[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 110 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14070]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 9, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-4894-8]
Pennsylvania: Final Determination of Adequacy of the
Commonwealth's Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (Region III).
ACTION: Notice of final determination of full program adequacy for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 4005(c)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, requires states to develop and implement
permit programs to ensure that municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs)
which may receive hazardous household waste or small quantity generator
waste will comply with the revised Federal MSWLF Criteria (40 CFR part
258). RCRA section 4005(c)(1)(C) requires the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to determine whether states have adequate ``permit''
programs for MSWLFs, but does not mandate issuance of a rule for such
determinations. EPA has drafted and is in the process of proposing a
State/Tribal Implementation Rule (STIR) that will provide procedures by
which EPA will approve, or partially approve, state/tribal landfill
permit programs. The Agency intends to approve adequate state/tribal
MSWLF permit programs as applications are submitted. Thus, these
approvals are not dependent on final promulgation of the STIR. Prior to
promulgation of the STIR, adequacy determinations will be made based on
the statutory authorities and requirements. In addition, states/tribes
may use the draft STIR as an aid in interpreting these requirements.
The Agency believes that early approvals have an important benefit.
Approved state/tribal permit programs provide interaction between the
state/tribe and the owner/operator regarding site-specific permit
conditions. Only those owners/operators located in state/tribal areas
with approved permit programs can use the site-specific flexibility
provided by 40 CFR part 258 to the extent the state/tribal permit
program allows such flexibility. EPA notes that regardless of the
approval status of a state/tribe and the permit status of any facility,
the federal landfill criteria will apply to all permitted and
unpermitted MSWLF facilities.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) applied for a
determination of adequacy under section 4005 of RCRA. EPA has reviewed
Pennsylvania's MSWLF permit program application and proposed a
determination on November 4, 1993, that Pennsylvania's MSWLF permit
program is adequate to ensure compliance with the revised MSWLF
Criteria. EPA is today issuing a final determination that the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's program is adequate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The determination of adequacy for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania shall be effective June 9, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: USEPA Region III, 841 Chestnut
Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Attn: Mr. Andrew Uricheck,
mailcode (3HW53), telephone (215) 597-7936.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated revised Criteria for MSWLFs (40
CFR part 258). Subtitle D of RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), requires states to develop
permitting programs that incorporate the Federal Criteria under 40 CFR
part 258. Subtitle D also requires in section 4005 that EPA determine
the adequacy of state municipal solid waste landfill permit programs to
ensure that facilities comply with the revised Federal Criteria. To
fulfill this requirement, the Agency has drafted and is in the process
of proposing a State/Tribal Implementation Rule (STIR). The rule will
specify the requirements which state/tribal programs must satisfy to be
determined adequate.
EPA intends to approve state/tribal MSWLF permit programs prior to
the promulgation of STIR. EPA interprets the requirements for states or
tribes to develop ``adequate'' programs for permits or other forms of
prior approval, as imposing several minimum requirements. First, each
state/tribe must have enforceable standards for new and existing MSWLFs
that are technically comparable to EPA's revised MSWLF criteria. Next,
the state/tribe must have the authority to issue a permit or other
notice of prior approval to all new and existing MSWLFs in its
jurisdiction. The state/tribe also must provide for public
participation in permit issuance and enforcement as required in section
7004(b) of RCRA. Finally, EPA believes that the state/tribe must show
that it has sufficient compliance monitoring and enforcement
authorities to take specific action against any owner or operator that
fails to comply with an approved MSWLF program.
EPA Regions will determine whether state/tribal programs are
``adequate'' based on the criteria outlined above.
B. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
On July 23, 1993, Pennsylvania submitted an application for
adequacy determination for its MSWLF permit program. On November 4,
1993, EPA published a tentative determination of adequacy for all
portions of Pennsylvania's program. Further background on the tentative
determination of adequacy appears at 58, FR 58862-58864, November 4,
1993.
A public comment period began on November 4, 1993, and ended on
December 22, 1993. In this notice of tentative determination, EPA
announced that a public hearing would be held on December 22, 1993, in
Harrisburg, PA. A public hearing was held on December 22, 1993. No one
requested the opportunity to speak or offered public comments at the
public hearing.
In the Commonwealth's final application for adequacy determination,
Pennsylvania proposed non-regulatory revisions to those portions of
their existing program which did not fully meet the Federal
requirements in EPA's 40 CFR part 258. EPA tentatively determined in
the November 4, 1993 Federal Register that once minor changes as
described below were made, Pennsylvania's MSW landfill permitting
program would ensure compliance with 40 CFR part 258. PADER has made
the changes specified in the November 4, 1993 Federal Register, and as
listed below.
Subpart A--General
The current Pennsylvania requirements fully comply with: 40 CFR
258.1 (hereinafter referred to as PSec. 258.--), Purpose, Scope, and
Applicability; Sec. 258.2, Definitions; and Sec. 258.3, Consideration
of other Federal laws.
Subpart B--Location Restrictions
1. The current Pennsylvania requirements fully comply with:
Sec. 258.11, Floodplains; Sec. 258.12, Wetlands; and Sec. 258.15,
Unstable areas.
2. Airport Safety (Sec. 258.10) and Seismic Impact Zone
(Sec. 258.14) siting restrictions are addressed by Pennsylvania's
revision of their permit application forms requiring permittees to
comply with the notification requirements of Sec. 258.10 (PADER Form D)
and to consider seismic impacts in their design as stated in
Sec. 258.14 (PADER Form 24).
3. Fault Areas (Sec. 258.13)--Pennsylvania has provided a
certification from the Pennsylvania Geologic Survey which states that
there are no Holocene Faults in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
therefore this requirement is not applicable. EPA concurs with this
position.
4. Closure of Existing MSWLF Units (Sec. 258.16)--Section 258.16
will not be adopted by Pennsylvania, since Pennsylvania has certified
that no currently operating landfills are sited in areas impacting
airport safety (Sec. 258.10), floodplains (Sec. 258.11), or unstable
areas (Sec. 258.15), as defined in these sections.
Subpart C--Operating Criteria
1. The current Pennsylvania requirements fully comply with:
Sec. 258.20, Hazardous Waste Exclusion; Sec. 258.21, Daily Cover;
Sec. 258.22, Disease Vector Control; Sec. 258.24, Air Criteria;
Sec. 258.25, Access Requirements; Sec. 258.26, Run-on/Run-off;
Sec. 258.27, Surface Water; and Sec. 258.29, Record Keeping.
2. Explosive Gas Control (Sec. 258.23)--Pennsylvania's program
meets these requirements through Pennsylvania Code, title 25, chapter
273, section 292 (273.292), which requires regular passive venting and
monitoring of facility structures. If critical levels of methane gas
are reached in facility structures or at the facility boundary, the
owner/operator is required to conduct active venting on the landfill
system. In the event of an emergency situation, Pennsylvania requires
the owner/operator to immediately implement their previously prepared
and approved contingency plan (see 25 Pa. Code section 273.303).
3. Liquids Restrictions (Sec. 258.28)--Pennsylvania revised permit
application Form 25 to prohibit the recirculation of leachate except at
those landfills that have a composite liner.
Subpart D--Landfill Design
1. In accordance with Sec. 258.40(a)(1) and (c), Pennsylvania has
demonstrated that their alternate liner system, consisting of a double
synthetic liner/double leachate collection system design (25 Pa. Code
sections 273.251--273.258), ensures compliance with the requirements of
this section. Pennsylvania has made this demonstration through
mathematical modeling, using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) and Multimedia Exposure Assessment (MULTIMED)
Models. Pennsylvania's modeling shows that this liner system meets the
Sec. 258.40 performance standard under worst-case assumptions anywhere
in the Commonwealth. Pennsylvania-specific data were used as input
parameters to the models when available and appropriate. In addition,
worst-case conditions were assumed for other parameters where data from
Pennsylvania were not applicable or available.
Pennsylvania's existing regulations also allow an option of using
two feet of natural (clay) material for the secondary (lower) liner, in
place of a second synthetic liner. Additional PADER modeling
documentation did not fully demonstrate that this option would meet the
Sec. 258.40 performance standard under worst-case assumptions
throughout the Commonwealth. Therefore, PADER has revised their MSW
permit application forms relating to liner design (Form 24) to require
any applicant proposing this option to provide a demonstration that the
liner system meets the performance standards of 40 CFR 258.40 on a
case-by-case, site-specific basis, through the use of mathematical
modeling.
Subpart E--Ground-Water Monitoring and Corrective Action
1. The current Pennsylvania requirements fully comply with:
Sec. 258.50, Applicability; Sec. 258.51, Ground-water monitoring
systems; and Sec. 258.57, Selection of Remedy.
2. Ground-Water Sampling and Analysis Requirements (Sec. 258.53),
Detection Monitoring Program (Sec. 258.54) and Assessment Monitoring
Program (Sec. 258.55)--Through the use of existing authorities and
appropriate permit conditions, Pennsylvania will require Appendix I
sampling of leachate collected in the detection zone of the liner
system. Based on the results of that testing, Pennsylvania will require
the owner/operator to include any detected parameters exceeding the
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in the routine ground-water sampling
and analysis program (25 Pa. Code section 273.284). If appendix I MCL's
are exceeded in the sampling wells, sampling for all appendix II
parameters will be required. If ground-water degradation has been
detected in accordance with 25 Pa. Code section 273.286, Pennsylvania
will require that a ground-water assessment plan be prepared and
implemented. With these mechanisms in place, through the revisions of
PADER Forms 8, 19, 50, and 51, Pennsylvania's program ensures
compliance with the requirements of these sections.
3. Assessment of Corrective Measures (Sec. 258.56) and Selection of
Remedy (Sec. 258.57)--Pennsylvania's program will ensure compliance
with these sections through Pennsylvania's abatement plan requirements
(25 Pa. Code section 273.287). In the event that an abatement plan must
be prepared and implemented by an owner/operator, Pennsylvania requires
that the permit be modified. The permit modification process includes
public involvement.
4. Implementation of the Corrective Action Program (Sec. 258.58)--
Pennsylvania ensures compliance with the requirements of this section
through both 25 Pa. Code section 273.287 and the Clean Streams Law,
which prohibits pollution of any waters in the Commonwealth.
Subpart F--Closure and Post-Closure Care
1. Closure Criteria (Sec. 258.60)--Pennsylvania requires, through a
revised Form 24, flexible membrane final covers. However, Pennsylvania
may approve a clay cap in situations where the use of a flexible
membrane cover may be impracticable. In addition, Pennsylvania requires
the use of a drainage layer to further limit infiltration by diverting
rainfall from the cap, thus further ensuring that the final cover
system meets the EPA performance criteria. Pennsylvania, through Form
24, requires that the final cover be in place within six months of the
last receipt of waste. Time extensions for construction of the final
cover can be granted by Pennsylvania where weather conditions prohibit
proper cover construction, or where it is technically impractical to
construct a final cover within six months.
2. Post-Closure Care Requirements (Sec. 258.61)--Although
Pennsylvania's regulations do not specifically state that post-closure
must occur for 30 years, Pennsylvania requires that post-closure
continue until leachate generation ends and gas collection is no longer
necessary (25 Pa. Code sections 271.314, 271.341 and 271.342). In
addition, Pennsylvania requires that bonds needed for financial
assurance be calculated for a minimum period of thirty (30) years. With
these requirements in place, EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's
program ensures compliance with the requirements of this section.
Subtitle G--Financial Assurance
1. The current Pennsylvania requirements fully comply with:
Sec. 258.70, Applicability; and Sec. 258.74, Allowable Mechanisms.
2. Financial Assurance for Post-Closure Care (Sec. 258.72) and
Financial Assurance for Corrective Action (Sec. 258.73)--Pennsylvania
considers a facility to be active until final closure is reached. At
the time of final closure, the owner/operator must have a bond that is
based upon the total estimated cost to Pennsylvania for completing
final closure. Through the above mechanisms, EPA believes that
Pennsylvania's program will ensure compliance with these sections.
C. Public Comments
EPA Region III received the following written public comments on
its tentative determination of full program adequacy approval of the
Pennsylvania MSW landfill permitting program.
One commenter urged EPA to reconsider its approach in approving the
Pennsylvania liner system on a state-wide worst case approach,
believing that the 40 CFR part 258 regulations do not allow such an
option, but only provide for a site-specific variation to the
prescribed composite liner. This same writer also stated that the
double geomembrane liner design proposed by the State of Florida was
found to fail ``reasonable'' worst case assumptions statewide, in an
independent review by a landfill design consultant.
The Agency believes that the flexibility afforded to an approved
state to approve an alternate liner design, as long as that design
meets the design performance standard, allows the application of a
statewide alternate design, again as long as it can be demonstrated
that the standards are met on a statewide basis. There are at least
four statements in the October 9, 1991 Preamble to the 40 CFR part 258
regulations supporting the position that it was EPA's intent to allow a
statewide option. The Agency also has discussed this at technical
training seminars (based on the 40 CFR part 258 Technical Manual) held
in 1992 for the EPA regional staffs and the state agencies, the
discussion of which addressed alternatives to landfill designs in
approved states, including the adoption of a design standard that meets
the performance standard in all locations in a state.
We do not consider comments on the assumptions contained in the
State of Florida's demonstration applicable to Pennsylvania, since we
are requiring a Pennsylvania-specific demonstration of compliance to
EPA's performance standard. We also note that this commenter stated
that ``(the Florida consultant) is not familiar with the assumptions
used by the State of Pennsylvania . . .''.
Another commenter requested that PADER be required to hold a public
hearing for each new landfill permitted, and be required to respond to
public comments, rather than be allowed the option of doing so based on
public interest. PADER has authority to hold a public hearing on every
new landfill permitted in the Commonwealth, and in recent years, has
held a public meeting or hearing on all new landfills. PADER's
regulations provide for public notice and require PADER to evaluate all
comments received and address applicable comments prior to a permit
decision. Comments can also be submitted to PADER at any time during
the operation of the facility. In regard to a related concern that any
proposed corrective action measures be discussed at a public meeting,
PADER also assured EPA that any such action would be considered a
``major permit modification'', and thus subject to PADER's public
participation requirements.
This same commenter noted that EPA requested additional modeling
and leachate data and narrative information concerning PADER's
documentation of their liner system alternative, and stated that EPA
should not approve the Pennsylvania liner system until this information
was received. EPA agrees with this comment, and delayed issuing this
Final Determination until this data was submitted and reviewed. This
new documentation provided additional support to PADER's position that
their double synthetic liner system meets EPA's 40 CFR part 258
performance standards anywhere in Pennsylvania. It did not fully
demonstrate that the option of using a clay liner as the second
(secondary) liner of PADER's double liner requirement could meet the
standard anywhere in the state. Therefore, PADER will require any
permittee proposing to choose this option to demonstrate that the EPA
performance standards are maintained on the site-specific basis.
This writer opposed the recirculation of any leachate. EPA
disagrees with this comment, as 40 CFR 258.28(a)(2) clearly authorizes
the recirculation of leachate under certain circumstances. He also
suggested that PADER require tests for ``all chemicals regulated by the
EPA''. PADER has agreed to a groundwater monitoring program that EPA
believes is adequate to cover all the chemicals listed in appendices I
and II, the limits of the groundwater sampling required under 40 CFR
part 258.
This commenter also asked that seismic impact concerns should be
considered at all locations in the Commonwealth. PADER has clarified
their statement and intent to revise permit application forms to insure
that all permit applicants in Pennsylvania will be required to address
seismic concerns.
Two commenters stated that Pennsylvania should be required to adopt
a minimum 30 year post-closure care period for all post-closure care
requirements, not just for their (existing) bonding requirements. EPA
believes that PADER's existing requirement that post-closure care
continue until leachate generation ends and gas collection is no longer
necessary fully satisfies EPA's concern that care continue until the
landfill wastes are stabilized. The PADER regulations require the bond
to be maintained for at least 10 years after the facility reaches final
closure, which is defined as the date that no further maintenance is
needed at the site. We note that 40 CFR 258.61(b) allows an approved
state to decrease (or increase) the length of the post-closure care
period based on landfill specific concerns.
One commenter raised the issue of whether or not Pennsylvania
ground-water samples would be filtered or not filtered. 40 CFR 258.53
states that ground-water samples shall not be field filtered prior to
laboratory analysis. This commenter expressed the opinion that double
samples, one unfiltered, and one filtered, would be preferable. PADER,
in fact, requires that groundwater samples be both filtered and
unfiltered prior to analysis.
This commenter expressed the opinion that municipal incinerator ash
should not be accepted at MSW landfills in Pennsylvania. EPA's position
on Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC) ash was that it was excluded from
regulation as a hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C. The Supreme
Court decision on May 2, 1994, however, ruled that MWC ash is not
excluded from Subtitle C hazardous waste rules, meaning that if a
specific combustor's ash fails the EPA prescribed tests and is
determined hazardous, then that ash would not be allowed in a MSW
landfill. PADER considers ash as a special handling waste, requiring
additional handling and/or analysis considerations. In light of the
recent Court ruling, and assuming no new Federal legislation to preempt
it, PADER would require any MWC ash failing the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests to be handled in accordance with
hazardous waste program requirements.
A commenter expressed concern that allowing PADER an option to
approve, on a site-specific basis, a clay final cap on steep slopes
(because of PADER's significant past experience that clay caps on steep
slopes are more stable than flexible membranes) would encourage
landfill operators to create steeper than normal slopes, to take
advantage of any possible economic savings. They feared that steeper
slopes would lead to even higher landfills, thereby creating a
potential for increased runoff problems and visual pollution. EPA does
not agree. First, depending on site-specific conditions, a synthetic
cover is not always more expensive. Secondly, the final elevation and
side slope geometry of a landfill is set during the permitting process
based on stability and drainage design considerations, rather than
final cover material.
One commenter maintained that it was premature to approve the
Pennsylvania program before the publication of the final State/Tribal
Implementation Rule (STIR). EPA disagrees with this statement, in that
the Agency is not utilizing the draft STIR as a regulation which binds
either the Agency or the states. Instead, EPA is using the draft STIR
as guidance for evaluating state permit programs, and maintains its
discretion to approve state permit programs utilizing the draft STIR
and/or other criteria which assure compliance with 40 CFR part 258. In
addition, the public has the opportunity to comment on the criteria
used by EPA to assure the adequacy of state MSWLF permit programs with
each tentative determination published in the Federal Register. The
Agency discusses these criteria in each tentative determination
published, including Pennsylvania's tentative determination. To date,
tentative and/or final determinations have been issued for at least 38
states.
A commenter expressed concern that PADER has not yet established a
wellhead protection program under Section 1428 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and the possible negative impact of approval of their MSWLF
permitting program without this program in place. States are not
required to have a wellhead protection program in place in order to
receive approval of the MSWLF permitting program. PADER is currently
developing regulations for a wellhead protection program, in
cooperation with EPA.
One commenter requested EPA to direct PADER to develop additional
discretionary siting criteria to accompany the 40 CFR part 258
criteria, with the intent that the State take a more direct role in the
siting of landfills. EPA is satisfied that the existing PADER
regulations, with minor changes as described in the Pennsylvania
Tentative Determination and this Final Determination, are adequate to
ensure compliance with 40 CFR part 258, and we have no authority to
direct PADER to adopt additional requirements.
This same commenter questioned the Commonwealth's consideration of
seismic impacts in their review process. As stated previously, PADER
agreed to revise their permit application forms to require all permit
applicants to consider seismic impacts on location and design
decisions.
A commenter also questioned if PADER had the resources and
expertise to make the determinations required under 40 CFR part 258,
and to take timely enforcement action. EPA believes that since the
PADER staff is one of the largest and most experienced MSW landfill
staffs among Region III states, having been involved with permitting
decisions on over 50 landfills since 1988, that they are fully capable
of making such determinations. The commenter also questioned PADER's
reliance on information and data provided mainly by permit applicants.
PADER reviews and evaluates all information received as part of the
permit application. In addition, their regulations allow them
considerable flexibility to require any additional information they
feel is necessary to make their decisions.
A commenter stated that PADER did not have adequate hazardous waste
screening requirements, and provided detailed suggestions on screening,
tracking, and the financing of a hazardous waste program. These
suggestions exceed the 40 CFR part 258 requirements, and are beyond
EPA's authority to require them. PADER's regulations require all
facilities to have a Commonwealth-approved waste analysis and
acceptance plan. As part of the waste acceptance plan and site
operational plan, the operator must identify how incoming waste are to
be inspected to make sure no regulated quantities of hazardous waste
are accepted at the facility. PADER requires that a waste screening
plan be implemented at all facilities. The waste analysis and
acceptance plan approved at the facilities addresses the standards for
accepting residual (non-hazardous) waste.
This same commenter requested that PADER be directed to conduct
research on ash treatment options. This is beyond the requirements of
40 CFR part 258. The commenter further suggested that MSW wastes be
disposed of in dedicated landfill areas to facilitate possible future
landfill reclamation. This is also not required by 40 CFR part 258.
PADER has taken significant steps to prevent landfill disposal of
recyclables, batteries, and yard waste. They also require facilities to
keep records on where and when waste is disposed so reclamation may be
easier in the future.
A commenter criticized Pennsylvania's implementation of financial
assurance requirements under the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities
Act, and requested that EPA withhold final program approval until the
Commonwealth prepares an approved plan for correcting their current
procedures. The MSW requirements in Pennsylvania, including the
financial assurance requirements, are administered by PADER through the
Solid Waste Management Act, the Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and
Waste Reduction Act, and the municipal waste regulations, rather than
the Municipal Authorities Act. PADER's authority requires the permit
applicant to have the appropriate bonding and insurance requirements in
place prior to the issuance of a permit. EPA is satisfied that PADER's
existing authorities and procedures fulfill the requirements of 40 CFR
part 258, subpart G.
A commenter suggested that the addition of a requirement to add a
bentonite mat underneath the secondary liner would significantly
improve liner performance, and that EPA should therefore require this
statewide. EPA disagrees. It could not be required unless determined to
be needed to meet either a site-specific performance standard, or a
statewide alternate liner requirement. While this has not been
demonstrated to be needed for PADER's double synthetic liner system, it
is an option for permittees to evaluate in performance modeling.
Two commenters objected to routine sampling of Appendix II
parameters in leachate collected from the leachate detection system, on
the grounds that it is excessive (costly) and goes beyond the intent of
the groundwater monitoring screening process in 40 CFR 258. PADER
agreed that the detection zone leachate system will only be routinely
monitored for the Appendix I parameters. Appendix II analysis is
required only in monitoring wells, and only if and when Appendix I
criteria are exceeded in those wells.
D. Decision
Taking into consideration the public comments received as a result
of our tentative determination, and revisions made to the PADER program
as a result thereof, I conclude that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's
application for adequacy determination meets all of the statutory and
regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Accordingly, Pennsylvania
is granted a determination of adequacy for all portions of its
municipal solid waste permit program.
Section 4005(a) of RCRA provides that citizens may use the citizen
suit provisions of section 7002 of RCRA to enforce the Federal MSWLF
criteria in 40 CFR part 258 independent of any State/Tribal enforcement
program. As explained in the preamble to the final MSWLF criteria, EPA
expects that any owner or operator complying with provisions in a
state/tribal program approved by EPA should be considered to be in
compliance with the Federal Criteria. See 56 FR 50978, 50995 (October
9, 1991).
Today's action takes effect on the date of publication. EPA
believes it has good cause under section 553(d) of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C 553(d), to put this action into effect less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. All of the
requirements and obligations in Pennsylvania's program are currently in
effect as a matter of Commonwealth law. EPA's action today does not
impose any new requirements with which the regulated community must
begin to comply, nor do these requirements become enforceable by EPA as
federal law. Consequently, EPA does not find it necessary to give
notice prior to making its approval effective.
Compliance With Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this notice from
the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866.
Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify
that this approval will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. It does not impose any new
burdens on small entities. This notice, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of sections
2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended;
42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a)(c).
Dated: June 1, 1994.
Peter H. Kostmayer,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-14070 Filed 6-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P