
subsequent stages in the process (eig., in.
submitting revisions to its application,'..
or in responding to a Notice of . -' '
Deficiency issued by the permitting
agency). By Jearning about and
addressing public concerns up front, the
applicant may be able to prevent
misunderstanding from escalating into
community opposition. . .
Moreover, the applicant should make
a good faith effort to provide the public :
with sufficient information about the
.proposed facility operations. While we
: do not expect applicants to go intp .
extensive detail at the pre-application
stage, they should provide the public
with, enough, information to -understand
the facility operations and the potential
impacts on human health and .the
environment. In addition, as we
emphasized in the-preamble to the.
proposed rule (59 ER28691)i;the,permit
applicant should encourage full and' :
equitable public participation by
selecting a meeting date, time, and place
that are convenient to the public.
"The final rule requires the applicant
to submit a "summary" of the pre-
application:meeting as a component of
the part B permit application: EPA
shares the concern of several ' .
.'' commenters that "therecord" could be
subject to litigation, for instance, on the
.' basis of inaccuracy. EPA's intent in this
rule is to foster communication and
-mutual understanding, not to create '
divisiveness and additional points of
we have deleted the word''record" and'
replaced it wili "summary" in the filial
rule. We do not intend for the meeting
' summary to be a verbatim account of the
meeting; the Agency is aware of how
' difficult it is tq.keep a~word-fbr-word
record of a public-meeting. Applicants
should make a good faith effort to
provide an accurate summary of the ,
meeting and a list of all attendees who
. ' - . - >'
wish to identify themselves (see
§124.31(b) of the final rule).
In. accordance'with ourjhtent- in 'the
proposed rule|we, are requmng-the
permit applicant; in the final rule, to
submit the summary as a component of-
the part B permit application. Since the.
part B application is available for review
.by the public,.requiring the meeting
summary to be part of the application-
assures that people who are unable to
attend the meeting will have an
opportunity, to learn what transpired at
the meeting, in the proposed rule,
however, the Agency neglected to add
the'summary to the list of part B
requirements in §270.14(b). We have
added this reference in the final rale.
.-The pre-apph'cation meeting summary
will be useful to the permitting agency.'
The summary will alert the agency to
important community concerns, areas of
potential conflict, and other issues that
may be relevant to agency permitting
decisions. In addition, the meeting "
attendee list will help generate a ' .
mailing list of interested citizens. (The
permitting agency is responsible for
developing a representative mailing list
for public notices under § 124:10). The
list of attendees from thepre-
application meeting will' assist the
or organizations to include'on the ' " .
.mailing list so that it represents .
everyone who demonstrates an interest
in the fodlity and the permit process.-It
tiafi HpftTI .KHA '« ovnoriAn/v& *fc-»*- wkotfC-nW
-""" "M"^ MAW ju^rfi..*** 'I'ljr *A&v^;AWfcrcu. q,u_H-t
the permitting agency issues the draft
permit for.public comment Since EPA
seeks to increase public participation-
earlier in the process-, generation of a:
mailing list should precede such
activities. A mailing list developed .
pursuant to § 124.10 could also be
available to enhance public
participation in other Agency, or
community-based initiatives. .
-The actual timing:of the meeting is
flexible in the final rule. The Agency
believes that flexibility is necessary
because the optimal-timing for the
meeting will vary depending on.a -
number of factors, including the nature
of the facility and the public's
familiarity with the. proposed project
and its owner/operator. '
; -In today's rule, we require the facility
to conduct the pre-application meeting.'
We.believe that the applicant should
conduct the meeting in an'effort to
establish a dialogue with the
community. We encourage permitting
agencies to attend prerapplication :
meetings, in appropriate circumstances,
.but the agency-should not run the pre-
application meeting. Although agency
attendance, may, at times, be useful in
gaining a better linderstanding of public
'perceptions and issues for a particular
facility, it iaay undercut some of the .
- main purposes of .the meeting, such as
opening a dialogue between the facility
and the coinmunity, and clarifying for -
the public the role of the applicant in
. the permitting process.
In the proposed rule, EPA solicited.
comnlents (see 59.ER 28702) onthe-
option of allowing a State siting meeting
v to substitute for the pre-application
meeting. EPA is not including this
option in the. final rule,.because doing
-so would dfjfeat.some of the purposes of
the pre-apph'cation meeting (e.g.,
establishing an open dialogue on a range
of RCRA permitting issues that may ,
differ from sating issues). Some -
commentersi suggested that siting
meetings and pre-apph'cation meetings
be combined. There is nothing jn '
today's rule to preclude States arid
permit applicants from working together
to combine ithese meetings. EPA
encourages them to; do so; provided that
theicombined-meetings fulfill the pre-
application meeting.requirements in --
todayfsrule,. ; .
3. Notice of the Pre-Application
Meeting (§ 124.31(c)). Paragraph (c) of .
proposed §124.31 required the fecility
'to .give notice of the pre-application :
. meeting at least 30 days prior to the.',.:
'meeting "in a manner that is'likely. to
reach all affected members of the
community.1" EPA proposed to require
the facility to give the notice in three
ways:'aa a display advertisement in a
newspaper of general circulation; as a
dearly-marked sign on the facility
property; and as a radio broadcast; Each
of these nbtiizes had to include the date,
. time and location of the meeting^ abrief'.
description .of .the purpose, a brief -.,;-
description of the fecih'ty, and a v
statement asldng.people who need . ':
special access to notify the applicant in
advance. .. ' ;
Synopsis of the Major Comments on
§ 124.3l(c). Most commenters expressed
general support for the expanded notice
requirements, but questioned specific
aspects of this proposal. The
commenters-also asked for.flexibility in
choosing the types.of notice that would
best reach different communities. -: ' .
The newspaper advertisement
requirement brought up the most
controversy. Some commenters : .
challenged as vague the provision that ,-'
the facility pubHsh the notice ik the
local paper-and also in papers of -
adjacent counties, ' - ..'.
; A number of commenters pointed out
problems with requiring a large sign at'
.the fecility. Some commenters. ;
mentioned that nobody would pass near
enough to some rural facilities to see the
-------
-63424 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 /Monday, December 11, 1995 / Rules and. Regulations;
sign. Other cotamenters reminded EPA >
that some communities have ordinances
that ban large signs. The cpmmenters,_
urged that the rule be more flexible and
allow applicants to place signs at nearby
intersections or.on town, bulletin, boards.
Other commenters recommended that
the agency approve the sign or grant
waivers where communities Ban signs.
The commenters did not-express
many objections tblhe radio-
requirement, but asked for. overall in-
flexibility in the notice requirements.
EPA's Response to Commenters. In
response to these comments, EPA has
enhanced the flexibility of the final rule.
Instead of requiring the applicant to
provide three specific typeaof public
notice, as in the proposed rule, the final
rule specifies only one type of notice
(i.e., the display advertisement). The
other notices must fall within broader
categories-jone must be a broadcast
announcement and one must be a sign
but are otherwise flexible.
"We have decided to retain the display
ad requirement because of the expanded
public notice it will provide; at the same
time, we have increased the flexibility
of the requirement by moving some of
the proposed rule's more general
provisions out of rule language and into
guidance, both in today's preamble (see"
below] and in the future, guidance
document for implementing this rule.
Section 124.31(d) requires the
applicant to'keep documentation of the
public-notice an'd provide the
documentation to the.permitting agency.
upon request The reason for this
requirement is to provide proof of the
public notice that can tie verified by the
permitting agency. We do not want this
requirement to be burdensome for the
facility. Instead, we encourage the
facility to keep a simple file for the
notice requirements. Items for inclusion
in the file may include: copies of the
newspaper announcement, a receipt or
affidavit of the radio announcement, a
photograph of the sign, or a receipt of
purchase forthe sign.
The Agency expects that applicants
, and permit holders will make a good
faith effort to announce the pre-
application meeting to as many
members of the affected community as
possible. . ' "
The newspaper advertisement. The
applicant must print a display
advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation in the community. The
display ad should be located at a spot
in the paper calculated to give effective
notice to the general public. The ad
should be large enough to be seen easily
by the reader. In addition to the display
ad, we also encourage facilities to place.
advertisements in free newspapers and
.,.
In some cases, potential interest in the
facility may extend beyond the host . .
community: Under these circumstances,
we encourage the applicant either to .
publish the display ad so that it reaches
neighboring communities or to place -
additional ads in the newspapers of
those communities.
The visible- and accessible' sign. The .
final rule requires the applicant to post
the notice on a clearly-marked' sigh at or
near the facility. If the applicant places
the sign on.the, facility property, then
the sign must be large enough to-be
readable from the nearest point where .
the public would pass, on foot or by
vehicle, by- the site. The" Agency , '
anticipates-that the signs will be similar
in size to zoning notice .signs required
by local zoning boards.Tf a sign on the ' .
facility grounds is not practical or r .
useful for instance, if the facility is in
a remote area then the applicant .
should choose a suitable alternative, .
such as placing the sign at a nearby
point of significant vehicular- or .
pedestrian traffic. In the case that local
zoning restrictions prohibit. the use-of -
such a sign in the immediate vicinity, of:
the facility, the facility should pursue
other available, options, such as placing .
notices on a community bulletin, board
or a sign at the town hall .or community
center. EPA intends the requirement
that the sign be posted "at or near" the
facility to be.inteicpreted flexibly, in .
view of local; circumstances and our
intent to inform the .public about the . .
meeting. In addition .to the requirements
of § 124.31, we' encourage the applicant ,
to place additional signs- in nearby
commercialj residential, or downtown
areas. . : ' . . .
The broadcast media'
announcement The final julerequires
the applicant to broadcast the notice at
least once on at -least one local radio or
television statipri. EPA expects that the
applicant will-broadcast the notice at a
time and on a station that will
effectively disseminate the notice. The .
applicant may employ another medium '
with prior approval of the Director. We. '
encourage the applicant to .consult the
preamble to. the proposed rule (59 FR
28690) for recommendations on
choosing the best circumstances for the
broadcast announcement.
EPA will soon issue ^a guidance
document to assist facilities and
agencies in implementing .the expanded
public participation requirements: The
guidance document will include more .
detailed discussions on the approaches
to broad and equitable public notice that
.we are emphasizing in today's , .
preamble. . . . ;- .
C. Notice at Application Submitted
(§12-4.32) . '".-'
1. Applicability (Proposed .
§ 124.32(c)). The proposed rule required
the permitting agency, to send a notice
to the facility mailing list upon receipt
of a permit application. EPA proposed
that the rule apply to all new and
interim status facilities,, but not to . _ .
permit modifications or applications
submitted for the sole purpose of
conductingpost-closure' activities.
Synopsis of Major Comments on
Proposed § 124.32(c). The commenters
generally supported this provision of
.file proposed rule. A few commenters.
recommended .that EPA apply the
-provision to modLScations, post-closure
permits, and interim status-facilities.' '
EPA's Eesponseto Commenters. The
final rule retains the applicability
standards of the proposed .rulel We . ,
continue to believe that the notice at
application subrnittal is an effective
means to let the community loaow that
the permitting agency has received' a. .
permit application. The notice allows
members of the community to keep
track of new or existing facilities and to
review, concurrently with the ' ''''.
permitting agencyVthe; permit'
application, which will be available for
review at a location specified by the
permitting agency (either in-the .vicinity
of the facility or at the permitting
agency's office). We suggest-that the .
permitting agency Consult the public
when choosing a suitable' location to .
place the application materials for.
public review.- .= . - -
The notice-requirement does not
apply to permit modifications or permit
applications submitted for the sole . -
purpose of .conducting post-closure
activities or post-closure activities and
corrective action at a facility. The
permit modification requirements in
§ 270.42 already include provisions for
providing public notice of modification
requests. We explain the exemption for
post-closure activities in section B.I.
above. - - - -,
2. Responsibility and Timing
proposed § 124.32(a) arid (b)). The .
proposed rule directed the permitting ..
agency to give the notice "within a; '
reasonable period of time after the .
application is received by the Director^''
The proposed rule also listed the
information that must go in the notice.
.Synopsis of Major Comments on
Proposed § 124.32(a) and (b): Many of.
the commenters provided suggestions
on'.who should be responsible for the
notice at application subrnittal. The
majority of these commenters supported
EPA's proposal, agreeing that.the . .
Director should issue the notice. A few
commenters. expressed concern over the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 6D. No. 237 /Monday, December 11. 1995 / Rule;; and Reflations 63425
timing of the notice. They suggested that
EPA rewrite the rule to require the
Director to issue the notice within 30
. days of application submittaL ,
EPA's Response to Commenters.-
These provisions have not changed from
the proposed rule to the
-------
63426 Federal, Register-/ Vol. 60, No. 237 /.Monday, December -11,1995 / Rules and. Regulations .
equitable public jparticipatipn and, .t
access to information, to involve the. .
public when suggesting a-location Jof
the repository. The Director-has ,ihe .
discretion to choose a more suitable
location ifheof she finds that the one
chosen by the facility is unsuitable .-
base.d on access, location, hours of . .'
availability, or other relevant .criteria.
The Director should exercise this .
authority sparingly; we are'antiapating
that, in the great majority of cases, the
facility will choose a suitable location.
EPA encourages facilities to .establish, '
repositories' off-site (i.e., within the'/ ..
community where the facility is located}
wheneyer.anoftsitffrepositoryis. .
feasible and would be more readily '
accessible to. the public. Today's rule-.
does'not, however, preclude -the use,of
on-siterepositories. ...... ' ... ..'.,
4. Timing and Duration (Proposed ..
§ 124.33(f)). the proposed'rule required
fTiB facility.to-mafntain s-nrt.updatetTta .
repository for a time period- determined
by the Director. Thepropqsal also stated
that the Director.could require the. -..-:
repository at-any time.during-tHe
application process for a RCRA permit
or during the active Hfe of a&cility. ;.
Synopsis of the Major Comments on -
Proposed § ;i24.33iJ).,The;commenters
submitted a variety,qfcximments- ,-.....
concerning.the.rirning'and' duration of *
the repository. Sbmejcornmenters. ..-,..
thought that permirtingiagencies need;
flexibility in applying the repository
requirement .Others thought that EPA -
should require the repository to open-- .
and close at specific points during the
permitting processi One group of.. . .
commenters insisted that EPA include a
provision in thejrule-to allow.for ;
automatic closure of the repository once
the permit is issued, denied, or
appealed., ..« ;.'-
EPA's Response to Commeriters. In -.
the final rule, EPA clarifies its intent '
that the Director have the discretion to
apply the repository requirement atany
time during.the permitting:process or
the life of a facility. Given that it is '
within the Director's discretion whether
to establish a repository at all, we
believe that it would be inappropriate to
prescribe specific timing and duration >
requirements that are triggered by the
creation of a repository; rather; tie. .
Director should decide on questions of
timing and duration on a case-by-case
basis. The final rule continues the ...
proposed rule's provision that the
Director determine the duration of the .
repository. The final rule provides that
the Director can close the repository, ,
based on the same standards (found in -
paragraph (a)) that the Director uses .
when assessing the need for a -
repository. -. ' .. ."
E. Tried Burn Notices ,.'.-..
1. Notice of-the Trial Burn for
Permitted Combustion Facilities
(Propo~sed§§270.62tb)(6)and : .
270.66(dX3)J. Permits'fbrnew
hazardous waste combustion facilities
must include a plan, approved by the
permitting agency as part of the permit,
that describes'-how the facility !will
conduct the-trial-burn. However-, -
because construction of a hew facility
may take a considerable period of time,
the trial burn itself might not take-place
until several years after permit issuance.
The proposer-rule required the
permitting-agency to give public notice..
of the impending trial burn; for
permitted ^incinerators arid BIFs. Under
the proposed rule, the permitting agency
would'send a notice-to the facility
mailing list and appropriate units of '
State and local governments announcing
the scheduled commencement and. -
'completion-dates for the trial burn. The
notice.wouid also provide the public ''
witK'contact information atthe ''.. . .,
permitting agency and the facility'and a
location where members _of the public
could reyiewHthe:%»prbyed trial bum ''
permitting agency to mail the notice'
within a reasonable time period prior to
the trial burn,'.'. '"....'. J'.'.' .. '.."
Synopsis-of the Major Comments On
Prbpbsed:;f§ :276.62(b)(6) arid
270.66fd)C3j. .We received bpth jpositivb
and riegatiye comments on the proposed
notice of trialburn.'fbr.'pentnifted'. ''....
'noted die importance of informing me
public of the anticipated time period for
conducting'the bum-, because, a.. '
significant amount of time may .elapse
between issuing the permit and '.';,
conducting the trial'bum... :
Those .who 'opposed the trial burn
'notice asked what benefit would accrue
from public notice of an impending, -
scheduled .trial bum for a hew ",
(permitted) facility. One commenter .
askedEPA to discuss the purpose for
'requiring this notice, from a new facility,
considering that the schedule is set out
in the permit and the trial burn plan is
already open for-pubh'c comment as part
of the draft permit. Some cbmmenters ,
thought that the other permitting events
already, provide sufficient opportunity
for pubh'c comment. Other commenters
opposed the requirement that the
permitting agency give the trial burn
notice, claiming that delays would
ensue when the agency could not
publish the notice on time., ' . '
EPA'S Response to Gommenters. EPA
has decided to finalize the .trial burn
notice provisions for permitted faculties
as proposed. The Agency agrees with
the commenters who noted.the
importanre-of keeping the corainunity
up .to date on permitting activities at the
facility. Several years may pass, between
the approval of fee trial, burn plan and
the actual date of the trial burn. During
tike intervening time, the public may not
necessarily remain up to date on
activities ait the facility. .The trial burn
is a significant step in the process of. a
combustor moving toward -full,i... .
operation; experience has shown thai.
the public is often interested in knowing
when the burn.will occur so that-.
citizens can review the trial bum .
results^ Thus, we/remain committed to
, giving notice of the impending trial'
burn at permitted facilities. ..-..' . . :
. The final .rule requires the permitting
agency to send the notice to the facility
mailing list. While we do not specify a .
timaperiod during which the permitting
- agency should send out the notice; we-
anticipate that .permitting agencies will
typically notify the public at least 30 ..
days before the trial bum. .-; .-:-;.
The firial rule does not provide for a
comment period.after the permitting .' .-
agency .gives- notice of-the trial -burn..-.:
dates. A number of commeaters asked-
EPA what the purpose of such a;notice
would fae^ if not tp open a comment .
period. Other commenters asked the ..
Agency to make-clear whether.or noCthe
rule would require a comment period ,
during the trial ium stage. EPA decided'
that a commentperiod during the trial
burn phase would not be necessary or
appropriate. .The pubHahas^akeady had
the opportunity tabe involved with,.
and comment on, the trial burn plan .
'during the;-draft permilt stage. Our intent
in providing for the notice at tTiik stage
is to make me public aware of an
impending trial'bum. The notice will;
serve as an update, rather than the-
openine of a comment.period.. .
FiTialTy^ 1RPA hag rlfl-nrficrf in. '
§§27O.62(b}(6) aud_270.66fd)(3) that a .
new hazardous waste combustion :
facdh'ty applying for a }?ermit may not...
commence its trial burn until after the
permitting agency.has issued the -
required notice. It -was clear from the - .
proposal .that we intended -for the
permitting agency to issue the notice
before the trial-burn. However, the .
proposed rule language did not , ,
explicitly state -the obvious corollary,
which was that the facility may not
commence the trial burn until after the
notice. . . : : -,.. ./.
EPA does-not believe that the notice .
requirement established by today's rule
will delay trial burns. The notice ,
requirement is straightforward and easy
to implement; we do not anticipate that
permitting agencies will fort to issue the
required notices in a timely fashion.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 /Monday, December 11, 3.995 / Rules and -Regulations 63427
Because the notice is purely ' ,
informational, EPA will be flexible in
interpreting the requirement that the
notice be mailed a reasonable time '
before the commencement of the trial
. burn. Ideally, the Agency anticipates
,.that permitting agencies will mail the
notice at least thirty days before the trial
: burn. However, as long as the notice is
mailed sufficiently in advance of the
scheduled trial bum-so that the >
recipients; would be expected to receive
the notice, prior to the commencement
date, EPA would consider me notice ..
timely. -.'.-.' '...'.
It is EPA's intent that the trial bum
.notice requirements in §§ 270.62(b)(6)
. and.270.66(dX3).apply only to initial
trial burns, and riot to subsequent trial .-'.
burns that may be conducted assart of
.the permit modification procedures.
EPA believes that the trial.bum notices
required by today's rule are not
necessary in these latter circumstances,
since the amoant.of time between :
modification approval and the
-subsequent trial burn is typically much .
shorter than the amount of time, that .
: may elapse between permit issuance
. and the initial trial bum. Moreover, this
modification procedures in § 270.42
include provisions for involving the.
throughnotices or public meetings). Of
course, if there-are substantial., - '
unforeseen delays between the approval
- of the modification request and the trial -
burn, EPA suggests that the permitting.
agency issue a notice in accordance
with the procedures set forth in today's
rule- . - . ".: ' ''-...
.-2. rdarice>with the timing and" '' "
distribution requirements of (b)(6) of ."
this section/' The reqirirernerits in (b)(6)
are the hew notice requirements that we
are issuing today for permitted .
combustion facilities (see section E.I. '
above), m following Uie standards in
(b)(6), the p&mittmg agency wiU send:
the notice to the facility mailing list arid
:the appropriate units of-State and local
government 'within-a reasonable period
of time before the trial burn. Section
270.66(g) takes the same approach for
BIFs by refeirmg.to paragraph (d) of that
section. ' ;-. " . ,' - . '.' '
For permitted combustion facilities,
EPA has claiiiied in §§ 270.62(bj(6) and
270.66(d)(3) that a facility applying-for
a;permitmajr not'commence its trial
bum until after the ;penmtting agency
has issued the required notice. EPA
does not believe that comparable'
' .clarifying language is necessary in
§§ 270.62(d) or 270.66(g) for tie notice
of planned ajjproval of a trial bum plan
for an interim status .facility. EPA-
belieyes it is. clear under these
. provisions that the permitting agency '
will notapprove a plan and,
' consequently, the facility .cannot
commence its, trial burn, until issuance ..
of .the required notice. .
The role of the notice for interim
status BIFs and incinerators is much the
same as the notice for permitted ' '.'
facilities, i.e., to keep the public
informed throughout the trial bum1
stage: The final rule does not require a
comment period after the permitting
agency gives -notice of the planned ,
approval of the trial burn plan, arid the
trial burn dates for interim status ,'
facilities. The trial burnnotice, like the -
other notices required by this rule, is
primarily intfinded to keep the
community informed while not slowing
down the penmitting process. Since
.'. interim status facilities are .already
operating, and continue to operate while
the permitting agency evaluates the
permit application, EPA does riot '
believe it:would generally be in the
public interest to delay the evaluation
process in order to .provide a formal
response to ccimments ori the trial bum
plan: However, ;if jnembers of the. public .
submit significant information or views
relating to the trial bum plan, the
Director should consider this '
information,'and may choose to respond
in writing at.tite time of plan approval:
In. addition, a.formal comment period
will, of coursei, still take place after draft
permit issuance.' ',-
' EPA believes tiiat the final rule strikes
'the appropriate balance between public
-------
63428 Federal Register /.Vol. 60,.No. 237 /'Monday, December 11, 1995 / Rules and.Regulations
mvplvement.and^e;effider«y of the
permitting process.'Tb.e notice alerts the
public of the impending trial bum,- and .
of the opportunity to review the trial .
bum plan. Since EPA is not yet ..-..
finalizing the.-other revisions to. , . .
combustion permitting procedures ' '-,. '
.proposed in §270.74, nialbuni plans.
for interim statusicombtptors may-not
always be available ibr review with the '
rest of the application. Through today's
notice requirement, thje public will, still .
have an opportunity to stay informed
and to reviewtheplan before the,. . ,-.
Director apprpves it; ....:...':
EPA is currently considering and ... ;
addressing the comments it reosived on
the revised combustion permitting , '. .
procedures. If those;procedutes are ' . "
finalized tind'go into effect as proposed;
including the provision requiring ' .
facilities to submit trial burn.plans with
permit applications, the public will ,
have the opportunity to review.and
submit opinions or suggestions on the
proposed trfol bum plan at any time. -.- .
after the facility submits the application.
At that time, EPA wiU have the-, r '
opportunity tottonsidef any such.,' . . .
submissions in-the-process of Reviewing
the plan. Accordingly, EPA is-not -,
requiring a comment period for the .
planned trialbum;plan approval in this
rulev" since such a requirement could
nicely be rendered unnecessary.in.the
future. " ' " '- ; ;- '-.
V:'State Authority ;" " '.
A. Applicabilitydf Today's Ru
Authorized States '''
Au
The overall 'effect "of today's final rule
istoincrease'fhe.sjringency,bfthe ' '_
RC31A permitting process. "Therefore, .. "
States mat are authorized to'administef
and enforce the RCRA program in lieu
of EPA under section 3006' of RCRA are,
required tomcfdif^ their. programs by^ .
adopting equivalent requirements-if.-
necessary (see §271.2i(e)); States must
submit their proposed program .; '.
modifications to EFA for approval' ' . -
according to the schedules: set forflxin .
section VJ&below.- ..." ,\ '^, '.,'"."
EPA is promulgating todayfs rule
pursuant to statutory authority that "
existed prior to 'the Hazardous and Solid
, Waste Amendments (HSWA) of '1984. '
As we" explaihedin more detail in the ,
proposed rule \59 FR 28703-04), EPA .
will implement §§ 124.31 (the pre-.' "' '
application meeting),'12C32 (the notice
at application submittal), and 124.33 '. .
(ihe Information repository) of this.rule .
in authorized States onlywhen EPA is
processing permit applications' for
hazardous "Cvaste management units over
which it has the basic permit' issuance
authority (e.g.^ BIFs in States not yet
authorized to issue BIF permits}.. EPA
has added language to §§124.31(a), ,.
124^2{a), and,i24.33(a) of the final rule
to clarify .that EPA will implementthese.
sections only for such, applications: For
all other permit applications in .
authorized States, the requirements of -
these.sections.'will not take effect until .
the States adopt and become authorized
for this.rule.? ' . .". " . ... ;
Under this approach, EPA will be
implementing .§§ 124.31,124.32, and"
124.33 only.'where it is the basic ..
permitting authority for. the unit EPA
will, of course, implement these, .
sections in non-authorized States..EpA,.
will- also implement these sections in
authorized States when the permit
application in question contains one or .
'morehazardous'waste management' .-'
units for which' the State is not!
authorized to issue RCRA. permits and, '
thus, EPA has basic permit issuance
authority..Forexample,.EPA will . ,
implement today's rule when processing
an application that includes ,a,BIF. if the
State is not authorized to issue BIF .. .
permits. TherfaciHry .with file BIF.unit
will be subject to aU the applicable
requirements in today's rule. " . :
However, if file State is aTithorized to
issue RCRA permits for all of the. . :
hazardous waste management units in
an application, then.EPAwill.not
implement the requirements in
§§ 124^3'i, 124-.32, and i24J33. EPA will
not implement those provisions in such .
a case, even though EPA may retain;
authority tp'issue a HSWA "rider"
.relating to the units in the application.
(e.g., authority to 'control air emissions.
from certain-units under 40 CER Part
264Subparts'AA,BBiandCC],or .
'relatingld thefacility asa whole (elg...
corrective action authority tinder 40
CTR § 264.101)1 For ejcaraple, EPA"wiU
not implement §§.124J31, .124.32, and.
124.33 when processing the corrective
action portion of a.tank storage permit.
, application in .an authorized State.
The Agency believes tiiat this
.. .
lite the language in §§ 124.31,124.32.'and 124.33,
in the other provisions of today's rule.-With respect
to § 270.14, the leqnirement to submit the summary
of the pie-appHcation-meeting with the PaitB '
peimitappjicatibn expressly references §124131.
Accordingly, where the regulations do not require
a meeting, it is clear'that the applicant does not '
need to-pipvide a meetingisunnnaiy. With respect
to fliVt infnTTtiflUrm Tajviritrnj TMjiirpTnant nf .
§ 270.30(m), EPA will jfoHow the general principles
applicable to the inclusion of the §270.30 -'
"boilerplate" provisions-illHiSWA portions of -'
KCRA permits (see, e.g.. In ze General Motors Corp.,
RCRA Appeal Nos. 9Qr24,90-25, at 23 tEAB'Nov.
6,1992)). Finally, §§270.62 and 270.66'apply only
where EPA has permit issuance authority over
incineratois' arid BIFs, respectively, so there is no -
need to limit the applicability' of the specific
requirements added to these sections today.'
of today's rule. EPA designed the prer
' application meeting, the notice at
application submittal, and repository ,
requirements'to enhance "
communication and understanding .,
between the public, the facility owners
and operators, and the permitting ...
agency. These requirements-will foster a
dialogue between facilities and
communities with a focus on " -
fundamental permitting issues. 'EPA ~'
believes that these interactions are'" " ''
properly part of the application process
for the basic permit to conduct'' -.'
hazardous waste management ;
operations, and not part of the process
to evaluate and issue additiorial '.:' ;"
conditions flrrough aHSWJS. rider..'.'.;
Accordingly, and consistent with the_.'
proposal, we have expMcitly tied these.
requirements to the basic permit. "' ' . '
issuance authority for hazardous waste
.managementuniis.. ... . /.'"' -
For most units in-most States, the
basic permit issuance authority rests
with the State, Accordingly, EPA . ;'
strongly urges authorizcad States to; ?'
adopt this, rule in an expeditious.
manner: Specifically, EPA encourages
Slates that have not yet adopted the BIF
rule to. adopt the hew public _V.
participation procedures concurrently
with their BIF rules, rather thin'. :.'..
deferring adoption to ttiasomewhat^. ..
later deadline thai applies to. today's
'rule, .'-.. .- '.._ ;: .. ..;
In adopting today's rule, authorized
States should not include in their .:
approved regulations the limiting - :
language added to the final applicability-
sections of §§ 124.31,-124.32 and:
124.33."This language:iacludes both the
limitation of the^sections* iapplicability'_,
to "all applicaCtifips'seeJang RCRA \ ;;'
permits for haiSfdpus waste .''.''.
managementunits over which EPA has
permit" issuance authority'' and. 'the...." .'
definition of the phrase "hazardous
waste management units oveiqwnicb .
EPA has permit issuance authority..". .
Obyiously,*the reference to EPA would
be inappropriate ;in a State, rule.,.;. .'
Moreover, even if-the State changed.the
language to .refer toihe. State- -
environmental agency, the provision
wouldberunnecessary.Ijecause -. -.
authorized States process RCRA permit
applications and administer RCRA "
permits only at facilities with units Over
which they have permit issuance ; '--
authority. Accordingly, EPA -;.'..
recommeridsthat States not include in
their regulations Hmitin^ language ;
similar to that in! today's final
ruleinaking. . ', .. V; . '-. . ~"
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 /.Monday, December 11, 1995. / Rules and Regulations 63429
B. Schedules and Requirements for ,-
Authorization .
40 CFR 271,21(e) requires States.witfa
final. anthcvriy.aHrm to mndfly fhmr
programs to reflect federal program
changes aTMt-snhnrit.tTiB-Tnn
EPA for approval The deadlines for
State modifications are set out in .
§ 271.2i(e)(2) and depend upon the date
of promulgation of final rules by EPA.
Thus, because EPA has promulgated
today's ride before June 30,1996,'States
must modify their programs, if- .
necessary, to adopt this rule before July
1,1997 Cor July 1,1998 if a State .
statutory change is needed). States then
must submit these program
modifications^ EPA accordingtothe *
schedules in § 271.21(eX4). Once EPA
approves the modifications, the State
requirements become RCRA Subtitle C
requirements; ' .
States with authorized RCRA '
programs may-ah-eadyhave .
requirements sinrilarto those-we are
proposing today. EPA has not assessed
these State, regulations against the final
federal regulations to determine
whether they meet the tests for
authorization. Thus, similar provisions -
of State law are not authorized to
operate in lieu of today's RGRA
requirements until.the State submits
them to EPA, who then evahiatesthem
against the final EPA regulations. Of
course;' States, may continue to -
administer arid enforce their existing
standards in the meantime..- .
In developing today's final rule, EPA -
considered impacts on existing State
programs. The public .participation ..-'
requirements may be viewed as ;
performance objectives the Agency
wants States to meet in their own.,
authorized.programs. ItisnotEPA's
intent to restrict States from.cpnducting
similar activities that accomplish the . .
same objectives. Therefore, EPA intends
to be flexible in reviewing State program.
submissions and-evaluating'them
against the requirements for
authorization.
VLPermits-lBttprovementTeani ;
In July 1994, EPA.created a group of
EPA, State, Tribal and local government
officials (Permits Improvement Team) to
examine and propose improvements: to
EPA's permit programs; As part of its: . -
efforts, the Permits Improvement Team--
is examining way s to streamline the
permitting process, exploring possible
alternatives to individual permits, and
evaluating-ways to enhance public
involvement in the permitting process.
The. Team plans to develop
recommendations in each of these areas,
discuss them with-stakeholders, and
submit them to Agency management for.
consideration, __''£ ;V '
The pubUc p^icipatibn requirements
that EPA is promulgating in today's rule
are appropriate for the RCRA permitting
program as it.currently exists. If,
however, the nature of?the RCRA
permitting program changes as a rtisult
of the-Permits Improvement Team's
efforts, then the Agency may amend
these procedures, or develop additional '
procedures! Forexample, the Team is
considering recommending several : .
alternatives to individual permits, such
as establishing general permits for .
RGRA non-commercial storage and:
treatment units. The proces&of issuing
general permits is very different from
the current RCRA permitting process;..
.thus, different approaches for involving
the jpublic may be appropriate.
VII. Regulatory Assessment
Requirements^:- , '
A. Executive Order 12866 ';-
Under Executive Order 12866; {SB FR.
51735, October 4,1993} the Agency
must .determine whether, a regulatory .
action is "significant'' and, therefore,:
subject to review by the Office of ..'.
Management.and Budget (OMB) ahd.to _
. the requirements of the Executive Order,
which include assessing the costs.ctad
benefits anticipated as a result of the
regulatory action. \
The Order defines "significant ' '
regulatory action" as one that is likely.
to result in a rule.that -may: .(1). have an.
an-mial effect onthe economy of $100 .
million or more or adversely affect in a
material way,the economy, a sectoi-qf
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment. pubHciealth or
safety, or State* local,- or .tribal
governments or communities; (2) create".
serious inconsistency or otheirwise
interfere with an action taken or ,;
planned by another agency; (3) . -,-
materially alter the budgetary impact of "
entitlements, grants, user .fees, or. loan
programs or lite rights and obligations, of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel .
legal or policy issues arisingoutof legal
mandates^ thePresident's.prioritiesi or ..
the principles set;forth in the Executive .
Order. . '-'
The Agency has determined that tiiig .-
rule is not a significant rule under..
Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the
terms of.Executive Order 12866, this
section of the preamble summarizes the
potential economic impacts of the RCRA
Expanded Public.Participatipn rule.:
Based upon the economic impact: ,
analysis for today's rule, the Agency's
best.estimate-is that the expanded .. '
public participation requirements
would result in an incremental national
annual cost of $180,000 to $500,000..
A complete discussion ofthe ""
economic impact analysis is available in
the regulatoity docket for today's rule in ..
a report ientiifled''Economic Impaet "
Analysis for the RCRA Expanded Public
Participation Rule." ''
Cost Anal^is. Today's rul&tncludes
* several requirements tiaat would result.
in direct costs to facilities submitting :
initial permiil.applications or submitting
permit reneival applications that
propose a siipnficarit-change foirfacility
operations.(!«e §124.31). The analysis-
estimates this costs to all affected
facilities of (1) preparing a public notice
announcing the intention to: held a "
public meeting; (2) disseminating the
' public notice in aiocal newspaper, over
a broadcast medium, and by posting a'
sign; and (3) holding a public meeting
and prepariiig-a meeting summary. ,
In addition, the rule gives the Director ,
the discretion to require a facility to set
up an information repository, based on
the level of public interest or other . /
ractors. This requirement can apply
anywhere in the permitting process or at
any time during the active life of a
facility. ' ' '
The total c»st per facility of the above
requirementsis approximately $5,-000 to .
$14,000. Ov«!r.thenext ten years, EPA -
estimates that between 300 to 450 .
facilities will incur these, costs. The
resulting totid national annual cost,
assuming a etiscqunt rate of 7% is
estimated to be between$180,0o6 to
$500,000per:year. ' , '___.
Summary ofBenefits. The RCRA
permitting program was developed to .
protect humiinhealfh and the
environment, rrbm the risks posed by the
treatment, stiarage;and.dlsposalof
. hazardous waste. By improving and
clarifying th«j permitting process, v :
today's rule produces environmental ...
benefits that result from amore efficient
permitting process. The following is an
explanation of how each ofthe:.
provisions ojrtoday's rule provides-.
benefits. - :...'
The main benefit of the expanded
public participation requirements of
today's rule is-to provide earlier
opportunities rfor public involvement
and expand public access to information
throughout tiie permitting process and
the operational h'ves of facilities. EPA
believes that these requirements will
give applicants and permitting agencies.
a better opportunity to address public
concerns in making decisions about the
facility and in subsequent permitting
activities. -
Providingthe public with-an
expanded role'in the permit-process, by
promoting ccimmunity.participation- and '
-------
63430 Federal Register / Vol/ 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11,. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
input thrcmghcmt tiie permitting ~. v
process, will alsahelp foster continued
community involvement after facilities
beome permitted.. .!...'
In addition, expanding public -
involvement opportunities could, in
some cases, streamline tne permitting
jprocess, since the public will raise ..
issues, and the applicant can address. '
the issues, at an-earlier stage in the.
process. Currently, the public is not;
formally involved inthe permitting, .
process until ae.draft permit stage,
which occurs after the'permitting .
tagency and the permit applicant have.
discussed.crucial parts of the part B
permit application. The -Agency
anticipates that the earlier participation
provided in tH" rule will address the
public concern, that major permit ..
decisions may bemade before the
public has the-opportanity to get ;.
involved in the process. This earlier
involvement may weU'reduce costs, <. "
associated with delays, litigation; and,
other products of disputed,
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act ' . '.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act .(RFA)
of 1980-requires federal agencies to
consider "small entities'* throughout the
regulatory process^Sectioa 603 of the
RFA requires agencies to perform an ..
initial screening analysis'to determine
whethersmall entities willbe adversely
affected by the-iegulation. If the analysis
identifies affected,small entities, then. -
the agency must consider regulatory. ,
alternatives to mitigate the potential ,,
impacts. Small entities as described in.
the Act are only those -"businesses,
organizations and governmental
.jurisdictions subjecrto regulation."
In developing today's rule for .
expanding public involvement in the
RCRA permitting process, EPA was'
sensitive to the needs and .concerns of
small businesses. The provisions set
forth the minimum requirements
necessary to fulfill the public ,
involvement objectives in this rule.
Additional examples of activities that
facilities may choose to conduct are
provided in the preamble for the
proposed rule (59 FR 28680) and will be
included in a future guidance
document, rather than in this rule.
EPA's intent is to provide flexibility for
«a facility to determine, in view of the
facility-specific circumstances, the, .
appropriate'level of publio4nvolvement
activities. In addition, EPA recognizes.
that, in some situations, an information
"lepositbry could become resource-
intensive for a facility or for the local
. community. EPA has addxessedthis .
concern by clarifying, in the final rule,
that the Monnation.repositoiyisjiot' .
mandatory for all facilities. The rule
makes clear our intent that the Director...
reserve the irse of the information
repository option only for the.-limited
number of facilities that raise high
levels-of public-interest or whose
communities have a special need for ,
more access to information.
EPA conducted a small entity impact.'
.screening'analysis for the proposed rule
and determined that there were no small
entities significantly impacted' (see 59
FR 28680-28711, SectionVLC.)r.
Because the pubh'c participation "
requirements have not increased since
the proposal, EPA has determined that
the final rule also does not significantly
impact small entities. . ',
C. Paperwork Deduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements contained in
this rule -under the provisions of the
Eanerwork Reduction Act;.44 U.S.C. '.
3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB '
control number 205O-Q149.
. This collection of information is
estimated to have a pubh'c reporting
burden averaging 89.60 hours per
resp'onsfe; and to require 34.60'hours per
recordkeeper annually. This total
includes time for reviewing . .:
. instructions, searching existing data'" ,.
sources, gathering and maintaining the
necessary data, and completing and
reviewing the collection .of information.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this.
. collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing **"« burden to
Chief,-Information Policy Branch (2136),
UiS. Environmental Protection Agency,.
401M SL.'SW., Washington, DC20460--
and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of " "
Management and Budget, Washington,
DC 20503, marked "Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA."
Display of OMB Control Numbers.
EPA is also amending the table of
currently approved information
collectionieqiiest (JCR) control numbers
issued by'OMB for-various regulations.
This amendment updates the table to
accurately.display those information
T-etpJTCTriBnts rnntainari in fhfe final
rule. This display, of the OMB'cphtrol
number audits subsequent codification'
in the Code of Federal Regulations
satisfies the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 etseq.) and OMB's implementing
.regulations at 5 CFR1320.
The IGR was previously subject to .
.public notice and comment prior to
'OMB approval As a result, EPA finds
that there is "good cause" .under section
553(b)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S:C. 553(b)(B)) to
amend this table without prior notice
and comment. Due to the technical :.
nature of the table, further notice and
comment would be unnecessary.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act .
. Under section-202 of the Unfunded'.
Mandates Reform Act of 199.5 (the '
UMRA), P.L..104-4, EPA generally roast
prepare a written statement, mcluding; a
cost-benefit analysis, for rules with ...
"Federal mandates" that:may^^ result in
expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any one year-.-When such a statement
is required for EPA rules, under section
205 of the UMRA, EPA most identify ..
and consider alternatives, including the
least costly, most cost-effective, or. least
burdensome alternative, that achieves
.the objectives of the rule. EPA must
select that alternative, unless the
Administrator explains in the, final rule
why it was not selected or it is-. .' .
'inconsistent with law.'Before-EPA .
establishes regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely, affect,
small governments, including Tribal . ;
governments^ it musf develop.-under .
section 203 of the UMRA* a-small: . ,
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially . '
affected small governments, giving them
meaningful and timely.input in the
development of EPA regulatory .'.
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, 'and.
informing, educating, arid advising them
about compliance with the regulatory
requirements. ,
. For the reasons explained in Section
VLA. above, EPA has determined that
. this rule 'does not contain a federal
mandate that may result in expenditures .
of $100 million or more for State, local;
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any.
one year. Rather, EPA projects the total
an-niial costs imposed by today's rule to
be less th«n $500,000. Thus, today's rule
is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA;
In addition, EPA has determined that
this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or.
uniquely affect small governments. As
stated above, the total costs of the rule
are very low. These minimal- costs will
be incurred by'owners and operators of
hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal, facilities; which are principally
private 'entities, and federal government
agencies. Accordingly, .this rule does not
impose any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. . . .
-------
L-:
Federal Register / Vol. go, No. 237 / Monday,. December 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63431
E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership . -.-.. .'-',
Executive Order 12875. Executive .
Order 12875 on enhancing the
intergovernmental partnership charges
federal agencies with establishing .
TnBflnfngfnl rrmgnltqtiftn anH .;. .
- collaboration with Stete and local
governments'Oh matters that affect .
them. In most cases, State governments
are the level of government that .
regulates hazardous waste. . '
EPA has consulted with State officials
to develop today's rule. EPA invited
several States, representing various
parts of the country, to participate in
this lulemakingprocess. These .States
reviewed and provided feedback on the
draft proposal over a period of eight .
months, and the draft final rule over a
period of five months. .In addition, these
. States participated in monthly
workgroup meetings via conference call
Their, participation and immediate.
feedback in die -workgroup process
added considerable value to the
rulemaking effort. ' .
EPA contacted additional States in an
effort to receive their specific feedback
on general permitting and public . .
involvement techniques. EPA solicited -
State input during a session of the 3rd
Annual RCRA.Public Involvement
National Conference, in which sixteen
State representatives participated. The
State-participants provided numerous
helpful suggestions and ideas. In
addition, the Agency utilized existing
State groups, such'as the-Association of *
State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials (ASTSWMO), to
solicit input on the proposed rule-at
various stages in:me development
process. State-personnel at the .
Commissioner level provided input to
EPA at bi-monthly meetings of the EPA-
State Task Force, on Hazardous Waste
Management. Through early
involvement in-the process, State
representatives made valuable
contributions to the development of
today's rule. EPA also received
comments from several States following
publication of the proposed rule. Many
of the States' concerns are addressed by
the final rule. ' ' ' . .
The Relationship of Today's Rule
with Indian Policy. Currently, EPA has
the responsibility for ensuring the .
implementation and enforcement of the
Subtitle C hazardous waste regulatory
program on Indian lands.-This. '
. responsibility includes the issuance of
hazardous waste permits. However, . .
consistent with EPA's Indian Policy of
1984,. the Agency will look.directly to,
and work with, Tribal governments in
determining the best way to implement
the public involvement requirements in
Indian country'. This Indianpolicy-
recognizes the so|ereignty:df tederally-
recpgnized Tribes" and commits EPA to
a government-to-government '
relationship with the Tribes.
List of Subjects
40CFRPart.9
Reporting, and recordkeeping '
requirements. . -
4OCFR Part. 124..-.
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous Waste, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
40CFRPari276
Administrative practice and. - -
procedure, Hazardous waste, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Permit
application requirements, Waste
treatment and disposal. . '
. Bated: October 18,1995. .
Carol M. Browner, '
Administrator. ' .' ''.''
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code
of Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
PART 9OMBAPPROVALS UNDER
THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows::.
Authority 7 U.S.C 135 et seq., 136-^136y;
15 U.S.p. 2O01,.2003,2005,2006, 2601-2671;
21 U.S.G. 33lj, 346a, 348; 31 U:S.C 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 etseq^ 1311,13133,1314,'1321,
1326,1330,1344,. 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O.
11735,38 FR21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975
Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C 241, 242b, 243,246,
-300f, 300g, 300g-l, 300g^-2,300g-3,300@-4,
30Qg-5i.300g-6,300J-1, 300J-2, 300J-3,300J-
4,300J-9,1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-
7671q, 7542, S6O1-9657,11023,11048-
2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding
the new entries to the table to read as
follows: ' . -, .
§9.1 OMB approvals undertne Paperwork
Reduction Act
40 CFR Citation -
40 CFR Citation
OMB'Control
' No.
PART 124PROCEDURES FOR
DECISIONMAKING
124.31 i ; ..... 2050-0149.
124.32 '.. ...._. 2050-0149
124.33 ..;.. . .. 2050-0149
PART 270EPA-ADMINISTERED PERMIT
PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PERMIT PROGRAM
270.62 .... _ 2050-0149
270.66 ; 2050-0149
OMB Control
No,
PART 124PROCEDURES FOR
DECISIONMAKING
1. The authority citation for part 124
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seg.; Safe- .
Drinking Water Act, 42 H.S.C. 300(f) et seq.; ,
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 ei.seg.;and
. Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C 1857 etseg..
2. Subpart B is amended by adding
text to read as follows:.
Subpart BS|>eciflc Procedures Applicable
to RCRA Permits
Sec. .';_; -..-". ;" -,"
124.31 Fre^-application public notice^and
meeting. . '.'' '
124.32.' Public notice requirements at the
application stage. '
124.33 Information repository.'
Subpart BSfteciflc Procedure Applicable
to RCRA Permits :
§124.31 Pre^application public meeting
and notice. : '-.'..
(a) Applicability. The requirements of .
this section shall apply to all RCRA part
B applications seeking initial permits
for hazardous waste management units
over which EPA has permit issuance
authority.. The requirements of this '
section shall also apply^to RCRA part B".
applications seeking renewal of permits .
for such, units, where the renewal
application is; proposing a significant
change in faculty operations. For the.
purposes of tiiis section, a "significant;
change" is any change that would
. quaKfy as a class 3 permit modification
under 4.0 CFR 270.42. For.the purposes
of this section only, "hazardous waste
management units over which EPA has
permit issuance authority" refers to
hazardous wsiste management units for
which the State where the units are
located has not been authorized to issue
RCRA permits pursuant to 40 CFR part.
271. The requirements of this section do
not apply to permit modifications under
40 CFR 270.42 orto applications that i
are submitted, for Hie sole purpose of
conducting.postTclosure activities or
post-closure aictivities and corrective
action at a facility.
(b) Prior to the submission of a part
S RCRA permit application for a facility,
the applicant must hold at least one
meeting, with the public in order to
solicit questions from the community
and inform the community of proposed '
hazardous waste-management activities.
The applicantshall post a. sign-in sheet
or otherwise provide a voluntary
-------
63432 Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 237 / Monday, December ll; 199S /Rules and Regulations
opportunity for attendees to provide
their names and addresses.
.(c) The applicant shall submit a
summary of the meeting, along with the
list of attendees and their addresses
developed under paragraph (b) of this
section, and copies of any written
comments or materials submittedjatthe"
meeting, to the permitting agency as a
' part'of the part B application, in
accordance with 40 GFR 270.14(b).
(d) The applicant-must provide public
notice of the pre-application meeting at ,-
least 30 days prior to the meeting. The
applicant must mm'ntain, and-provide to'
the permitting agency upon request, ''
documentation, of the notice..
(1) The* applicant shall provide public
notice in aJl of tiie following forms:
p) A newspaper advertisement .The
applicant shall publish'a notice,
fulfilling the requirements in paragraph
(d){2) of this section, in a newspaper of
general circulation in the county or .
equivalent jurisdiction that hosts the
proposed location of the facility. In .
addition, the. Director shall instruct .the ,
applicant to .publish the notice in '
newspapers of general circulation in
adjacent counties or equivalent "i ' "
jurisdictions, where the Director . "
determines that such publication is
necessary to inform the-affected public.
The noticsomust be published as a '
display advertisement. . . .
(li) A. visible and accessible sign.-The
appjicantishall post a-notice pn.a clearly
marked sign at or near the fecUily, -
fiilfSllJng the requirements irt-paragraph
(d){2) of this section. If the .applicant .
S"aces the sign on the fecUity property,
en the sign must be larg&enough to be
readable from the nearest point where .
the public would pass by the site. '
(bi)Ab]&acfcastznec!ia . . .
announcement The applicant shall.
broadcast a notice, fulfilling the '
requirements in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section, at least once on.atleastone.
local radio station or tele vision station.
The applicant may employ another
medium with, prior approval of the
Director. . ",
tiv) A notice-to the permitting agency. ,
The applicant shall send a copy of the
newspaper notice to the permitting
agency and to the appropriate units of
State and local government, in
accordance-with § I24.10£c)(l)(x).
(2) The notices required under
paragraph. (d){l) of this-section must
include: ,'.'
(i) The date, time, and location of the
meeting; .:
" (ii) A b^ief description of the purpose .
of the meeting;' - . .
(iii) A brief,description of the facility
and proposed operations, including the .
address or a map (e.g., a sketched or '
copied street map) of the facility._
location; ...' .' .
(iv) A statement encouragiag-people
to contact'the facility at least 72 hours
before the meeting if they need special'
access to participate in themeeting; arid
. (v) The name, address, and telephone
number of a contact person for the
applicant .'.'-.
§124.32 Public notice requirements at the
application stage.. , ' . ,
(a] Applicability. The requirements of
this section shall apply to all.RCRA part
B applications seeking initial permits
for hazardous waste management units
over which EPA has permit issuance
authority. The requirements of this
section ghaH also apply to RCRA'partB
applications seeking renewal of permits
for such units under 40 CFR:27b.51. For
the purposes of this section only,
'hazardous waste-management units /
over which EPA has permit issuance
authority" refers to hazardous waste
management units for which the. State
where the vmits are located has not been
authorized to issue RCRA permits
pursuant to 40 CFR part 271; This
requiremehts'of this section .do not ' .
apply to permit modifications under 40
Cre 270.42 or permit apph"catibns: ' .
submitted for the sole purpose of
conducting post-closure activities or - .
post-closure activities and corrective'.'
action at a facility. .
(b) Notification atapplication
submittal. '....
(1) The Director shall provide public
notice as.set forth in.§ 124.10(c)(l)(ix),
and notice to appropriate units of State
and local'government as set-forth in.
§ 124.10(cXD(x), that a part B permit
application, has been submitted to the
Agency and.is available for-review.
(2) The notice shall be published .'
witbin-a reasonable period of time after -
the application is received' by the. ':'
Director. The notice must include:
(i) The name and telephone number of
the applicant's contact person; .
(ii) The.name and telephone number '.
of the permitting agency's contact office^
and a mailing address to which. "'
information, opinions, and inquiries
may be "directed throughout-the permit
review process; "...
(iii) An address to which people can
write in order to be put tta. the facility
mailing list; . '.' ' --.".'
(iv) The location where copies of the
permit application and: any-supporting
documents can be viewed^and copied;
'(v) A brief description of the facility ...
and proposed'operations, including the
address or a-map (e.g., a-sketched or
copied street map), of tiie facility .' :
location on the front page of the notice;
and ' . .-.-'
(vi) The date that the application was .
submitted^ '
(c) Concurrent with the notice . '
required under § 124.32(b) of this.
subpart, the Director must place the
permit application and any supporting
documents in a: location 'accessible to '
-the public in the vicinity of the facility
or at the permitting agency's office. -
§124.33 Information repository.
(a) Applicability. The requirements of
this section apply to all- applications
' seeking RCRA permits for hazardous
waste management units :over which
EPA has permit issuance authority. For
the purposes of this section only,
"hazardous'waste management units
over which EPA has permit issuance
.authority" refers to hazardous waste,'
management units for which the State
where the units-are located has not been
authorized to issue RCRA permits
pursuant to 40 CFR part 271. .
' (b) The Director may assess the need,
on a case-by-case basis, for an '-,
information repository. When assessing
the .need for an information repository,.
the Director shall consider a variety of
factors, including: the level of public " .-
interest; the type of facility; the
presence of an 'existing irepository; and
the proximity to -the nearest copy of the .
administrative record. If the Director .
determines, at any time after submittal
of a permit application, that there is a
need for a repository, then the Director
shall notify.tiie facility .-that it must
pfitahlisTi flnri Tnairttaiti -on vnfnrmaHoTi ...
repositoryi (See 40 CFR 27.0.30(m) 'for
similar provisions relating to the ,.
information repository during the life of
a permit). ... ' ......
(c) The information repository shall
contain all documents, reports, data,' . -
and information deemed necessary by
the Director to fulfill the purposes for.
which the repository is established. The
Director shall have the discretion to .
limit the contents of the. repository:
(d) The information repository shall
be located and maintained at a site
chosen by the facility. If the Director
finds the site unsuitable'for the
purpos.es and persons for-which it was
established, due-to problems with the
location, hours of availability, access, or
other relevant considerations, then the.
Director shall Specify a more
.appropriate site. \.
fe) The Director shall specify .
requirements for informing, the public
about the information repository. At a
TrnnfrrmTn, the Director shall require the
facility to provide a written notice about
the information repository to all '
individuals on the facility mailing list.
.. (f) The facility owner/operator shall' '
be responsible for maintaining and
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 60. No. 237 / Monday; December 11, 1995 /Rules and Regulations ' 63433
; updating the repository, with
appropriate information throughout a
. time period specified by the Director.
The Director may .close the repository at
his. or her discretion, basedpn the
factors inparagraph (b).of this section.
PART 270EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 270
continues .to read as follows:
Authority:42 U.S.C. 6905,6912/6924;
6925,6927,6939, and 6974:\
2. Section 270.2 is amended by
revising the definition for "Facility
mailing list" to read as follows: ' ;
§270.2 Definitions: . '.-,-'
* ' * '* *." * . . ''.-'.
Facility mailing fist means the mailing
list fora facility maintained by EPA in
accordance with 40 CFR'
3. Section 270.14 is amended by
adding paragraph 5>)(22) Jo read as
follows: ' . ..
§270.14 Contents of part B: General '
requirements.
* .* * * . * ....'.
. (b)* * * - " . -
(22) A summary of the pre-application
meeting, along with a list of attendees
and their addresses, and copies of any.
written comments or materials
submitted at the meeting, as required
under §124.31(c).
4. Section 270.30 is amended by
adding paragraph (m). to read as follows:
'§270.30 Conditions applicable to all
permits. : .
* * * * '*
(m) Information reppsifory..The. .
Director may require fiie permittee'to.
establish and maintain an information
repository at any time, based on the. .
factors set forth in 40 CFR 124.33(bJ,
The information repository will be '
governed by the provisions in 4.0 GFR
124.33(c) through (f).
5. Section 270.61(b)(5) introductory ,
text is amended by removing file
reference § 124.11(b) and adding in its
place §124.10(b). .
* * * * .' *
6. In § 270.62, .paragraphs (b)(6)
through (10) are redesignated as
paragraphs.(b)(7) through (11), and new .
paragraph (b)(6) is added as follows:
§270.62 Hazardous waste incinerator
. permits. . ;
* * *.*'*
00* * *.- !-
(6) The Director must send a notice to
all persons on the facility mailing list as
set forth in 40 CjFjL 124.10JtcJl(l){ix) and .
to the appropriate units of State and '
local gpvernmentfas set forth in 40 CFR
124.1p(c)(l)Cx)annoimcingthe ; "-
scheduled commencement arid"
completion dates for the trial burn. The.
applicant may not commence the trial
bum nntil after the Director has issried -
suchnotice.
(i) This notice must be mailed within
a reasonable time period before the
scheduled trial burn. An additional-;
notice is not-required if .the-trial burn is
delayed due to circumstances beyond
the control of the facility or the
permitting agency. '.;' . -.
(ii) This notice must contain:. -'.,
(A) The name and telephone number
of the appHcant's contact person;
(B) The name and telephone .number
of the.permitting agency's contact office;
(C) The location where the approved -
trial bum plan and any, supporting
documents can.be reviewed and copied;
and ' ' " "'., ,.'',.'
.{D} An expected time period for
, commencement and completion of the
trialbum. ' .
* . -* * .* '.!'*'
-7.Paragraph (d).of § 270.62 is revised
as follows: , . :
§270.62 Hazardous waste incinerator
permits,
*, * *...*-* ;.
(d) For the purpose of deteimining
feasibility of compliance with me
performance standards of § 264.343 of
this chapter, and of determining:
adequate operating conditions .under .-
§ 264.345 of :this chapter, the apph'cant
. for a.permit for an existing hazardous
waste incinerator must prepare, and
submit a'trial burn plan and perform a
trial burn in accordance with § 270.19(b)
and paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(5) and
(b)(7) through (b)(10) of this section or,
instead, submit other information as
specified in § 270.19(c). .The Director
must announce his or her intention to
approve the trial burn plan in
accordance wilt the timing and -.-,''
'distribution requirements of paragraph
.(b)(6) of this section. The contents of the.
notice must include:'th.e name and
telephone number of a contact person at
the facility; the name and telephone
number of a contact bffice'at the
permitting agency; the location where
the trial burn plan and any supporting
documents can be reviewed and copied;
and a schedule of the activities that are
required prior to permit issuance,
including the anticipated time schedule
for agency approval of the plan and the
time period during which the trial burn
would be conducted. Applicants
submitting information under ;
§ 27Q,l9(a)are exempt from compliance
with 40 CFR 264.343 and 264.345 and,
therefore, are exempt from the
requirement to conduct a trial burn.
Applicants who subrnittrial burn plans
and receive approval before submission
of a permit application must complete -
the trial bum and submit the results,
specified in paragraph (b)(7) of this
section, with part B of the permit
application. i[f completion of this
process conflicts .with :the date set for
submission of the part B application, the
applicant nuiist contact the Director to
. establish a later date for submission .of
the part Bapph'cation or .the trial burn
results. Trial burn Jesuits must be
submitted prior to issuance of the .
permit. When the applicant submits a
trial burn plan with part B of the permit
application, the Director will specify a
time period prior: tb.permif issuance in
which the trinlburn'mustbe conducted
and the results submitted. '
8. m§ 270.66, paragraphs (d) (3)
through (5) aie redesignated as
paragraphs (d) (4) through (6), and new
paragraphtd)(3) is added to read as
follows: ' -f :' ' *'..
§270.66 Permits for boilers and industrial
furnaces burning hazardous waste.
'
.. ; .. .
(3) The Dintctor must send a notice to.
all persons on ihe facility mailing list as
set forth in 40 CFR 124.10(c)H)(ix) and
to the.appropriate units of State and ,
local, government as set forth in .40 CFR
124.10(c)(l)(x) announcing the
scheduled commencement and
completion dates for the trial burn. The
applicant may not commence the trial
burn until after the Director ftac issued
suchnotice. "';. . ;.'''
(i) This notipemust be mailed within
a reasonable?time period before the trial,
bum. An additional notice is not
required if the trialbum is delayed: .due.
to circumstarices.beyond the control of '
- the facility of ithe permitting agency.
(ii) This notice must contain:. '
(A) The narcie and telephone number
of applicant's contact person;
(B) The name and .telephone number -
of the permitting agency contact office;
(C) The location where. the approved.
trial burn plan and any supporting
. documents can be.reviewed and.copied;
and . ' . .
(D) An expected time period for
commencemer it and completion of the
trialbum.
9. Paragraph (g) of § 270.66 is revised
as follows: "
-------
63434 Federal Register / ,Vol. 60, No. 237 /Monday, December 11, 1995 / Rules arid Regulations
§270.66 Penults for bolters aid industrial
furnaces burning hazardous waste.
* * .* * ' '* '. .
(g) Interim status boilers and
industrial furnaces. F.or the purpose of .
determining feasibility of compliance
with the performance standards of
§266.104 through 266.107 of this
chapter and of determining adequate
operating conditions -under § 266.103 of
this chapter, applicants owning or
operating existing boilers or Industrial
furnaces operated under the interim ,
status standards of §266:103 of this
chapter must either prepare and submit
a trial bum plan and-perform a trial
bum in accordance-with the
requirements of this section or submit^
other information as specified in
§270.22(a)(6). The Director must
ann'ounce his or her intention to .
approve of the trial bum plan in
accordance with the tuning and
distribution requirements of paragraph
(d)(3) of this section. The contents of the
notice must include; the name and .
telephone number of a contact person at
the facility; the name and^teiephqne
number of a contact office at the
permitting agency; the location where'
the trial bum plan and any supporting
documents can be reviewed and copied;
and a schedule of the activities that are
required prior to permit issuance,
including the anticipated time schedule
for agency approval of the plan and-the '
time periods during which the trial burn
would be conducted. Applicants who
submit a trialbum plan and receive
approval before submission-of the part
B permit application must complete the
trial bum and submit the results
specified in paragraph (f) of this section
with the part B permit application. If
completion of this process conflicts
with the date set for submission of the
part B application, the applicant must
contact theD&ector to establish a later '
date for submission of the part B,
application 'or the trial bum results. If
, the applicant submits a trial bum plan
with part B of the permit application,
the trial burn must be conducted and
the results submitted within a time
period'pridr to permit issuance to be:
specified by the Director.
(FR Doc. 95-29896 Filed 12-8-95; 8:45 am]
BflJUNQ CODE 6560-50-P
40CFRPart52 -..
[SC-029-1-7177a; FRL-531S-5]
Approval and Promulgation of .
Implementation Plans: Approval of
Revisions to the South Carolina State
Implementation.Plan (SIP)
AGENCY: Environmental-Protection .
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is approving "a revision to
the South r^mlitia state ..
Implementation Plan (SIP) to
incorporate new-permitting regulations
and to allow the State of South Carolina
to.issue Federally enforceable state
construction and operating permits'
(FESCOP). On July 12,1995, the State of
South Carolina through the Department
of Health and Environmental Control
(DHEC) submitted a SEP revision which
updates the procedural rules governing
the issuance of air permits in South'' '
Carolina and fulfills the requirements *'
necessary for a state FESCOP prpgram.to
become Federally enforceable. In order
to extend the Federal enforceability of
South Carolina's FESCOP program to
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs),'EPA is
also approving South Carolina's.
FESCOP program pursuant to section
112 of the Glean Air Act as-amended in
1990 (CAA) so that South Carolina may
issue Federally enforceable construction
and operating-permits for HAPs.
DATES: This final rule will be effective
February IT, 1996, unless adverse or
critical comments are received by ,
January 10,1996, If the effective date is
delayed, timely notice will be published:
in the Federal Register. .
ADDRESSES: .Written comments should .
be addressed to Scott Miller at the EPA
Regional office listed below. Copies of
the documents'relative to this action are
available for public inspection during
'normal business hours at the following
locations. The interested persons'
wanting, to examine these documents'.
should make an appointment with the
appropriate office at least 24 hours
. before the visiting day. '' .
Air and Radiation Docket and
. ' information Center (Air Docket 6102),
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia
30365. ' - .
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control, 2600 Bull
Street, Columbia, South Carolina
29201. . - ;
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Miller, Air Programs Branch, Air,
Pesticides & Toxics-Management .
Division, Region 4 Environmental.
Protection Agency,..345 Courtland Street
- NE., Atlanta, Georgia.30365'. The
telephone number is (404) 347-3555
extension 4153. Reference file SC029.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
12,1995, thei Statei'of South Carolina
through the DHEC submitted a SB?
revision-designed to allow South
Carolina to issue FESCOP which
conform to EPA requirements for
Federal enforceability as specified in a"
Federal Register notice, "Requirements
for the preparation, adoption, and .;
submittal of implementation, plans;-air
quality, new source review; final rules."
(See 54 FR 22274, June 28,1989). This .
voluntary SB? revision allows EPA and
citizens under the Act to enforce terms
and conditions of state-issued minor
source construction and operating
permits. Construction and. operating
permits that are .issued under the.State's
minor source construction and
operating-permit program that is
approved into the State SIP and under.
section 112(1) will provide Federally
enforceable limits to an air pollution
source's potential to enriti Limiting of a
source's potential to emitthrough
Federally enforceable construction and
'operating permits can affect a source's .
applicability to Federal .regulations such
as title V operating permits, New Source.
.Review (NSR) preconstruction permits,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration .
(PSD) preconstruction permits for'
criteria pollutants and Federal air toxics
requirements. EPA notes that the State
will continue to issue construction and
operating permits that are not intended
to be. Federally enforceable under,
regulations found at South Carolina Air
Pollution Control Regulation(SCAPCR)
61-62.1 Section ILA and Section ILB.
In the aforementioned June 28,1989, .
Federal Register document, EPA listed
five criteria necessary to make a state
agency's minor source construction and
operating permit program Federally
enforceable and, therefore, approvable
: into the SIP. This revision satisfies the
five criteria for Federal enforceability of.
the State's minor source construction
and operating permit program.
The first criterion for a State's
construction and operating permit
program to become Federally . .
enforceable is 'EPA's approval of the -.
permit program into the SIP. On July 12,
1995, the State of South Carolina
.submitted through the DHEC a SIP
revision designed to meet the1 five
criteril for Federal enforceability. This
action will approve these regulations
------- |