Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69407 

dichlormid (2,2-dichloro-N,N-di-2- 

propenylacetamide). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–24214 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 258 

[EPA–R09–RCRA–2015–0445; FRL–9953– 

45–Region 9] 

Final Determination To Approve SiteSpecific Flexibility for Closure and 

Monitoring of the Picacho Landfill 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, is making a final 

determination to approve two SiteSpecific Flexibility Requests (SSFRs) 

from Imperial County (County or 

Imperial County) to close and monitor 

the Picacho Solid Waste Landfill 

(Picacho Landfill or Landfill). The 

Picacho Landfill is a commercial 

municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) 

operated by Imperial County from 1977 

to the present on the Quechan Indian 

Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian 

Reservation in California. 

EPA is promulgating a site-specific 

rule proposed on April 7, 2016, that 

approves an alternative final cover and 

a modification to the prescribed list of 

groundwater detection-monitoring 

parameters for ongoing monitoring for 

the Picacho Landfill. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 6, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–RCRA–2015–0445. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Library, located at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California. The EPA Library 

is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 

Monday through Thursday, excluding 

legal holidays, and is located in a 

secured building. To review docket 

materials at the EPA Library, it is 

recommended that the public make an 

appointment by calling (415) 947–4406 

during normal business hours. Copying 

arrangements will be made through the 

EPA Library and billed directly to the 

recipient. Copying costs may be waived 

depending on the total number of pages 

copied. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Wall, Land Division, Mail Code 

LND 2–3 U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901; telephone 

number: (415) 972–3381; fax number: 

(415) 947–3564; email address: 

wall.steve@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What did EPA propose? 

After completing a review of Imperial 

County’s Picacho Landfill Final 

Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan 

and the associated SSFRs, EPA 

proposed this rulemaking in the Federal 

Register. The proposed determination 

was published at 81 FR 20274, April 7, 

2016. EPA proposed to approve an 

alternative final cover that varies from 

the final closure requirements of 40 CFR 

258.60(a) but meets the criteria at 40 

CFR 258.60(b), and alternative 

groundwater detection monitoring 

parameters for post-closure monitoring 

in accordance with 40 CFR 258.54(a). 

II. Legal Authority for This Action 

Under sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 

4010 of the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as 

amended by the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 

U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Congress required 

EPA to establish revised minimum 

federal criteria for MSWLFs, including 

landfill location restrictions, operating 

standards, design standards, and 

requirements for ground water 

monitoring, corrective action, closure 

and post-closure care, and financial 

assurance. Under RCRA section 4005, 

states are to develop permit programs 

for facilities that may receive household 

hazardous waste or waste from 

conditionally exempt small quantity 

generators of hazardous waste, and EPA 

is to determine whether the state’s 

program is adequate to ensure that such 

facilities will comply with the revised 

federal criteria. 

The MSWLF criteria are set forth in 

the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 

CFR part 258. These regulations are 

prescriptive, self-implementing and 

apply directly to owners and operators 

of MSWLFs. Many of these criteria 

include a flexible performance standard 

as an alternative to the prescriptive, selfimplementing regulation. The flexible 

standard is not self-implementing, and 

requires approval by the Director of an 

EPA-approved state MSWLF permitting 

program. However, EPA’s approval of a 

state program generally does not extend 

to Indian Country because states 

generally do not have authority over 

Indian Country. For this reason, owners 

and operators of MSWLF units located 

in Indian Country cannot take advantage 

of the flexibilities available to those 

facilities that are within the jurisdiction 

of an EPA-approved state program. 

However, the EPA has the authority 

under sections 2002, 4004, and 4010 of 

RCRA to promulgate site-specific rules 

to enable such owners and operators to 

use the flexible standards. See Yankton 

Sioux Tribe v. EPA, 950 F. Supp. 1471 

(D.S.D. 1996); Backcountry Against 

Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 

1996). EPA refers to such rules as ‘‘SiteSpecific Flexibility Determinations.’’ 

EPA has developed guidance for owners 

and operators on preparing a request for 

such a site-specific rule, entitled ‘‘SiteSpecific Flexibility Requests for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in 

Indian Country, Draft Guidance,’’ 

EPA530–R–97–016 (August 1997) (Draft 

Guidance). 

III. Background 

The Picacho Landfill is located on 

Quechan tribal lands on the Fort Yuma 

Indian Reservation approximately four 

miles north-northeast of the community 

of Winterhaven, in Imperial County, 

California. The Picacho Landfill is a 

commercial MSWLF operated by 

Imperial County from 1977 to the 

present. The landfill site is 

approximately 12.5 acres. 

In January 2006, the Tribe requested 

that EPA provide comments on the 

County’s closure plan. Between 2006 

and 2011, EPA worked with the Tribe, 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and 

the County to develop the closure plan. 

During this time, EPA also reviewed the 

SSFRs to determine whether they met 

technical and regulatory requirements. 

On October 27, 2010, Imperial County 

submitted its Picacho Final Closure/ 

Post-Closure Maintenance Plan. EPA 

provided a final round of comments on 

February 10, 2011, which Imperial 

County incorporated as an addendum. 

On April 30, 2012, the Tribe approved 

the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/PostClosure Maintenance Plan as amended, 

and, pursuant to EPA’s Draft Guidance, 

the Tribe forwarded to EPA two SSFRs 

that had been submitted by Imperial 

County to close and monitor the Picacho 

Landfill. The requests sought EPA 

approval to use an alternative final 

cover meeting the performance 

requirements of 40 CFR 258.60(a), and 

to modify the prescribed list of 

groundwater detection-monitoring 

parameters provided in 40 CFR 

258.54(a)(1) and (2) for ongoing 

monitoring. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
69408 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. Basis for Final Determination 

EPA is basing its final determination 

to approve the site-specific flexibility 

requests on the Tribe’s approval, dated 

April 30, 2012, EPA’s independent 

review of the Picacho Landfill Final 

Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan 

as amended, and the associated SSFRs. 

A. Alternative Final Cover SSFR: 

Alternative Final Cover System 

The regulations require the 

installation of a final cover system 

specified in 40 CFR 258.60(a), which 

consists of an infiltration layer with a 

minimum of 18 inches of compacted 

clay with a permeability of 1 × 10¥5 cm/ 

sec, covered by an erosion layer with a 

minimum six inches of topsoil. Imperial 

County sought approval for an 

alternative final cover designed to 

satisfy the performance criteria 

specified in 40 CFR 258.60(b); Imperial 

County proposed to replace this with an 

alternative cover consisting of two and 

a half feet of native soil to control 

infiltration covered by six inches of a 

soil gravel mixture to control erosion. 

EPA is basing its final determination 

on a number of factors, including: (1) 

Research showing that prescriptive, selfimplementing requirements for final 

covers, comprised of low permeability 

compacted clay, do not perform well in 

the arid west. The clay dries out and 

cracks, which allows increased 

infiltration along the cracks; (2) 

Research showing that in arid 

environments thick soil covers 

comprised of native soil can perform as 

well or better than the prescriptive 

cover; and (3) Imperial County’s 

analysis demonstrates, based on sitespecific climatic conditions and soil 

properties, that the proposed alternative 

soil final cover will achieve equivalent 

reduction in infiltration as the 

prescriptive cover design and that the 

proposed erosion layer provides 

equivalent protection from wind and 

water erosion. This analysis is provided 

in Appendix D and Appendix D–1 of 

the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/PostClosure Maintenance Plan dated 

October 27, 2010 and amended by EPA’s 

comments dated February 20, 2011. 

B. Groundwater Monitoring SSFR: 

Alternative Detection Monitoring 

Parameters 

The regulations require post-closure 

monitoring of 15 heavy metals, listed in 

40 CFR part 258, Appendix I. Imperial 

County proposed to replace these, with 

the exception of arsenic, with the 

alternative inorganic indicator 

parameters chloride, nitrate as nitrogen, 

sulfate, and total dissolved solids. 

EPA’s final determination is based on 

the fact that the County has performed 

over 15 years of semi-annual 

groundwater monitoring at the site, and 

during that time arsenic was the only 

heavy metal detected at a value that 

slightly exceeded the federal maximum 

contaminant level (MCL), a standard 

used for drinking water. 

V. Summary of Public Comments 

Received and Response to Comments 

EPA received one anonymous public 

comment during the public comment 

period stating support for EPA’s 

Tentative Determination to Approve 

Site-Specific Flexibility for Closure and 

Monitoring of the Picacho Landfill, as 

proposed in the Federal Register on 

April 7, 2016. 

VI. Additional Findings 

In order to comply with the National 

Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 

100101 et seq., Imperial County 

Department of Public Works will 

coordinate with the Tribe to arrange for 

a qualified Native American monitor to 

be present during any work. If buried or 

previously unidentified resources are 

located during project activities, all 

work within the vicinity of the find will 

cease, and the provisions of 36 CFR 

800.13(b) will be implemented. If, 

during the course of the Landfill closure 

activities, previously undocumented 

archaeological material or human 

remains are encountered, all work shall 

cease in the immediate area and a 

qualified archaeologist shall be retained 

to evaluate the significance of the find 

and recommend further management 

actions. 

Though no known threatened or 

endangered species or their habitat exist 

on the site, in order to ensure 

compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536 et seq., a 

preconstruction survey will be 

conducted prior to cover installation to 

ensure no threatened or endangered 

species are present. In particular, the 

survey will look for the presence of 

desert tortoises, which may occur in 

Imperial County. Should desert tortoises 

or other threatened or endangered 

species be encountered in the survey, or 

at any time during the closure of the 

Picacho Landfill, the County shall 

contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to develop avoidance measures 

to ensure that impacts to the species are 

minimized. Following closure and 

vegetation restoration activities, the 

project site may become suitable for 

threatened and endangered species. 

This would be a beneficial effect. 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is 

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

because it applies to a particular facility 

only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. 

Because this rule will affect only a 

particular facility, this proposed rule 

does not have federalism implications. 

It will not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132, 

‘‘Federalism,’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this rule. 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

posed by this action present a risk to 

children. The basis for this belief is 

EPA’s analysis of the potential risks 

posed by Imperial County’s alternative 

final cover and alternative groundwater 

detection-monitoring parameters 

proposals and the standards set forth in 

this rulemaking. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

As required by section three of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7, 

1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has 

taken the necessary steps to eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69409 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments,’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), calls for EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ See also ‘‘EPA Policy for 

the Administration of Environmental 

Programs on Indian Reservations,’’ 

(November 8, 1984) and ‘‘EPA Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes,’’ (May 4, 2011). EPA 

consulted with the Quechan Tribe 

throughout Imperial County’s 

development of its closure and 

monitoring plans for the Picacho 

Landfill. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258 

Environmental protection, Final 

cover, Monitoring, Municipal landfills, 

Post-closure care groundwater, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waste treatment and 

disposal, Water pollution control. 

Dated: September 22, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 258 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL 

SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 258 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 

U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c) 

and 6949a(c), 6981(a). 

Subpart F—Closure and Post-Closure 

Care 

■ 2. Section 258.62 is amended by 

removing ‘‘[Reserved]’’ at the end of the 

section and adding paragraph (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 258.62 Approval of site-specific flexibility 

requests in Indian country. 

* * * * * 

(b) Picacho Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfill—alternative list of detection 

monitoring parameters and alternative 

final cover. This paragraph (b) applies to 

the Picacho Landfill, a Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfill operated by Imperial 

County on the Quechan Indian Tribe of 

the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation in 

California. 

(1) In accordance with § 258.54(a), the 

owner and operator may modify the list 

of heavy metal detection monitoring 

parameters specified in appendix I of 

this part, as required during PostClosure Care by § 258.61(a)(3), by 

replacing monitoring of the inorganic 

constituents, with the exception of 

arsenic, with the inorganic indicator 

parameters chloride, nitrate as nitrogen, 

sulfate, and total dissolved solids. 

(2) In accordance with § 258.60(b), the 

owner and operator may replace the 

prescriptive final cover set forth in 

§ 258.60(a), with an alternative final 

cover as follows: 

(i) The owner and operator may 

install an evapotranspiration cover 

system as an alternative final cover for 

the 12.5 acre site. 

(ii) The alternative final cover system 

shall be constructed to achieve an 

equivalent reduction in infiltration as 

the infiltration layer specified in 

§ 258.60(a)(1) and (2), and provide an 

equivalent protection from wind and 

water erosion as the erosion layer 

specified in § 258.60(a)(3). 

(iii) The final cover system shall 

consist of a minimum three-foot-thick 

multi-layer cover system comprised, 

from bottom to top, of: 

(A) A minimum 30-inch thick 

infiltration layer consisting of: 

(1) Existing intermediate cover; and 

(2) Additional cover soil which, prior 

to placement, shall be wetted to optimal 

moisture and thoroughly mixed to near 

uniform condition, and the material 

shall then be placed in lifts with an 

uncompacted thickness of six to eight 

inches, spread evenly and compacted to 

90 percent of the maximum dry density, 

and shall: 

(i) Exhibit a grain size distribution 

that excludes particles in excess of three 

inches in diameter; 

(ii) Have a minimum fines content 

(percent by weight passing U.S. No. 200 

Sieve) of seven percent for an individual 

test and eight percent for the average of 

ten consecutive tests; 

(iii) Have a grain size distribution 

with a minimum of five percent smaller 

than five microns for an individual test 

and six percent for the average of ten 

consecutive tests; and 

(iv) Exhibit a maximum saturated 

hydraulic conductivity on the order of 

1.0E–03 cm/sec.; and 

(3) A minimum six-inch surface 

erosion layer comprised of a rock/soil 

admixture. The surface erosion layer 

admixture and gradations for 3% slopes 

and 3:1 slopes are detailed below: 

(i) 3% slopes: For the 3% slopes the 

surface admixture shall be composed of 

pea gravel (3⁄8-inch to 1⁄2-inch diameter) 

mixed with cover soil at the ratio of 

25% rock to soil by volume with a 

minimum six-inch erosion layer. 

(ii) For the 3:1 side slopes the surface 

admixture shall be composed of either: 

gravel/rock (3⁄4-inch to one-inch 

diameter) mixed with additional cover 

soil as described in paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section at the 

ratio of 50% rock to soil by volume and 

result in a minimum six-inch erosion 

layer, or gravel/rock (3⁄4-inch to twoinch diameter) mixed with additional 

cover soil as described in paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section at the 

ratio of 50% rock to soil by volume and 

result in a minimum 12-inch erosion 

layer. 

(iii) The owner and operator shall 

place documentation demonstrating 

compliance with the provisions of this 

section in the operating record. 

(iv) All other applicable provisions of 

this part remain in effect. 

(B) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2016–23839 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 02–376, RM–10617, RM– 

10690; DA 16–1062] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Sells, 

Willcox, and Davis-Monthan Air Force 

Base, Arizona 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; dismissal of 

application for review. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Media 

Bureau (Bureau) dismisses as moot the 

Application for Review filed jointly by 

KZLZ, LLC (KZLZ) and Lakeshore 

Media, LLC, the current and former 

licensee, respectively, of Station 

KWCX–FM. While the AFR was 

pending, KZLZ filed a minor 

modification application to change the 

community of license of Station KWCX– 

FM from Willcox to Tanque Verde, 

Arizona. Once the requested facility 

modification to Station KWCX–FM was 

granted, the assignment at Willcox was 

deleted, and this in turn rendered moot 

any Section 307(b) comparison between 

Davis-Monthan AFB and the deleted 

Willcox assignment. 

DATES: Effective October 6, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adrienne Denysyk, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Bureau’s Letter, DA 16– 

1062, released September 21, 2016. The 

full text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES