Approval of Alternative Final Cover Request for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point, Montana, Landfill, 25532-25535 [2017-11227]
Download as PDF
25532
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
pesticide safety education programs,
pesticide applicators and other
stakeholders for the certification rule to
go into effect and then potentially be
substantially revised or repealed
following a substantive review.
Comments—FIFRA. Some
commenters argued that the May 15,
2017 rule violates FIFRA, which
requires rules to be reviewed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. FIFRA
also requires a 60-day effective date and
requires EPA to transmit a copy of the
final rule to Congress at the beginning
of this 60-day period.
EPA response—FIFRA. EPA disagrees
that the proposed extension of the
effective date of the certification rule
violates FIFRA. EPA is issuing this
extension of the effective date of the
certification rule as an APA rule and not
a FIFRA rule because today’s rule is
only changing the effective date of a
final rule that had not become effective.
Comments—Endangered Species Act.
A few commenters argued that the May
15, 2017 rule violates the Endangered
Species Act. Section 7 of the ESA
requires federal agencies to consult with
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service
unless EPA determined that its
extension of the effective date has ‘‘no
effect’’ on threatened and endangered
species and their designated critical
habitat.
EPA response—Endangered Species
Act. EPA believes that its actions with
respect to deferring the implementation
of this rule are not inconsistent with its
obligations under the Endangered
Species Act.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review; and, Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not involve any
information collection activities subject
to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:07 Jun 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have Tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001), because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration under NTTAA
section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
EPA believes that this action would
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income, or
indigenous populations, as specified in
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit
a rule report to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. This action is not
a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 171
Environmental protection, Applicator
competency, Agricultural worker safety,
Certified applicator, Pesticide safety
training, Pesticide worker safety,
Pesticides and pests, Restricted use
pesticides.
Dated: May 26, 2017.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2017–11458 Filed 6–1–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0236; FRL–9954–47]
Bifenthrin; Pesticide Tolerances for
Emergency Exemptions
Correction
In rule document 2016–29882,
appearing on pages 93824–93831, in the
Issue of Thursday, December 22, 2016,
make the following correction:
On page on page 93827, in the second
column, in the last line ‘‘(≤15% CT)’’
should be ‘‘(>15% CT)’’.
[FR Doc. C2–2016–29882 Filed 6–1–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[EPA–R08–RCRA–2016–0505; FRL–9962–
18–Region 8]
Approval of Alternative Final Cover
Request for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf
Point, Montana, Landfill
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve an alternative
final cover for Phase 2 of the City of
Wolf Point landfill, a municipal solid
waste landfill (MSWLF) owned and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
operated by the City of Wolf Point,
Montana, on the Assiniboine and Sioux
Tribes’ Fort Peck Reservation in
Montana.
DATES: This rule is effective on August
1, 2017 without further notice, unless
the EPA receives relevant adverse
comment by July 3, 2017. If the EPA
receives relevant adverse comment, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
RCRA–2016–0505, by one of the
following methods:
• Online: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from regulations.gov.
• Email: roach.michael@epa.gov.
• Mail: Michael Roach,
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8, Mail Code 8P–R, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202.
• Hand delivery: Environmental
Protection Agency Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of
operation, which are Monday through
Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–RCRA–2016–
0505. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket,
without change and may be available
online at https://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. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or by email. The
https://regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous’’ system, which means the
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 the
EPA rather than going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be captured automatically
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:07 Jun 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption and be free of any defects or
viruses. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment
is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Roach, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Program, Environmental
Protection Agency Region 8, Mail Code:
8P–R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202; telephone number:
(303) 312–6369; email address:
roach.michael@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
The EPA is publishing this rule
without a prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial action
and anticipate no relevant adverse
comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed
Rules’’ section of the Federal Register,
we are publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposed rule to
approve the alternative final cover
request for Phase 2 of the City of Wolf
Point, Montana, landfill if relevant
adverse comments are received on this
direct final rule. We will not institute a
second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this
rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this
document.
If the EPA receives relevant adverse
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that this direct
final rule will not take effect. We would
address all public comments in any
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule.
II. What did EPA approve?
After completing a review of the City
of Wolf Point’s final site-specific
flexibility request, dated May 1, 2011,
and the amendments to that request,
dated February 23, 2015, and February
9, 2016, the EPA approves Wolf Point’s
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25533
site-specific flexibility request to install
an alternative final cover that varies
from the final closure requirements of
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
258.60(a), but meets the criteria at 40
CFR 258.60(b). This approval applies to
the 3.5 acres of the landfill that have not
been previously closed.
III. What is a site-specific flexibility
request?
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),
the EPA established 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(c),
states are required to develop permit
programs for facilities that may receive
household hazardous waste or waste
from conditionally exempt small
quantity generators, and the EPA
determines whether the program is
adequate to ensure that facilities will
comply with the revised criteria.
The MSWLF criteria are at 40 CFR
part 258. These regulations are selfimplementing and apply directly to
owners and operators of MSWLFs. For
many of these criteria, 40 CFR part 258
includes a flexible performance
standard as an alternative to the selfimplementing regulation. The flexible
standard is not self-implementing, and
use of the alternative standard requires
approval by the Program Director of a
state with an EPA-approved program.
Because the EPA’s approval of a state
program does not extend to Indian
country, as that term is defined at 18
United States Code (U.S.C.) 1151,
owners and operators of MSWLF units
located in Indian country cannot take
advantage of the flexibilities available to
those facilities subject to an approved
state program. However, the EPA has
the authority under Sections 2002, 4004,
and 4010 of RCRA to promulgate sitespecific rules that may provide for use
of alternative standards in Indian
country. 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).
The regulation at 40 CFR 258.60(a)
establishes closure criteria for MSWLF
units that are designed to minimize
infiltration and erosion. The regulation
requires final cover systems to be
designed and constructed to:
(1) Have a permeability of less than or
equal to the permeability of any bottom
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
25534
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES
liner system or natural sub-soils present,
or a permeability no greater than 1 ×
10¥5 cm/sec, whichever is less, and
(2) Minimize infiltration through the
closed MSWLF by the use of an
infiltration layer that contains a
minimum of 18 inches of earthen
material, and
(3) Minimize erosion of the final cover
by the use of an erosion layer that
contains a minimum of 6 inches of
earthen material that is capable of
sustaining native plant growth.
The regulation at 40 CFR 258.60(b)
allows for variances from these
specified MSWLF closure criteria.
Specifically, the rule allows for the
Program Director of an approved state to
approve an alternative final cover
design that includes:
(1) An infiltration layer that achieves
an equivalent reduction in infiltration as
the infiltration layer specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of 40 CFR
258.60, and
(2) An erosion layer that provides
equivalent protection from wind and
water erosion as the erosion layer
specified in paragraph (a)(3) of 40 CFR
258.60.
IV. Overview of the City of Wolf Point’s
Site-Specific Flexibility Request and
EPA’s Action
The City of Wolf Point landfill is a
MSWLF owned and operated by the
City of Wolf Point on the Assiniboine
and Sioux Tribes’ Fort Peck Reservation
in Montana. The landfill site is
approximately 25 acres in size and
served approximately 10,000 people in
Roosevelt County, including the City of
Wolf Point and the City of Poplar. The
landfill lies within the boundaries of the
Fort Peck Reservation. The landfill itself
consists of two phases, or units, used as
the area’s municipal landfill. Phase 1,
constructed in 1960, was closed and
covered in 1999. Phase 2 was
constructed in 2000 and stopped
receiving waste in August 2008.
On May 1, 2011, the City of Wolf
Point submitted a site-specific flexibility
request to the EPA Region 8 and the
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes for Phase
2 of the Wolf Point landfill. The request
sought EPA approval for the use of an
alternative final cover that differs from
the final closure requirements of 40 CFR
258.60. This request applies only to
Phase 2, the 3.5 acres of the landfill not
previously closed.
Between May 1, 2011, and February 9,
2016, the City of Wolf Point made
revisions to its request in response to
concerns raised by the EPA Region 8
and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes.
Today, the EPA is approving Wolf
Point’s site-specific flexibility request to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:07 Jun 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
install an alternative final landfill cover
that meets the requirements of 40 CFR
258.60(b).
The EPA is basing its approval on a
number of factors, including final cover
design, numerical soil modeling and
site-specific climatic and soils data. The
numerical soil modeling consisted of a
sensitivity analysis of the proposed
evapotranspiration alternative final
cover system under a range of climate
and vegetative growth conditions,
compared to the performance of the
standard final cover prescribed in 40
CFR 258.60. The EPA has determined
that the evapotranspiration cover will
perform equivalently to the standard
prescriptive cover in 40 CFR 258.60(a)
in preventing the movement of leachate
through the system and erosion caused
by wind and water.
As part of this approval, the EPA is
requiring that upon finalization, the City
of Wolf Point submit a complete set of
final cover plans and specifications,
including a construction quality
assurance/quality control plan and
closure/post-closure plan to the EPA.
The EPA further requires the City of
Wolf Point achieve revegetation rates of
greater than 75 percent on Phase 2 of the
closed landfill by the end of the third
year after revegetation. Finally, the EPA
requires that the City of Wolf Point
maintain all documentation
demonstrating compliance with plans
and specifications, and 40 CFR
258.60(a)(1), (2), and (3) in the landfill
operating record.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 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 rule does not
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 is also 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 the EPA’s
conservative analysis of the potential
risks posed by the City of Wolf Point’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 3 of Executive
Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this rule, the 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 the
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.’’ The EPA has concluded
that this action may have Tribal
implications because it is directly
applicable to a facility operating on the
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes’ Fort Peck
Reservation. However, this
determination will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Tribal governments nor preempt Tribal
law. This determination to approve the
City of Wolf Point’s application will
affect only the operation of the Wolf
Point landfill.
The EPA consulted with the
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes early in
the process of making this
determination to approve Wolf Point’s
alternative final cover request so that
the Tribes had the opportunity to
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
provide meaningful and timely input.
Between May 1, 2011, and February 9,
2016, technical issues were raised and
addressed by the EPA concerning the
City of Wolf Point’s proposal. The EPA’s
consultation with the Tribes culminated
in a May 19, 2016 letter from the Tribes
in which they stated that they have no
issues with the Wolf Point proposal.
The EPA specifically solicits any
additional comment on this
determination from Tribal officials of
the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes.
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless doing so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards, (e.g.,
materials specification, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standard bodies.
The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
The technical standards included in
the application were proposed by the
City of Wolf Point. Given the EPA’s
obligations under Executive Order
13175 (see above), the agency has, to the
extent appropriate, applied the
standards established by Wolf Point and
accepted by the Tribes. In addition, the
agency evaluated the proposal’s design
against the engineering design and
construction criteria contained in the
EPA draft guidance document, ‘‘Water
Balance Covers for Waste Containment:
Principles and Practice (2009).’’
Authority: Sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and
4010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912, 6944, and
6949a.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
Environmental protection,
Incorporation by reference, Municipal
landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and
disposal.
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES
Dated: April 17, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
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:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:07 Jun 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42
U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c),
6949a(c) and 6981(a).
Subpart F—Closure and Post-Closure
Care
2. Section 258.62 is amended by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
■
§ 258.62 Approval of site-specific flexibility
requests in Indian country.
(c) City of Wolf Point Municipal
Landfill final cover requirements.
Paragraph (c) of this section applies to
the City of Wolf Point Landfill Phase 2,
a municipal solid waste landfill owned
and operated by the City of Wolf Point
on the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes’
Fort Peck Reservation in Montana. The
facility owner and/or operator may close
the facility in accordance with this
application, including the following
activities more generally described as
follows:
(1) The owner and operator may
install an evapotranspiration system as
an alternative final cover for the 3.5-acre
Phase 2 area.
(2) The final cover system shall
consist of a 4-foot-thick multi-layer
cover system comprised of the following
from bottom to top: A 12-inch
intermediate layer, a 24-inch native
silty-clay till layer, and a 12-inch native
topsoil layer, as well as seeding and
erosion control.
(3) The final cover system shall be
constructed to achieve an equivalent
reduction in infiltration as the
infiltration layer specified in
§ 258.60(a)(1) and (a)(2), and provide an
equivalent protection from wind and
water erosion as the erosion layer
specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
(4) In addition to meeting the
specifications of ‘‘The City of Wolf Point
Landfill License #3—Phase 2
Alternative Final Cover Demonstration
(Revised)’’ application of February 9,
2016, the owner and operator shall:
(i) At finalization, submit to the EPA
for approval final cover plans and
specifications, including the final
Construction Quality Assurance/Quality
Control Plan and final Closure/PostClosure Plan; and
(ii) Achieve re-vegetation rates greater
than 75% by the end of the third year
after revegetation.
(5) The owner and operator shall
place documentation demonstrating
compliance with the provisions of this
section in the operating record.
(6) All other applicable provisions of
40 CFR part 258 remain in effect.
[FR Doc. 2017–11227 Filed 6–1–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25535
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 36
[CC Docket 80–286; FCC 17–55]
Jurisdictional Separations and Referral
to the Federal-State Joint Board
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission extends the existing freeze
of jurisdictional separations rules. The
current extension allows the
Commission, in cooperation with the
Federal-State Joint Board, to consider
further changes to the separations
process in light of changes taking place
in the telecommunications market
place. The freeze also serves to ease the
burdens of regulatory compliance and
uncertainty for Local Exchange Carriers.
DATES: Effective June 2, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rhonda Lien, Pricing Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202)
418–1540 or at Rhonda.Lien@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order, FCC 17–55 released May 15,
2017. The full text of this document is
available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445
12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
The full-text copy of this document can
also be found at the following internet
address: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_
public/attachmatch/FCC-17-55A1.docx.
SUMMARY:
Synopsis
I. Background
1. Historically, incumbent LECs
(ILECs) were subject to rate-of-return
rate regulation at both the federal and
state levels. After the adoption of the
1996 Telecommunications Act (1996
Act), the Commission initiated a
proceeding to comprehensively reform
the part 36 separations procedures to
ensure compliance with the objectives
of the 1996 Act, and to address
statutory, technological, and market
changes in the telecommunications
industry.
2. Jurisdictional separations is the
third step in a four-step regulatory
process that begins with a carrier’s
accounting system and ends with the
establishment of tariffed rates for the
ILEC’s interstate and intrastate regulated
services. First, carriers record their costs
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 105 (Friday, June 2, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25532-25535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11227]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0505; FRL-9962-18-Region 8]
Approval of Alternative Final Cover Request for Phase 2 of the
City of Wolf Point, Montana, Landfill
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking
direct final action to approve an alternative final cover for Phase 2
of the City of Wolf Point landfill, a municipal solid waste landfill
(MSWLF) owned and
[[Page 25533]]
operated by the City of Wolf Point, Montana, on the Assiniboine and
Sioux Tribes' Fort Peck Reservation in Montana.
DATES: This rule is effective on August 1, 2017 without further notice,
unless the EPA receives relevant adverse comment by July 3, 2017. If
the EPA receives relevant adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
RCRA-2016-0505, by one of the following methods:
Online: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov.
Email: roach.michael@epa.gov.
Mail: Michael Roach, Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8, Mail Code 8P-R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202.
Hand delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, which are Monday through
Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-
2016-0505. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket, without change and may be available online at https://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. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or by
email. The https://regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous'' system,
which means the 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 the EPA rather than going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be captured automatically
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of any
defects or viruses. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Roach, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Program, Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, Mail
Code: 8P-R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202; telephone
number: (303) 312-6369; email address: roach.michael@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no relevant
adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the
Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposed rule to approve the alternative final cover request for
Phase 2 of the City of Wolf Point, Montana, landfill if relevant
adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
If the EPA receives relevant adverse comments, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all
public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed
rule.
II. What did EPA approve?
After completing a review of the City of Wolf Point's final site-
specific flexibility request, dated May 1, 2011, and the amendments to
that request, dated February 23, 2015, and February 9, 2016, the EPA
approves Wolf Point's site-specific flexibility request to install an
alternative final cover that varies from the final closure requirements
of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 258.60(a), but meets the
criteria at 40 CFR 258.60(b). This approval applies to the 3.5 acres of
the landfill that have not been previously closed.
III. What is a site-specific flexibility request?
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), the EPA
established 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(c), states are required to develop permit programs for
facilities that may receive household hazardous waste or waste from
conditionally exempt small quantity generators, and the EPA determines
whether the program is adequate to ensure that facilities will comply
with the revised criteria.
The MSWLF criteria are at 40 CFR part 258. These regulations are
self-implementing and apply directly to owners and operators of MSWLFs.
For many of these criteria, 40 CFR part 258 includes a flexible
performance standard as an alternative to the self-implementing
regulation. The flexible standard is not self-implementing, and use of
the alternative standard requires approval by the Program Director of a
state with an EPA-approved program.
Because the EPA's approval of a state program does not extend to
Indian country, as that term is defined at 18 United States Code
(U.S.C.) 1151, owners and operators of MSWLF units located in Indian
country cannot take advantage of the flexibilities available to those
facilities subject to an approved state program. However, the EPA has
the authority under Sections 2002, 4004, and 4010 of RCRA to promulgate
site-specific rules that may provide for use of alternative standards
in Indian country. 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).
The regulation at 40 CFR 258.60(a) establishes closure criteria for
MSWLF units that are designed to minimize infiltration and erosion. The
regulation requires final cover systems to be designed and constructed
to:
(1) Have a permeability of less than or equal to the permeability
of any bottom
[[Page 25534]]
liner system or natural sub-soils present, or a permeability no greater
than 1 x 10-5 cm/sec, whichever is less, and
(2) Minimize infiltration through the closed MSWLF by the use of an
infiltration layer that contains a minimum of 18 inches of earthen
material, and
(3) Minimize erosion of the final cover by the use of an erosion
layer that contains a minimum of 6 inches of earthen material that is
capable of sustaining native plant growth.
The regulation at 40 CFR 258.60(b) allows for variances from these
specified MSWLF closure criteria. Specifically, the rule allows for the
Program Director of an approved state to approve an alternative final
cover design that includes:
(1) An infiltration layer that achieves an equivalent reduction in
infiltration as the infiltration layer specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(2) of 40 CFR 258.60, and
(2) An erosion layer that provides equivalent protection from wind
and water erosion as the erosion layer specified in paragraph (a)(3) of
40 CFR 258.60.
IV. Overview of the City of Wolf Point's Site-Specific Flexibility
Request and EPA's Action
The City of Wolf Point landfill is a MSWLF owned and operated by
the City of Wolf Point on the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes' Fort Peck
Reservation in Montana. The landfill site is approximately 25 acres in
size and served approximately 10,000 people in Roosevelt County,
including the City of Wolf Point and the City of Poplar. The landfill
lies within the boundaries of the Fort Peck Reservation. The landfill
itself consists of two phases, or units, used as the area's municipal
landfill. Phase 1, constructed in 1960, was closed and covered in 1999.
Phase 2 was constructed in 2000 and stopped receiving waste in August
2008.
On May 1, 2011, the City of Wolf Point submitted a site-specific
flexibility request to the EPA Region 8 and the Assiniboine and Sioux
Tribes for Phase 2 of the Wolf Point landfill. The request sought EPA
approval for the use of an alternative final cover that differs from
the final closure requirements of 40 CFR 258.60. This request applies
only to Phase 2, the 3.5 acres of the landfill not previously closed.
Between May 1, 2011, and February 9, 2016, the City of Wolf Point
made revisions to its request in response to concerns raised by the EPA
Region 8 and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes. Today, the EPA is
approving Wolf Point's site-specific flexibility request to install an
alternative final landfill cover that meets the requirements of 40 CFR
258.60(b).
The EPA is basing its approval on a number of factors, including
final cover design, numerical soil modeling and site-specific climatic
and soils data. The numerical soil modeling consisted of a sensitivity
analysis of the proposed evapotranspiration alternative final cover
system under a range of climate and vegetative growth conditions,
compared to the performance of the standard final cover prescribed in
40 CFR 258.60. The EPA has determined that the evapotranspiration cover
will perform equivalently to the standard prescriptive cover in 40 CFR
258.60(a) in preventing the movement of leachate through the system and
erosion caused by wind and water.
As part of this approval, the EPA is requiring that upon
finalization, the City of Wolf Point submit a complete set of final
cover plans and specifications, including a construction quality
assurance/quality control plan and closure/post-closure plan to the
EPA. The EPA further requires the City of Wolf Point achieve
revegetation rates of greater than 75 percent on Phase 2 of the closed
landfill by the end of the third year after revegetation. Finally, the
EPA requires that the City of Wolf Point maintain all documentation
demonstrating compliance with plans and specifications, and 40 CFR
258.60(a)(1), (2), and (3) in the landfill operating record.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' 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 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 is also 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 the EPA's conservative analysis
of the potential risks posed by the City of Wolf Point'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 3 of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice
Reform,'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the 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 the 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.'' The EPA has concluded that
this action may have Tribal implications because it is directly
applicable to a facility operating on the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes'
Fort Peck Reservation. However, this determination will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments nor preempt
Tribal law. This determination to approve the City of Wolf Point's
application will affect only the operation of the Wolf Point landfill.
The EPA consulted with the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes early in
the process of making this determination to approve Wolf Point's
alternative final cover request so that the Tribes had the opportunity
to
[[Page 25535]]
provide meaningful and timely input. Between May 1, 2011, and February
9, 2016, technical issues were raised and addressed by the EPA
concerning the City of Wolf Point's proposal. The EPA's consultation
with the Tribes culminated in a May 19, 2016 letter from the Tribes in
which they stated that they have no issues with the Wolf Point
proposal. The EPA specifically solicits any additional comment on this
determination from Tribal officials of the Assiniboine and Sioux
Tribes.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards, (e.g., materials
specification, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standard bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The technical standards included in the application were proposed
by the City of Wolf Point. Given the EPA's obligations under Executive
Order 13175 (see above), the agency has, to the extent appropriate,
applied the standards established by Wolf Point and accepted by the
Tribes. In addition, the agency evaluated the proposal's design against
the engineering design and construction criteria contained in the EPA
draft guidance document, ``Water Balance Covers for Waste Containment:
Principles and Practice (2009).''
Authority: Sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912, 6944, and
6949a.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Municipal
landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment
and disposal.
Dated: April 17, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 258 is amended
as follows:
PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
0
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), 6949a(c) and 6981(a).
Subpart F--Closure and Post-Closure Care
0
2. Section 258.62 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 258.62 Approval of site-specific flexibility requests in Indian
country.
(c) City of Wolf Point Municipal Landfill final cover requirements.
Paragraph (c) of this section applies to the City of Wolf Point
Landfill Phase 2, a municipal solid waste landfill owned and operated
by the City of Wolf Point on the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes' Fort
Peck Reservation in Montana. The facility owner and/or operator may
close the facility in accordance with this application, including the
following activities more generally described as follows:
(1) The owner and operator may install an evapotranspiration system
as an alternative final cover for the 3.5-acre Phase 2 area.
(2) The final cover system shall consist of a 4-foot-thick multi-
layer cover system comprised of the following from bottom to top: A 12-
inch intermediate layer, a 24-inch native silty-clay till layer, and a
12-inch native topsoil layer, as well as seeding and erosion control.
(3) The final cover system shall be constructed to achieve an
equivalent reduction in infiltration as the infiltration layer
specified in Sec. 258.60(a)(1) and (a)(2), and provide an equivalent
protection from wind and water erosion as the erosion layer specified
in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(4) In addition to meeting the specifications of ``The City of Wolf
Point Landfill License #3--Phase 2 Alternative Final Cover
Demonstration (Revised)'' application of February 9, 2016, the owner
and operator shall:
(i) At finalization, submit to the EPA for approval final cover
plans and specifications, including the final Construction Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Plan and final Closure/Post-Closure Plan; and
(ii) Achieve re-vegetation rates greater than 75% by the end of the
third year after revegetation.
(5) The owner and operator shall place documentation demonstrating
compliance with the provisions of this section in the operating record.
(6) All other applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 258 remain in
effect.
[FR Doc. 2017-11227 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P