20274 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Through this priority, experiential 

learning and TA will be provided to 

novice interpreters in order for them to 

achieve national certification. These 

activities will help interpreters to more 

effectively meet the communication 

needs of individuals who are deaf or 

hard of hearing and individuals who are 

Deaf-Blind. The training ultimately will 

improve the quality of VR services and 

the competitive integrated employment 

outcomes achieved by individuals with 

disabilities. This priority would 

promote the efficient and effective use 

of Federal funds. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site, you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: April 1, 2016. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07933 Filed 4–6–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 258 

[FRL–9944–66–Region 9] 

Tentative Determination To Approve 

Site Specific Flexibility for Closure and 

Monitoring of the Picacho Landfill 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, is making a tentative 

determination to approve two Site 

Specific 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. 

Imperial County is seeking approval 

from EPA to use an alternative final 

cover and to modify the prescribed list 

of detection-monitoring parameters for 

ongoing monitoring. The Quechan 

Indian Tribe (Tribe) reviewed the 

proposed SSFRs and determined that 

they met tribal requirements. EPA is 

now seeking public comment on EPA’s 

tentative determination to approve the 

SSFRs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 9, 2016. If sufficient 

public interest is expressed by April 22, 

2016, EPA will hold a public hearing at 

the Quechan Community Center, 

located at 604 Picacho Rd., in 

Winterhaven, CA on May 9, 2016 from 

6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. If by April 22, 

2016 EPA does not receive information 

indicating sufficient public interest for a 

public hearing, EPA may cancel the 

public hearing with no further notice. If 

you are interested in attending the 

public hearing, contact Steve Wall at 

(415) 972–3381 to verify that a hearing 

will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

RCRA–2015–0445, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: wall.steve@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (415) 947–3564. 

• Mail: Steve Wall, Environmental 

Protection Agency Region IX, Mail code: 

LND 2–3, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

If you submit an electronic comment, 

EPA recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

email, Web site submittal, disk or CD– 

ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 

your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. See 

below for instructions regarding 

submitting CBI. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. 

If you send an email comment 

directly to EPA without going through 

http://www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. 

Electronic files should avoid the use 

of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Tips for Submitting Comments to EPA 

1. Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by Docket 

ID No. EPA–R09–RCRA–2015–0445 and 

other identifying information (subject 

heading, Federal Register date and page 

number). 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and provide 

suggestions for substitute language for 

your requested changes. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 20275 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be verified. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

2. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) 

• Do not submit CBI to EPA through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

• Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

• In addition to one complete version 

of the comment that includes 

information claimed as CBI, a copy of 

the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket. 

3. Additional Background Information 

All documents in the administrative 

record docket for this determination are 

listed in the http://www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. 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, LND 2–3 

Environmental Protection Agency, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901; telephone number: (415) 

972–3381; fax number: (415) 947–3564; 

e-mail address: wall.steve@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legal Authority for This Proposal 

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 

facilities will comply with the revised 

federal criteria. 

The MSWLF criteria are 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, self-implementing 

regulation. The flexible standard is not 

self-implementing, and requires 

approval by the Director of an EPAapproved 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 ‘‘Site 

Specific Flexibility Determinations’’ and 

has developed draft 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). 

II. 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 and reach 

agreement on the closure plan and 

SSFRs. 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 seek 

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 

detection-monitoring parameters 

provided in 40 CFR 258.54(a)(1) and (2) 

for ongoing monitoring. 

III. Basis for Proposal 

EPA is basing its tentative 

determination to approve the sitespecific flexibility request on the Tribe’s 

approval, dated April 30, 2012, EPA’s 

independent review of the Picacho 

Landfill Final Closure/Postclosure 

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 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20276 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

minimum six inches of topsoil. Imperial 

County seeks approval for an alternative 

final cover designed to satisfy the 

performance criteria specified in 40 CFR 

258.60(b); Imperial County proposes to 

replace this with an alternative cover 

which would consist 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 tentative 

determination on a number of factors, 

including: (1) Research showing that 

prescriptive, self-implementing 

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 on 

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, proposes 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 tentative 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. 

IV. 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 pursuant to 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 USFWS 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 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is EPA’s 

conservative analysis of the potential 

risks posed by SRPMIC’s proposal and 

the controls and standards set forth in 

the application. 

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. 

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 Tribe throughout 

Imperial County’s development of its 

closure and monitoring plans for the 

Picacho Landfill. 

EPA specifically solicits any 

additional comment on this tentative 

determination from tribal officials of the 

Quechan Indian Tribe. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258 

Environmental protection, Municipal 

landfills, Final cover, Post-closure care 

groundwater Monitoring, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Waste 

treatment and disposal, Water pollution 

control. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 20277 

Dated: March 28, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 258, Criteria for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL 

SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS 

■ 1. The authority citation 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 

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 40 CFR 

258.54(a), the owner and operator may 

modify the list of heavy metal detection 

monitoring parameters specified in 40 

CFR 258, Appendix I, as required during 

Post-Closure Care by 40 CFR 

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 40 CFR 

258.60(b), the owner and operator may 

replace the prescriptive final cover set 

forth in 40 CFR 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-feet-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 as determined by ASTM D 

1557 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 

as determined by ASMT D 1557, 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 finer 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 

40 CFR part 258 remain in effect. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07996 Filed 4–6–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1994–0002; EPA–HQ– 

OLEM–2016–0151, 0152, 0153, 0154, 0155, 

0156, 0157 and 0158; FRL–9944–35–OLEM] 

National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended, 

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list 

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is 

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the agency’’) in determining 

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow the EPA to 

assess the nature and extent of public 

health and environmental risks 

associated with the site and to 

determine what CERCLA-financed 

remedial action(s), if any, may be 

appropriate. This rulemaking proposes 

to add eight sites to the General 

Superfund section of the NPL. This 

proposed rule also withdraws a 

previous proposal to add a site to the 

NPL. 

DATES: Comments regarding any of these 

proposed listings must be submitted 

(postmarked) on or before June 6, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate 

docket number from the table below. 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. 

Argonaut Mine ................................................................ Jackson, CA ................................................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0151 

Bonita Peak Mining District ............................................ San Juan County, CO .................................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0152 

Riverside Ground Water Contamination ........................ Indianapolis, IN .............................................................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0153 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS